I see arguments against UBI, that it's just the ruling class trying to remain in power, that your landlord will just raise rent by that much. Couldn't the same arguments be used against raising min wage? See, here's my thing, I think UBI would just be the capitalists desperately putting the system on life support but why are leftists so against UBI but not against raising min wage? You're not a liberal, you know better that you can't vote for or against either one. If those in power conclude that's what they need to do they'll do it. It won't matter if you agree or disagree or who's in office. To me that seems like one of those societal contradictions like Mao talks about. Under fuedalism those in power were naturally the only ones with the power to change society, but they had no incentive to so they did what they could to remain in power as long as possible, but ironically the way they solved those contradictions either changed society or set the stage for societal change.
I just can't get worked up about UBI one way or the other, that's not a materialist way of viewing it. A materialist way of looking at it would be to figure out, is this going to be what the ruling class conclude to be the way they stay in power? If so, what effects will that have on society?
deleted by creator
They did the latter, and it worked great! We don't need to put basic income/direct cash transfers and infrastructure spending against one another, they've both historically been used to lift millions out of poverty!
deleted by creator
There are very few states in history that have implemented UBI. So instead, let me step back a little bit and talk about direct cash transfer programs in general, because that's my real argument (that the left should embrace forking over as much money to the poor as humanly possible). I like UBI because it's a direct cash transfer program. And when direct cash transfer programs have been set up in the past, they've worked:
The Bolsa Familia program in Brazil is a great example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia . Bolsa Familia is Lula's magnum opus, where any impoverished child is given a direct cash payment. The payment will be enough to guarantee they will be lifted out of extreme poverty, although it doesn't go far enough to eliminate non-extreme poverty. It's means tested (I wish it weren't!), but even means-tested direct payments work! Within a couple years of this program being instituted, poverty in Brazil dropped nearly 30%. Employment surged and real wage increases followed.
In the US, the Child Tax Credit introduced in 2021 will likely reduce child poverty by a third. This is basically a UBI for children that excludes the very wealthiest. Heck, look at the effects of Social Security on senior poverty! Seniors in the US would have triple their current poverty rate were it not for Social Security, and there are thousands of problems with SS. Most notably, that it's funded by a tax on the poor and middle class. But even with that crappy funding scheme it's doing a phenomenal job of cutting poverty.
If you want an actual UBI program, check out the Alaska Permanent Fund. Alaska pays out a UBI to its citizens and, despite being governed by Republicans and having one of the most right-wing tax schemes in the US, ranks second-best of all states in fighting wealth inequality.
If you want other examples of child allowances, glance over the Wikipedia page for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit The tl;dr is that they pretty much universally work.
For smaller examples, here's an academic study in Canada where they just forked over $7500 to homeless people. It worked. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/new-leaf-project-results-1.5752714 People found housing twice as fast as those who didn't receive the money, spending on substances of abuse decreased, and spending on other social services dropped because they were no longer needed.
I want the left to get pilled on "just fork over cash to poor people (or anyone, really)." Direct cash transfers are one of the single best ways to empower the working class, liberate them from poverty, and provide for the general welfare of citizens. And they absolutely would still exist under socialism, especially for those unable to work.
The two UBI pilots programs in Canada (one in Manitoba in like the 70's, and one in Ontario recently) worked well, but Conservative governments scrapped them the instant they got into power in the respective provinces.