• Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    I mean violent both because violence would probably be needed and because it would need to be done at great speed.

    Currently, there’s a clear path to go from poverty to middle class. It’s easier for some depending right now but not an impossibility. If jobs become a luxury, there won’t be a middle class.

    Rapid job loss + UBI doesn’t lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us. Granted that’s already the case, but UBI doesn’t solve much currently. We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs, we need to level the playing field so there isn’t much rungs about it.

    No, clearly, I don’t mean mom&pop shops. It would be more apt to go with profits I guess, past a certain level, you get a medal and your company gets nationalized.

    I’d say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits.

    That’s basically what I’m trying to say, but UBI alone is basically a bandage that hides the wound and stops a minimum of bleeding. Imo, it’s more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Rapid job loss + UBI doesn’t lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us.

      Rapid job loss with no UBI leads to the same thing but worse. I’m not saying we should rely on their generosity. The government should tax the fuck out of them and find an equitable way to distribute the UBI, because ultimately those funds are just what the wealthy oligarchs extracted from society to begin with.

      We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs

      We do? Where do you live, the Nordics? My country doesn’t currently take care of the bottom rungs at all…

      we need to level the playing field so there isn’t much rungs about it.

      And UBI would be one piece of that, I’m not saying it alone would solve everything. But if the job market shrinks because corpos automate everything and lay off the majority of their employees, then UBI will become not only necessary but also feasible in a way that it wasn’t pre-automation.

      Imo, it’s more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.

      I’m not suggesting it as a standalone stopgap measure. It should certainly be one part of a more comprehensive reformation of how the economy is structured. But if they’re going to replace all the jobs with machines, then they’re going to need to guarantee everyone a livelihood or else “pacifying the masses” will be the least of our worries, unless you mean it in the more euphemistic and gruesome sense…

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Ya I get you and all. It’s mostly that UBI can be used by the mega rich to stay in power and keep pilfering. It’s much harder to do with the other options. The state owning all big businesses would naturally lead to UBI if major job losses occur but the same isn’t true the other way around. There’s a very real chance UBI leads straight to dystopia.

        Welfare isn’t working because it was never protected and never tied to inflation. The same will most likely be done with UBI. They just have to wait and cause inflation to turn UBI into “barely enough”, just so they can buy bigger boats. I see it as a trap is all.

        It’s so easy for people to take the check and thank them, just to find themselves subsisting 10 years later. I legit think there is danger in it.