Mastodon Feed
Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
hugo@treehouse.systems ("Hugo Slabbert ⚠️") wrote:
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]