Which would in turn make garbage collection more expensive. Now everyone has to pay more for it, including UBI recipients. Now UBI won't be enough to live, thus UBI has to be raised, making garbage collection at the then current rate less interesting. Back to square one, repeat.
The second sentence doesn't necessarily follow from the first one.
1. It's hard to tell how much costs would actually rise by.
2. UBI doesn't have to be enough to live on by itself. It just has to be universal and unconditional.
That'll be pretty much the increase in pay multiplied by how much of the cost of a product/service is labor, for all things your might have to buy, which includes housing, health care, food.
> 2. UBI doesn't have to be enough to live on by itself. It just has to be universal and unconditional.
I believe that's a minority opinion. Not getting anything, or getting $1 a month, meets those standards.
The point of UBI, as I understand the proponents, is that "the basics" (the B in UBI) are taken care of. They will always include housing, food, clothing etc, usually health care and it's up for debate what else should be included (TV, computer, internet etc are frequently mentioned as necessary to live in a modern society).
Not quite. Employers would be able to reduce salary costs by an amount more than the UBI, because of tax band effects, so costs of production for a bunch of stuff goes down.
If that's true, doesn't it also mean UBI won't cost anything? (I realize that's some pretty twisted logic)
Either the amount paid by UBI is meaningful, which means it'll make a difference to people's lives.
Or it's so small as to be meaningless. Which means it won't cost that much per-capita to implement.
(It's late, I haven't thought this through, feel free to downvote if this is completely bonkers :-P)
I'm all for people doing dirty jobs to be paid more. They're doing essential, undesirable work.