The UBI would not be additive, it would be subtractive
Then it isn't UBI...
Throughout all of your posts, I keep seeing you make the same assumption. That this will simply add $1000 per month to everyone's income. That's not how it would work.
No, that is exactly how UBI works, or it isn't UBI.
UBI is income that everyone gets, regardless of anything else.
Donald Trump gets it just as much as the homeless person gets it.
If it is means tested, or you subtract existing income from it, then it is no different to unemployment, which is FUBAR as it is, because many people are better off staying on welfare than taking a min-wage job because of the scaling rules.
UBI only works if everyone gets it without exception.
I would describe the above video (and the author / video creator's other productions) as infotainment. Good topics and seemingly good numbers, though following the references can be difficult (a consistent problem for the author). The author moves through a lot of concepts but adds humor.
Shame you replied as AC, because that is a thoughtful point, and a fair one to make.
Just because someone posts a video doesn't make it a fact, it needs to be studied and gone over to see what is correct and what is not.
Of course the future is unknowable, but CGP Grey does make a good point near the end of the video... It doesn't all have to come true to be a huge problem... It doesn't all have to happen at once, or right away either...
He also notes in a follow up Q&A that he is happy to admit not being perfect and that some parts of that video may simply end up being wrong. The questions should be asked and considered however.
Here's my thought, when landlords jack up prices just 'cuz they can, there would be a mass exodus of tenants to a cheaper area, maybe somewhere really cheap out in the boonies.
And then the boonies would no longer be cheap.:)
You take all that "new money" out to the boonies and quickly supply and demand would take over.
Yes, new stuff would get built, but you need only study the history of boom towns to see what happens to prices when large numbers of people go into an area.
And the greedy landlords would be left to lord over their ghost town.
Your premise is wrong. They aren't "greedy landlords", they are charging market rates. You'd just end up with the same situation wherever everyone moves to.
It seems that everything you just ranted about could also be applied to you - unless you actually *do* know everything. Not trying to pick a fight, just sayin'.
Fair point...
I don't know everything, but I know more about money and business than a lot of people that post here. I have 20 years of experience employing people, many of them rather smart people, to know that the average person doesn't really have any idea how stuff ends up on store shelves.
I also understand why politicians seem to be such slime, they say one thing and do another, because people want to be told bullshit to decide who to vote for.
Trump is a perfect example of this. Of course he doesn't really plan to do half the things he says he will, he is just doing what it takes to run for President.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the average person would choose to become educated and care about facts, figures, and actual information, rather than emotions, then we'd have a different game.
Most humans (and I'm this way sometimes too) are irrational emotional creatures that make decisions then try and justify them after the fact. Many people (sometimes including me too) don't even know why we make decisions.
There are many stories on SlashDot that I do NOT comment on, because I am not an expert on the subject. Generally when I comment, it is because I know what I'm talking about. What I find is that most people don't, but comment anyway.
Take the recent aviation story with the FAA and the uber-like service. More than half the posts in that story were wrong. Not wrong in opinion, wrong in their facts.
I've owned my own business since 1996, I've made a lot of money in that time and employed hundreds of people. I've had my share of ups and downs, but if I've learned anything, it is that humans act largely in their own self-interest. This applies both to the people you give money to who sit at home and play video games, as well as those people who currently make the video games. A game like Grand Theft Auto V is not going to make itself, there are too many "boring" bits that no one wants to work on.
This is why Linux will never be the majority desktop OS. Even on cell phones, it took a for-profit company like Google to make that work, because there are too many "boring bits" that no one wants to do unless they are paid to do them.
Yes, there are games that are labors of love, but the really big stuff requires more than that. Likewise, building a project like the Hoover Dam for example, is beyond "volunteer" work, people have to get paid to do that. They do it to get money to go do other things, like play games. If they just get given money, they'll skip the work part, and thus no big stuff.
But we like having the big stuff, people will miss it when it is gone.
how can you explain that having a marginal top tax of a whoopy 94% back after WW2 didn't make fortunes flee away to other countries
No one paid it... that's why.
The corporate tax rate is 35% today and no one pays that either.
Apple has over $100 billion in cash overseas to avoid that 35% tax, which is why they are investing so much money somewhere else besides the US.
As a companion, maybe things like TTIP should be more about making sure corporations don't find tax heavens nor slavery-level workforces no matter where they dig their den and less about making sure they can suck the most out of globalization.
You would have to consider who wrote TTIP before you suggest such a thing...
Stop electing career politicians and you might get somewhere. This is the broad appeal of Donald Trump, he can tell big business to go pound sand if he wants to.
Now will he? I have no idea, but he COULD... Hillary Clinton will not, under any circumstances, do so. She was bought and paid for long ago.
So while Donald might be great, or he might suck, at least there is a chance.
Isn't it the robots who will produce the useful stuff? Maybe the robots should be taxed. That is, tax the owners of robots who have lower labor costs because they don't hire workers. Seems fair to me that the owners of robots should give up part of the increased profits they realize by replacing workers with robots.
You don't need to tax people, only production and exchange.
Anything you tax, you get less of...
Tax production and you'll get less production... Production is the basis of the economy. The reason why Germany is nearly 1/3 of the EU's economy is they make stuff.
Freely? Of course not freely. Of course they fight nail and teeth for that not to happen. What I say is that they *can* absorb it, so they can't do it is not an argument. And they certainly do, or else you'd see corporations closing doors instead of corporations reporting increased profits quarter after quarter.
If the United States was an island and had no outside contact with the world, you'd be correct.
The money doesn't have to stay in the United States, that is where your point falls apart.
This is not the middle ages, we live in a very mobile world. Those with money can go anywhere.
Of course I'd move my money wherever I can get a 6.5% instead
Now you're starting to understand.
but that's beyond the point since the point is that you can take out 1% all across the board (i.e. by taxing) and money would still be invested because it still would make sense.
Well, you started to get it, then lost it there... There are other nations besides the United States. If you actually raised taxes in the US by the amounts required, you'd have massive capital flight to other nations.
Why a landlord was able to jack up rents with UBI? because as a group, they control the supply; do collusion.
There are too many players in real estate to have collusion...
I can build an apartment complex if I want to, it isn't that hard...
They will let a lot of empty apartments sit vacant in market but won't drop price.
There are some weird accounting rules that cause some properties to sit empty, it isn't evil landlords being stupid. It is the stupid Congress that doesn't fix the tax and investment laws.
I heard in NYC they want to stop sky-scrapers because they cast shadow into the central park!:)
NYC is not a good example of real estate, that whole place is so jacked up with rules and counter rules, it is what you'll get nationally if you mess with it. The Bay Area is another example.
Rent controls in NYC are a disaster, but most people living there don't know it. Had rents been allowed to rise naturally, people would not be able to afford to live there. Result, they would leave, and would have left long ago. Fewer tall buildings would have been built, and the whole place would not have become such a mess.
---
"free" stuff may distort..
Not "free" stuff, free money... what do you plan to buy with your free money when the stores are empty?
Why should the makers "make", if the takers just want to take?
There is no question you are right in principle, but there is also a point that e.g. milk is now so cheap in much of Europe that farmers who don't sell locally and as "eco/bio" products sell it at a loss.
They either sell it at a profit, or they go out of business... unless the government is paying the difference, but then you have distorted markets and those actually hurt people in the long run.
if there is effective competition they in fact will not rise.
You may be right, there may simply not be any housing at all. Think about THAT one for a minute...
If taxes go up to pay for UBI and wages go up because people won't work for cheap anymore... then my costs to build apartments also go up. If I can't raise my prices, I just won't build at all.
Consider that in the 1980s, in East Germany, the result of all this was empty store shelves. You run the risk of that if you don't have a balance of supply and demand. No amount of "competition" addresses the fact that companies have to sell at a profit, or they won't sell at all pretty soon.
You're right but all that needs to happen is for the amount of money in circulation to at least vaguely match productivity.
Yes, if we ignore human behavior...
That is the problem with all these ideas. They work great in theory, but fall apart when you consider that humans are... human...
I've owned my own business for the past 20 years. If you now say that you're going to take the bulk of my income to support 100 million people not working, well, I might just decide to join them.
Or leave... what I'm NOT going to do is work my butt of to improve my situation only to have most of it taken away.
This all works great until you run out of people to tax. Then no one is making anything and you end up with empty store shelves. Robots won't take over THAT fast and someone still has to pay for them.
UBI is the sort of thing that SOUNDS great, so long as you don't have to address the realities of it. Already the US is being crushed under the weight of existing welfare. People wonder why their jobs are leaving... well, giving people free money won't improve that situation, it'll make it worse.
Paying a Basic Income close to what it actually costs people to live right now wouldn't increase prices by much, if any.
I don't agree with you, so frankly the whole thing probably begins and ends there.
Because you think your statement is correct, there isn't likely much I can type on Slashdot to point out why you're wrong.
Why would people demand more money to do construction work?
If you honestly don't understand why that is the case, then you have NO business discussing this subject at all.
But then again, what else is new. That recent news story about flying and uber-type service is a perfect example of how most people have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Every 2 out of 3 posts in that thread were simply completely factually wrong.
The same is true in this thread, most people posting here have no idea what they are talking about.
Capital flows freely to where it obtains the best return... you assume that companies will just accept a lower level of profit.
Verizon is making of money on FIOS, but they are getting out of that business because it doesn't make ENOUGH money... it has a net profit margin of only 5.5%, which isn't very interesting to investors.
The Unions are bitching saying that Verizon as a whole makes tens of billions of dollars, thus they can afford to pay them a good wage.
It was not an accident that Verizon is selling off FIOS to Frontier.
---
Companies expect a given rate of return and if they aren't getting it, investment money goes somewhere else. Companies won't just earn 2% less and eat the cost, they'll find some other place to move the money to.
It's only inflationary overall if in aggregate the $1000 is in addition to existing income, but if it is to replace income otherwise lost due to other factors then it is not. It might cause some price rises in some products if people retain jobs at the same level of remuneration and can afford more luxuries, but it's not clear that this would necessarily happen, e.g. $15 an hour for work might reduce over time to (real terms) $14 an hour and leave overall income much the same.
You are making a monster assumption... that the former production from the wages paid before somehow magically gets replaced somehow for free.
That person doing $15/hr of work yesterday was getting paid $15/hr because they were worth that much to the company that hired him/her. If that person now gets $15/hr for doing nothing, where does it come from? What productivity is going to cover all this?
Too many people don't understand how the economy works. The economy works because people add value to goods and services via production of "stuff". Be it their physical labors, mental labors, or something else. If everyone sits at home, who is going to build stuff?
there probably isn't sufficient data at present to effectively parameterise such a model.
Sure there is... million of Americans right now sit at home and don't work because of all the welfare they get today. It is a pretty crappy existence, but it is possible to do it.
Now you want the majority of Americans to sit at home and do nothing useful. Who is going to do the useful stuff?
Nope. That's not how inflation works. Inflation is tied to money supply, not average wage. That those correlate confuses people. But you have lost the causality.
The money you want to pay out in UBI has to come from somewhere, you can either tax it, borrow it, or print it. If you tax it, then you raise prices because you raise the cost of doing business. If your borrow it, that is ultimately not that different than printing it, and of course we know what printing it does.
If I current rent out my apartments for $1,000 a month, I may be making $100 a month profit after all is said and done. But now you want to give the people renting my apartments $1,000 in free money for doing nothing. If you tax it from me (and those like me), I'll have to charge more rent or I'll go out of business.
That is why prices will go up with UBI, no matter what you do. Those price rises will force inflation and an increase in the money supply, regardless if you want it or not, unless you go all Soviet Union on the place of course.
Slashdot Mirror
If only there was some system between pure uncontrolled capitalism and Communism. I herd rumours that such a thing exists in parts of Europe.
Yep, remind me again what percentage of their national budgets that Europe pays for defense?
They can afford all that because they have the USA to defend them.
Perhaps we should leave Europe and let Russia take it over, see how well all those benefits work out for you.
The UBI would not be additive, it would be subtractive
Then it isn't UBI...
Throughout all of your posts, I keep seeing you make the same assumption. That this will simply add $1000 per month to everyone's income. That's not how it would work.
No, that is exactly how UBI works, or it isn't UBI.
UBI is income that everyone gets, regardless of anything else.
Donald Trump gets it just as much as the homeless person gets it.
If it is means tested, or you subtract existing income from it, then it is no different to unemployment, which is FUBAR as it is, because many people are better off staying on welfare than taking a min-wage job because of the scaling rules.
UBI only works if everyone gets it without exception.
e4kss$$%Jjsov..>32\][[wDGAPz0.qpaWW=-nveke
That would be a shocking secure password... but it isn't something you can remember, or type easily.
A password manager works, but now you have moved the vulnerability to a new place.
Post about Windows 10 and it is endless streams of "oh my god the evilz!"
Yea, yea, the privacy train has left, you have to be a virtual luddite to have even the hope of privacy in 2016..
Those people clinging to Windows 7 out of the delusion that they are secure and "private" are just kidding themselves.
Microsoft is late to this game and is only doing stuff that others have done for some time.
---
Note: That doesn't make what Microsoft does "right", it just makes it the same as everyone else.
For all you claim, I have as much or more, yet you give nobody else any respect, and demand more from everyone else. It just makes you a hypocrite.
Of course I type out a long and reasoned reply with real information, and you reply with emotions and a personal attack.
You prove my point all too well...
I would describe the above video (and the author / video creator's other productions) as infotainment. Good topics and seemingly good numbers, though following the references can be difficult (a consistent problem for the author). The author moves through a lot of concepts but adds humor.
Shame you replied as AC, because that is a thoughtful point, and a fair one to make.
Just because someone posts a video doesn't make it a fact, it needs to be studied and gone over to see what is correct and what is not.
Of course the future is unknowable, but CGP Grey does make a good point near the end of the video... It doesn't all have to come true to be a huge problem... It doesn't all have to happen at once, or right away either...
He also notes in a follow up Q&A that he is happy to admit not being perfect and that some parts of that video may simply end up being wrong. The questions should be asked and considered however.
9/11 demonstrated that quite clearly.
It did?
How many of those have happened since? The US Government has fallen?
I think rather it shows the reverse, that once you gain the attention of the powers that be, they are ruthless.
If only there was some way to get apartments built other than relying on people like you.
Yep, you could always ask the Soviet Union to do it...
Or the Cuba government... Or Venezuela...
How are all those working out?
Here's my thought, when landlords jack up prices just 'cuz they can, there would be a mass exodus of tenants to a cheaper area, maybe somewhere really cheap out in the boonies.
And then the boonies would no longer be cheap. :)
You take all that "new money" out to the boonies and quickly supply and demand would take over.
Yes, new stuff would get built, but you need only study the history of boom towns to see what happens to prices when large numbers of people go into an area.
And the greedy landlords would be left to lord over their ghost town.
Your premise is wrong. They aren't "greedy landlords", they are charging market rates. You'd just end up with the same situation wherever everyone moves to.
It seems that everything you just ranted about could also be applied to you - unless you actually *do* know everything. Not trying to pick a fight, just sayin'.
Fair point...
I don't know everything, but I know more about money and business than a lot of people that post here. I have 20 years of experience employing people, many of them rather smart people, to know that the average person doesn't really have any idea how stuff ends up on store shelves.
I also understand why politicians seem to be such slime, they say one thing and do another, because people want to be told bullshit to decide who to vote for.
Trump is a perfect example of this. Of course he doesn't really plan to do half the things he says he will, he is just doing what it takes to run for President.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. If the average person would choose to become educated and care about facts, figures, and actual information, rather than emotions, then we'd have a different game.
Most humans (and I'm this way sometimes too) are irrational emotional creatures that make decisions then try and justify them after the fact. Many people (sometimes including me too) don't even know why we make decisions.
There are many stories on SlashDot that I do NOT comment on, because I am not an expert on the subject. Generally when I comment, it is because I know what I'm talking about. What I find is that most people don't, but comment anyway.
Take the recent aviation story with the FAA and the uber-like service. More than half the posts in that story were wrong. Not wrong in opinion, wrong in their facts.
I've owned my own business since 1996, I've made a lot of money in that time and employed hundreds of people. I've had my share of ups and downs, but if I've learned anything, it is that humans act largely in their own self-interest. This applies both to the people you give money to who sit at home and play video games, as well as those people who currently make the video games. A game like Grand Theft Auto V is not going to make itself, there are too many "boring" bits that no one wants to work on.
This is why Linux will never be the majority desktop OS. Even on cell phones, it took a for-profit company like Google to make that work, because there are too many "boring bits" that no one wants to do unless they are paid to do them.
Yes, there are games that are labors of love, but the really big stuff requires more than that. Likewise, building a project like the Hoover Dam for example, is beyond "volunteer" work, people have to get paid to do that. They do it to get money to go do other things, like play games. If they just get given money, they'll skip the work part, and thus no big stuff.
But we like having the big stuff, people will miss it when it is gone.
how can you explain that having a marginal top tax of a whoopy 94% back after WW2 didn't make fortunes flee away to other countries
No one paid it... that's why.
The corporate tax rate is 35% today and no one pays that either.
Apple has over $100 billion in cash overseas to avoid that 35% tax, which is why they are investing so much money somewhere else besides the US.
As a companion, maybe things like TTIP should be more about making sure corporations don't find tax heavens nor slavery-level workforces no matter where they dig their den and less about making sure they can suck the most out of globalization.
You would have to consider who wrote TTIP before you suggest such a thing...
Stop electing career politicians and you might get somewhere. This is the broad appeal of Donald Trump, he can tell big business to go pound sand if he wants to.
Now will he? I have no idea, but he COULD... Hillary Clinton will not, under any circumstances, do so. She was bought and paid for long ago.
So while Donald might be great, or he might suck, at least there is a chance.
Isn't it the robots who will produce the useful stuff? Maybe the robots should be taxed. That is, tax the owners of robots who have lower labor costs because they don't hire workers. Seems fair to me that the owners of robots should give up part of the increased profits they realize by replacing workers with robots.
Stop and think through what you just said.
It is completely absurd.
You don't need to tax people, only production and exchange.
Anything you tax, you get less of...
Tax production and you'll get less production... Production is the basis of the economy. The reason why Germany is nearly 1/3 of the EU's economy is they make stuff.
Stop making stuff and you stop having an economy.
What does Cuba make?
I rest my case. :)
Freely? Of course not freely. Of course they fight nail and teeth for that not to happen. What I say is that they *can* absorb it, so they can't do it is not an argument. And they certainly do, or else you'd see corporations closing doors instead of corporations reporting increased profits quarter after quarter.
If the United States was an island and had no outside contact with the world, you'd be correct.
The money doesn't have to stay in the United States, that is where your point falls apart.
This is not the middle ages, we live in a very mobile world. Those with money can go anywhere.
Of course I'd move my money wherever I can get a 6.5% instead
Now you're starting to understand.
but that's beyond the point since the point is that you can take out 1% all across the board (i.e. by taxing) and money would still be invested because it still would make sense.
Well, you started to get it, then lost it there... There are other nations besides the United States. If you actually raised taxes in the US by the amounts required, you'd have massive capital flight to other nations.
Why a landlord was able to jack up rents with UBI? because as a group, they control the supply; do collusion.
There are too many players in real estate to have collusion...
I can build an apartment complex if I want to, it isn't that hard...
They will let a lot of empty apartments sit vacant in market but won't drop price.
There are some weird accounting rules that cause some properties to sit empty, it isn't evil landlords being stupid. It is the stupid Congress that doesn't fix the tax and investment laws.
I heard in NYC they want to stop sky-scrapers because they cast shadow into the central park! :)
NYC is not a good example of real estate, that whole place is so jacked up with rules and counter rules, it is what you'll get nationally if you mess with it. The Bay Area is another example.
Rent controls in NYC are a disaster, but most people living there don't know it. Had rents been allowed to rise naturally, people would not be able to afford to live there. Result, they would leave, and would have left long ago. Fewer tall buildings would have been built, and the whole place would not have become such a mess.
---
"free" stuff may distort..
Not "free" stuff, free money... what do you plan to buy with your free money when the stores are empty?
Why should the makers "make", if the takers just want to take?
There is no question you are right in principle, but there is also a point that e.g. milk is now so cheap in much of Europe that farmers who don't sell locally and as "eco/bio" products sell it at a loss.
They either sell it at a profit, or they go out of business... unless the government is paying the difference, but then you have distorted markets and those actually hurt people in the long run.
if there is effective competition they in fact will not rise.
You may be right, there may simply not be any housing at all. Think about THAT one for a minute...
If taxes go up to pay for UBI and wages go up because people won't work for cheap anymore... then my costs to build apartments also go up. If I can't raise my prices, I just won't build at all.
Consider that in the 1980s, in East Germany, the result of all this was empty store shelves. You run the risk of that if you don't have a balance of supply and demand. No amount of "competition" addresses the fact that companies have to sell at a profit, or they won't sell at all pretty soon.
You're right but all that needs to happen is for the amount of money in circulation to at least vaguely match productivity.
Yes, if we ignore human behavior...
That is the problem with all these ideas. They work great in theory, but fall apart when you consider that humans are... human...
I've owned my own business for the past 20 years. If you now say that you're going to take the bulk of my income to support 100 million people not working, well, I might just decide to join them.
Or leave... what I'm NOT going to do is work my butt of to improve my situation only to have most of it taken away.
This all works great until you run out of people to tax. Then no one is making anything and you end up with empty store shelves. Robots won't take over THAT fast and someone still has to pay for them.
UBI is the sort of thing that SOUNDS great, so long as you don't have to address the realities of it. Already the US is being crushed under the weight of existing welfare. People wonder why their jobs are leaving... well, giving people free money won't improve that situation, it'll make it worse.
Paying a Basic Income close to what it actually costs people to live right now wouldn't increase prices by much, if any.
I don't agree with you, so frankly the whole thing probably begins and ends there.
Because you think your statement is correct, there isn't likely much I can type on Slashdot to point out why you're wrong.
Why would people demand more money to do construction work?
If you honestly don't understand why that is the case, then you have NO business discussing this subject at all.
But then again, what else is new. That recent news story about flying and uber-type service is a perfect example of how most people have no fucking idea what they are talking about. Every 2 out of 3 posts in that thread were simply completely factually wrong.
The same is true in this thread, most people posting here have no idea what they are talking about.
Or maybe people will stop looking at rental and investment properties as a foolproof road to riches scheme because it is easier to get a basic income.
Ok, sure...
Where will you live with that basic income of yours? Build a house out of the dollar bills?
The housing sector adds nothing to the economy except a cycle of ruin.
If you actually believe that, well, that explains the shit government we have because morons are allowed to vote.
You're simply wrong. Full stop.
No, that isn't how it works...
Capital flows freely to where it obtains the best return... you assume that companies will just accept a lower level of profit.
Verizon is making of money on FIOS, but they are getting out of that business because it doesn't make ENOUGH money... it has a net profit margin of only 5.5%, which isn't very interesting to investors.
The Unions are bitching saying that Verizon as a whole makes tens of billions of dollars, thus they can afford to pay them a good wage.
It was not an accident that Verizon is selling off FIOS to Frontier.
---
Companies expect a given rate of return and if they aren't getting it, investment money goes somewhere else. Companies won't just earn 2% less and eat the cost, they'll find some other place to move the money to.
Why is it that people would rather make $100k and give 40% of it away than make $200k and give 70% of it away?
Because you assume those are the only two options...
They aren't...
It's only inflationary overall if in aggregate the $1000 is in addition to existing income, but if it is to replace income otherwise lost due to other factors then it is not. It might cause some price rises in some products if people retain jobs at the same level of remuneration and can afford more luxuries, but it's not clear that this would necessarily happen, e.g. $15 an hour for work might reduce over time to (real terms) $14 an hour and leave overall income much the same.
You are making a monster assumption... that the former production from the wages paid before somehow magically gets replaced somehow for free.
That person doing $15/hr of work yesterday was getting paid $15/hr because they were worth that much to the company that hired him/her. If that person now gets $15/hr for doing nothing, where does it come from? What productivity is going to cover all this?
Too many people don't understand how the economy works. The economy works because people add value to goods and services via production of "stuff". Be it their physical labors, mental labors, or something else. If everyone sits at home, who is going to build stuff?
there probably isn't sufficient data at present to effectively parameterise such a model.
Sure there is... million of Americans right now sit at home and don't work because of all the welfare they get today. It is a pretty crappy existence, but it is possible to do it.
Now you want the majority of Americans to sit at home and do nothing useful. Who is going to do the useful stuff?
Raise the income from corporations, not the tax rate.
Again, that isn't the corporations paying tax, that is the people.
2% of gross income would be a better tax.
Turn that around and suggest a national 2% sales tax, it would be largely the same thing and likely easier to collect.
Nothing, but that's not how it works. Rent won't go up that high or that fast.
Well, since YOU say it won't, I guess it is all roses and peaches...
You might consider thinking and learning for a change, you might discover that what you think you know is wrong.
Of course, you won't do that, because most people prefer to have their opinions define them rather than be separate from them.
You'll likely cling to your beliefs regardless of any evidence proving otherwise, just to avoid being "wrong".
Nope. That's not how inflation works. Inflation is tied to money supply, not average wage. That those correlate confuses people. But you have lost the causality.
The money you want to pay out in UBI has to come from somewhere, you can either tax it, borrow it, or print it. If you tax it, then you raise prices because you raise the cost of doing business. If your borrow it, that is ultimately not that different than printing it, and of course we know what printing it does.
If I current rent out my apartments for $1,000 a month, I may be making $100 a month profit after all is said and done. But now you want to give the people renting my apartments $1,000 in free money for doing nothing. If you tax it from me (and those like me), I'll have to charge more rent or I'll go out of business.
That is why prices will go up with UBI, no matter what you do. Those price rises will force inflation and an increase in the money supply, regardless if you want it or not, unless you go all Soviet Union on the place of course.