Post #1178934

2025-01-29 15:30 UTC

It feels like it took me too long to realize that the underlying opposition to Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn't "it's too expensive" or that it redistributes money; it's because it redistributes power. During the pandemic, we saw a massive swell in worker power, as work-from-home requirements showed a better way of working was possible for many, accommodations that had been withheld for ages for being "unworkable" or "too expensive" suddenly were shown to be completely viable and broadly accessible, COVID relief benefits provided much needed supports and showed that direct distribution was possible, and more brutally the work force shrunk because of illness and death. Remember the "nobody wants to work" mantra? Right, well, because the pool of available workers was lower and expectations for what employers should provide to their employees grew, so employers had to work harder (pay more, provide better working conditions) to fill positions. It's not that nobody wants to work; it's that the job and wages and working conditions you could get away with don't cut it anymore, because people have options. And they didn't like that... Workers had to be brought back to heel: Greedflation juicing corporate profits, mass layoffs, Return To Office (RTO) mandates. These measures aren't about productivity or necessity; they're about taking back power and control. UBI works in the same spaces. When people's basic needs are met, they can pursue better opportunities. When the threat of poverty is removed, you have more power at the bargaining table because you don't have to take the bare minimum just to survive. In other words: you have more power in the equation. That's why UBI is considered threatening to those that want to exploit their power advantage at the negotiating table. We need to recognize that our economic system demands desperation and the threat of poverty. This isn't some bogeyman conspiracy theory; it's documented economic policy (https://www.investopedia.com/insights/downside-low-unemployment/, https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7027823/nairu-natural-rate-unemployment). Our institutions and society haven't solved poverty and unemployment because our economic system doesn't want them solved, because it needs people in a continual state of precariousness. We cannot expect to eradicate poverty and struggle when we're beholden to an economic system that has baked them into its very existence. [edit: added cw per some comments and suggestions]

Replies (15)

@midgephoto@photog.social 2025-01-29 16:22

@hugo Also, a proportion of employers, managers, investors,, and those who find tehir way to government, hate or at least dislike the general run of the citizens, and want them unhappy. It is a character flaw.

Open ##1267528
@michaelgraaf@cheeseburger.social 2025-01-29 20:42

@hugo Yes and no. On the whole, it certainly redistributes power to the masses but why then, do some rich (like Musk) support the idea? Because they hope to harvest the resulting discretionary spending. The interests of various fractions of capital diverge according to what proportion of their profit derives from direct exploitation of labour. The most efficient safety net (and power redistributor) is guaranteed basic goods & services, since these can be procured via economies of scale. Without such, the retail sector will immediately inflate these so the UBI becomes inadequate.

Open ##1267529
@wanderinghermit@mindly.social 2025-01-29 22:49

@hugo Not mentioned: UBI would crater military recruitment, which is often presented as a way to step out of poverty. For most of the services, recruitment is already a major problem.

Open ##1267530
@Anders@universeodon.com 2025-01-30 05:34

@hugo A less foreign concept of what you’re saying here is that when a citizen is provided healthcare, insurance, education, etc., and it’s not up to the employer, to provide that, eh “benefits,” the workforce can focus on negotiating its hourly pay and work conditions. Yet, so many conservative leaning workers cheer when we hear about deregulation and “trickle down economics. What they’re cheering for, and celebrating, is decreased negotiating power, a cut in total compensation (as these regulations/fees are to help protect the employee and invest in his/her PTO, retirement, etc); in other words, they are cheering getting a pay cut. I don’t want to go as far as calling conservative voters unintelligent, but they are definitely unlucky when they’re thinking.

Open ##1267531
@babble_endanger@freeradical.zone 2025-01-30 15:06

@hugo boosting with CW

Open ##1267532
@abartlet@mastodon.nzoss.nz 2025-01-30 16:52

@hugo Even simpler than that, the idea that others are getting something for nothing, the classic Dole Bludger myth, creates an incredible toxicity to such universal payments. We insist to only support the deserving poor who must chronically demonstrate their need, and must do tasks to show they are not falling into the sin of idleness. I do wish it were otherwise.

Open ##1267537
@fskornia@glammr.us 2025-01-30 18:23

@hugo This was also a major factor behind the opposition to universal healthcare. Once healthcare is no longer primarily tied to employment, employers lose major leverage for holding onto employees. There was tons of promises when the ACA was passed about how people could have more employment freedom or explore more entrepreneurial opportunities because they could get good healthcare outside of the employer plans.

Open ##1267539
@freyja_wildes@social.lithio.fr 2025-01-30 22:18

@hugo It's always about power The same goes about the 4 day work week sometimes discussed in France: we know, because of studies and existing examples, that the 4 day work week for same pay improves productivity. The basic thinking about capitalism would one to think we'd implement it immediately. And it's not the case. Because people who have just one more day of free time, will understand that something else is possible, they will be less pressure, less fatigue, more energy to build something different. Huge power in the 4 day work week. And capitalists don't want that of fucking course. Same goes for diminishing maximum hours per week, sharing more of the workload, etc… Adjacently, that's one of the big reason I like the "Alt-right playbook" by Innuendo Studio so much: it reminds everyone that everything is about power (especially the latest episode) Side note about NAIRU : Milton Friedman, always the same 5 to 10 assholes theorising Capitalism. Fuck this

Open ##1267540
@alcinnz@floss.social 2025-01-30 23:32

@hugo Meanwhile... The fact that it redistributes power is exactly why I want it!

Open ##1267541
@leon@peoplemaking.games 2025-01-31 00:35

@hugo great post. when you get down to it, it's never about money. money is only real when you're trying to survive and is totally abstract and ubiquitous when you're truly powerful. it's a justification, a cloak, and a symbol, but never the root cause

Open ##1267543
@flamepanther@retrogaming.social 2025-01-31 00:43

@hugo FYI, the links have been taken down now

Open ##1267544
@dmitry@mastodon.circle.lt 2025-01-31 01:19

@hugo Anais Mitchell, 2006: "The enemy is poverty And the wall keeps out the enemy And we build the wall to keep us free That's why we build the wall We build the wall to keep us free We build the wall to keep us free..." https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/hadestowncast/whywebuildthewall.html

Open ##1267547
@peterbrown@mastodon.scot 2025-01-31 03:08

@hugo UBI absolutely does change the dynamic between the employer and the employee.

Open ##1267549
@Asbestos@pnw.zone 2025-01-31 05:06

@hugo And if the RTO, and price hikes slow down the economy, well so be it. Just helps ramp up the fear.

Open ##1267550
@Herefordrob@mindly.social 2025-01-31 16:10

@hugo I am a believer in #UBI but if it is to challenge the two tier system, capital v labour, rather than just lubricate it, it would need to be: a-Paired with structural reforms (e.g., stronger labor rights, wealth taxes, public control over key industries). b-Funded by capital, not labor (e.g., through progressive taxation, financial transaction taxes, or land value taxes). c-Designed to empower people, not just sustain consumption (e.g., linked to democratic ownership, cooperative economies, or guaranteed public services. My point-it should not lead to "business as usual" but massive, even global, transformation I'm not sure anything less can be sustained.

Open ##1267552