Yes, but not by raising minimum wage (in fact it would no longer be needed given a high enough UBI to make a living), but because employers would voluntarily raise wages, because they now need to compete against not working.

Also, I think many menial jobs could be made a lot more pleasant with only a slight cut in productivity.

Hurray for qualify of life!

UBI might cover your food and rent, but it won't cover much past that. So if you want some beer money or a new videogame or whatever, you'll need to work.

And since after UBI every dollar after taxes goes to luxuries, a low income provides a lot more luxuries than it does before UBI, so it's actually a lot more appealing to work -- you see the benefits directly.

What if the landlord and food companies just raise the prices now that they know people have at least X dollars a month to spend on rent and food.

Then people start advocating for universal housing and universal food.

Housing: UBI lets you move somewhere cheap, eliminating the leverage that landlords hold, letting housing prices go down.

Food: Foods are commodities, meaning that the price is the marginal cost. The price of a bushel of rice is set by the buyer, not the seller.

You've learned nothing the past two years

I didn't learn that food prices go up during a global drought because I knew that already.

> landlord and food companies just raise the prices

Which is exactly what has happened (in the US at least) as people received mini-UBI called "stimulus checks" and their bosses got PPP "loans" (that didn't need to be paid back)

Exactly. You can't determine a baseline UBI amount without knowing the baseline cost of food and rent. And I'm perfectly ok with rent control. Housing is a basic necessity, after all -- at least in humane societies.

They can only do that if they collude, which is illegal. On the other hand, if food and rent are paid for mostly with UBI money, and supply was more elastic than demand, then prices would surely increase.

Did they collude to raise rents 10% this year?

People will bid up apartments because they have more money.

Ya, isn’t that what supply not keeping up with demand (in the form of money that can be applied to said demand). Everyone can’t afford to rent an apartment f there isn’t enough apartments to rent. People will use their buying power to prevent being the ones left without, while landlords will benefit from bidding wars by being able to raise prices. That works in Seattle or austin even if it doesn’t work in Detroit or Shreveport.

Good point. Inflation will make UBI kind of pointless.

Not if it is indexed to inflation...eventually a steady state will be reached.

I can't imagine this not happening; it's a certainty.

Are you saying you'd be more encouraged to work to buy a video game than to not be homeless?

Why wouldn't regular minimum wage workers just be homeless and spend their money on luxuries if this was the case?

I'm saying that the work wouldn't be so mentally tedious. You're working because you want to be there because the reward is tangible. The difference between working because you have to and because you want to is massive, even if the work is the same.

If you're not stuck in a fight for survival, you have a lot more energy left over for other things, both less and more frivolous (like charity or games)

If you're homeless, what luxuries are you buying?

What use is buying the new video game if you don't have a place to put a TV to play it on?

For playing on your Nintendo Switch of course.

So why not provide free food and homes? No need for money if it is just intended for these purposes.

UBI would be a subsidy to landlords and supermarkets; who would cream off a profit.