Migrant labourers mostly, and in places where these are not available (like Japan), strawberries cost a lot more, making them a "special occasion" treat for middle classes, and putting them mostly out of reach of poorer people.
Not just less strawberries, but less everything that involves domestic/UBI-competing labour, which is a lot. If we did this worldwide, it would be everything.
Again, this is exactly what happens in high-productivity locations. Local, labor-intensive services like haircuts, waiting tables at restaurants etc. are paid more, because the workers have alternative opportunities in high-paying sectors. The flip side is that quality tends to improve as well due to efficiency-wage effects. It's hardly a disaster.
So this makes everybody poorer. Nobody is being lifted up here. If things cost more then your money doesn’t go as far. That’s called inflation. UBI seems like a great idea on paper but you’re pointing out its problem as a feature.
How are you quantifying this success? If people have "more money" but are suddenly unable to afford things they previously could (those same strawberries), wouldn't they be worse off?
> The richest today will be relatively less rich.
Isn't this just communism with extra steps? Why do you think these things have always worked out poorly, economically speaking, triggering runaway inflation and material scarcity?
My thesis is that the the threat of abject poverty is the only thing keeping much of our economy functioning. If we remove this threat, then the economy shrinks significantly and we all end up in poverty anyways.
Surely UBI results in something more like an-cap? You collect your ubi payment in exchange for agreeing to live in the area serviced by the United States corporation.
UBI wouldn’t be a small tweak around the edges of the current system. It’d be fairly radical.
By redistributing the amount of money in question, you are effectively planning the economy. You are writing into law the idea that everyone should be able to afford to eat, with no means to contend with the fact that there may not be enough food.
I don't think you're addressing my core thesis. When I worked in a restaurant, I did it to maintain myself - to pay primarily for rent and food. My coworkers were much the same. If I was provided these things, I wouldn't have applied at the restaurant. Multiply this by every tedious or difficult job and you'll find that many of them just wouldn't get done. People will avoid them, and pursue other fields. This sort of thing has actually happened in places like the USSR. Loads of highly educated, trained specialists, talented (or not) artists, shortages of farmers and labourers. Breadlines.
No, you’re either taking from the rich and killing innovation, and thereby jobs, or you make everything state owned and go full on socialism, or you cause inflation. All of these make everybody poorer.
