this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
316 points (91.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29678 readers
1335 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sekrayray@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The sad thing about UBI in places like the US is they further systematic change needs to happen prior to UBI being implemented.

If you have UBI added on to our current capitalist hellscape (since UBI rates will be publicly known) landlords and corporations will just hike prices to make life cost just as much as UBI—therefore forcing people to work for any scrap above that. So essentially UBI will be fed back into corporations/the elite, who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities

If someone can afford basic necessities, they aren't going to choose to work three jobs at minimum wage where they are treated badly, forcing an improvement in pay/conditions to find any workers. As for setting prices arbitrarily, that isn't actually possible except where a monopoly is held, the idea that supply and demand influences price is not a myth. Having money and the choice of how to spend it does actually give you additional agency and leverage, and UBI would serve as a form of redistribution if it is funded by taxes of some kind.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Except that landlords are coming together to set prices so that they can all set them high. I don't remember what the group is called, but someone was discussing it a while back. Doesn't have to be a monopoly if they're conspiring, which is what is happening with so many consumer goods and services.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cartel is the word you are probably looking for. Cartels are when an association of different suppliers collude to restrict competition and keep prices high.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

it's only really a cartel if they get together and make these plans, in reality none of these landlords are stupid, they will just adjust their demands to the upper region of what people feel acceptable, this slowly moves the "acceptability window" up, all without anyone needing to conspire with anyone else

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Right, so this is market pricing at work. In order to fix this problem, we need to relax the suppression of new construction.

Even if we don’t, however, if rents increase it will increase construction of new housing.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I've seen that stuff but it's too much to assume that this kind of coordination is the controlling factor in housing prices, or most other prices. You do need a monopoly because there's too much incentive for defecting from the conspiracy if the fixed price is too far away from what the market price would be. I think housing is expensive mainly because of supply being suppressed and wealth inequality, and UBI would begin to address the latter.

[–] Philippe23@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

the use of this software prevented landlords from courting would-be renters through the use of different discounts, said the lawsuit. For instance, landlords sometimes offer move-in deals or compete on prices but the use of Yardi’s algorithmic pricing tool disrupted that practice, claimed the attorneys ...

Overall, the rate of rent growth has fallen back toward historical norms after nearly two years of historically high growth.

Like I mentioned in another comment, I can see how this kind of thing could make some difference in pricing by avoiding giving renters deals that wouldn't have actually been necessary to secure a lease. That's very far from being evidence that supply and demand doesn't even apply and the market price is dictated by fiat, which is an absurd conspiracy theory that doesn't follow at all from any of the articles being linked.

[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How do you explain cereal being $8 a box, when it was $5 pre-COVID or the million other products that now cost more? There are recordings of board meetings that were leaked of board members admitting that they inflated prices or unnecessarily kept prices inflated because they knew people would pay it.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why could that not have an explanation that is primarily about economic forces? They printed a ton of money around when Covid happened, and the distribution of wealth shifted significantly. I can buy that businesses could be eking out a little more efficiency by coordinating, but not that we are in a secret command economy and economics is basically all fake.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

the "printing of money" has fuck all to do with inflation, and mainly comes from pop-economics that is stuck somewhere around mercantilism.

Corporation simply realized that they are playing the prisoner's dilemma with prices, and are now going for the "optimal solution"

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How do you figure you can increase the number of dollars in circulation, while shrinking the economy, and not have each dollar be worth less wealth as a result?

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

because the value of money isn't tied to the amount in existence, never has, even the rare metal backed gang is just extrapolating the value axiom by one

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

How do you explain cereal being $8 a box, when it was $5 pre-COVID …

Two things:

  1. We shut down the economy, and supply got disrupted because the economy isn’t a thing you can just turn off for a period of time and have it come back on again

  2. We shut down the economy in non-equal fashion leading to some stores being forced to close while others were allowed to remain open. This led to reduced competition among those supplying the cereal. Competition works to reduce prices, and we killed the competition. The covid lockdowns were a government-enforced consolidation of the market. There are fewer players, each of which owns a larger share now.

[–] bartolomeo@suppo.fi 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah there are like a handful of companies that control egg distribution. That’s the kind of scenario where a price fixing cartel can work.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Landlords are coming together to set prices so that they can all set them high.

This is a conspiracy theory, theorizing a conspiracy of enormous proportions. If there is price fixing going on, it is in any given player’s best interest to break rank and offer lower prices.

[–] buzz86us@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Not so simple honestly it would also be funded by a reduction in bureaucracy, and spending on poverty alleviation. I'm in NY there are 50 something counties here each with their own DSS office. Think of the reductions in demand for some of these dumb programs that essentially kick the worker while their down.

[–] Sekrayray@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can set the prices if they are well known at a federal level—look at the number of disparate vendors who charged exactly the price of a stimulus check for goods when they were being given in 2020.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What goods were those? I am guessing the market price of those goods was already relatively close to that number. You can see a pattern like that sometimes with stock or crypto prices; when it passes across a nice round number, or a number with some significance like the price of another related stock, the price may seem to exist in relation to that number, sticking to or avoiding it. But crucially this is only as long as it is in the vicinity; there are other factors that have more influence over price and after the blip around the round number, the line moves on.

The core mistake here I think is not recognizing that wealth is a form of power. Controlling a greater share of society's wealth means more control in general, which is why companies are trying to do that to begin with. Redistributing wealth is anything but an empty gesture.

[–] Sekrayray@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Mostly tech items like TV’s, but I saw it with some furniture, too.

I just worry that UBI won’t do enough to redistribute wealth without concomitant systematic change. I honestly think those in economic power probably need a good degree of is stripped away for society to really move on and heal from rampant, unchecked capitalism.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And when landlords hike the rents, what do you think will happen to the rate of new housing construction?

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Construction is already too expensive

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Okay. So you're onto something with there being money involved in the decision. Right.

And so when owning a building becomes more profitable, what happens to construction? Construction that is already too expensive.

Expensive is costs too much money ... right? Anyone? High construction cost, then there's an increasing in the net present value of an apartment building ...

Anybody see where I'm going with this? Yes, you in the back there

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Landlord just pockets the money obviously

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right. Yes. That’s a good answer because when you pay rent the landlord does indeed get the money.

I was asking more about what happens to building construction. Anyone?

[–] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nothing happens. There are loads of zoning laws that make it effectively impossible to build in most areas these days anyway

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah so I guess if you introduce UBI to a complete lack of free market, to a place where new construction is illegal, then it won’t help. Unless there are vacant homes around, in which case there are still some market forces at work and it will help.