Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

anarcho_nationalist wrote

I ended up in the same-ish place after considering for a while. I have to wonder, though, whether this would end up just devaluing labor even further as the UBI would end up covering living costs. Marx talks about the extension of the portion of the day that gets absorbed as surplus value by capitalists, and how that portion of the day is expanded by a decrease in labor value. (i.e. if someone costs $100 per day to employ, creates $200 in a day, and works for 10 hours, that means that they worked the last 5 hours free of charge.)

So if we take into account the fact that their universally guaranteed income is covering many of their expenses... why wouldn't they (the laborer) be willing to work for less? (i.e. now they only cost $80 per day to employ, and end up working for the final 6 hours free.) The degree of exploitation is now $120/$80 ($6/$4) instead of $100/$100($5/$5). The laborer gets a basic income, but the capitalist can exploit it for gain of their own.

Disclaimer: Not sure if this checks out 100% or considers the question of where the UBI is being funded from properly.


this_one OP wrote

One important thing to consider is that UBI fundamentally changes the dynamic of a boss/worker relationship. Without UBI, if you don't have a job, you'll be left without food/shelter/etc, if not die outright. That means the capitalists can give you a worse deal and you'll still have to accept. It's like if you have a chronic illness and the medication costs $1/month to keep you alive, you will pay that much. If it costs you $10 or $100/month, you will still pay it (if you can afford to). With a UBI, if your boss is exploiting you more than you're comfortable with, you can safely quit without risking your life, and spend as long as you need looking for a different job that suits you better.


ziq wrote

They'll just raise the cost of living so you'll still be left in the cold. That's how capitalism works.