• Wogi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re talking about vastly different sums of money and access to infrastructure.

    Alaska’s 1600 per year is more akin to a tax refund. It’s not dramatically changing anyone’s income and if it is, they’re barely scraping by regardless.

    Alaska is also so remote that everything is more expensive.

    If 300 million people suddenly had an extra 24,000 dollars to spend in a year, you don’t think every business in the country would be scrambling to get their cut? Most companies see you as an obstacle between them and their money that you happen to be holding.

    • centof
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Alaska’s 1600 per year is more akin to a tax refund.

      It may be on a smaller scale than is traditionally advocated for with a UBI like program, but it is a UBI. According to Wikipedia, the PFD(Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend) is a Basic Income in the form of a resource dividend. Any adult Alaskan resident is eligible for it whether or not they pay taxes. It’s not a tax refund.

      If 300 million people suddenly had an extra 24,000 dollars to spend in a year, you don’t think every business in the country would be scrambling to get their cut?

      Of course they would be. That is why a lot of business offer sales, when the Alaska dividend check go out. They want to convince you to buy their crap. When businesses want money, they have to convince people to buy their stuff via sales and promotions. That usually means lower prices.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok and little league and MLB are technically the same sport but 8 year old Billie Jr isn’t going to be throwing a no hitter at Fenway any time soon.

        Technically being the same thing does not mean it will function the same way.

        • centof
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Perfect is the enemy of good in this case. I would much rather have a $100 UBI just to test out the system than have no UBI ever happen because people argue it has to X amount. It is however very important to tie it to inflation so it doesn’t get effectively nickeled and dimed into continual cuts like the minimum wage largely has in many areas.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, it’s kinda funny. The research papers tend to cite things like “wealth flight” and “housing price plummet” as economic concerns about UBI, yet whenever folks talk about it, we’re all afraid of landlords just raising rent.

        I’m not sure on either of them, but watching everyone argue both extreme opposite possible outcomes for it is funny.