Universal Basic Services (UBS) is an alternative case to UBI.
Under UBS, the provision of free public services must go beyond health or education to cover other basic necessities (e.g., housing, care, transport, information, nutrition).
UBS can be more egalitarian with a strong redistributive performance and impact on income inequalities.
UBS can also be more sustainable by decarbonizing the economy in a just way - rather than disproportionally loading the costs on the lower income brackets - and by supporting sustainable consumption corridors.
We need both.
There is more to life than basic services, but these should definitely be provided for in a non-profit way.
I think this is the better move overall. With a monthly stipend companies will quickly start charging more for the same product just to get a taste of all of that money going to the population. They’ll call it inflation again, and we’ll all get fucked. If the services themselves are free, they can’t inflate and fuck over the lower class as easily.
They still will.
It’ll just be slightly less convenient.
One thing to keep an eye on as far as services is to make sure they’re used by all classes of people. In the states there’s public housing but it’s seen as inferior (and usually is actually inferior). So only the poor use it, which means it has no powerful defenders. And for most people who already own a home, they would never consider getting rid of it to move into public housing.
One advantage of UBI is that everyone gets it, so everyone will have an incentive to defend it. Think about social security - every so often politicians talk about how we might need to cut, but that would be political suicide because of how many people are invested in getting that payout.
When I lived in Montréal, I found the social services were very strong in my neighborhood (medical, libraries, transit, daycare, schools, parks, etc).
I attribute this to all stratas of income using the same services. My comparison of Ontario had different income levels using different services, which led to quality differences between those services.
Another issue there is that anyone not poor can’t use public housing. It’s a means-tested program, and if you make too much money, you’re unable to use it. You have to be low income.
@dharmacurious
Most of our stuff is means tested, and not only that - the means test is based on a made up metric from nearly 80 years ago that has never been adequately adjusted to reflect modern healthcare, education, and transportation costs.In addition, the means testing doesn’t have gradual cutoffs, so once you hit the threshold you lose all of your benefits, which is just insane on its face. You don’t suddenly stop needing food or housing assistance because you get a ten cent raise. We should set the system up to encourage people to grow into self sufficiency, not punish them into a permanent underclass.
@LesserAbeAbsolutely. Been in that situation. I have passed on jobs/raises because it would mean losing food stamps or a rent voucher. Shit fucking sucks.
The issue is how to convince the rich to use these free services.
When I was creating a Star Trek expy, this was how the Federation worked: there were a lot of universal basic services, and one of the governmental departments looked to expanding what services qualified as UBS and looking maintain and improve state offerings so they are competitive to commercial offerings.
UBS would still be prone to corruption and exploitation, but its absolutely a viable bridge towards post-scarcity communism.
As a note, clothes, laundry and hygiene would need to be included in a starter set of UBS. I suppose if UBS and UBI came together, and the program would seek to add common UBI purchases into th3 UBS category.
I think The Expanse had a good idea vision of a society with just UBI but keeps all of the other capitalist trackings. It’s not good for those people.
“Basic” in The Expanse is not UBI. It’s means-tested.
Oh, I thought I remember reading an article somewhere that Basic was supposed to be UBI. I need to read the books lol.
Both.
There are a lot of American cities who would disagree with that regarding public housing.
The initial buildings were fine enough, but they required maintenance and that maintenance would usually be the first thing cut in cases of budget issues.
