4 ms·

"Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supp

"Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock." Rents are a matter of supply versus demand. There is a tremendous supply of housing. What is limited is desirable housing - and a big part of that is housing somewhat near a stable income. A basic income - even a modest one - would seem to radically increase the supply of housing near a stable income.

nosuchthing 11y ago
Building low cost municipal housing within commuting distance to large cities would be significantly more productive as a long term economic and city/nation infrastructure investment than the BI alternative of low income citizens being forced out of city centers and into undesirable real estate areas.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Building low cost municipal housing has been done before, has often gone very poorly, and doesn't fundamentally change the dynamic - everyone still needs to move to the city, and the problem is still that we haven't built enough municipal housing. We're presently seeing low income citizens forced out of city centers and into "undesirable real estate areas" within some stretch of what could be called "commuting distance". The point is, "undesirable real estate areas" is not static. There are tons of wonderful places that are undesirable simply because they are unaffordable (not expensive - often cheap - but without sufficient income sufficiently available). A basic income will make more of these more desirable to more people. Some of these people will chose to move there rather than SF (or Hayward). This reduces demand for presently-desirable housing, which means fewer low income citizens being forced out of city centers. Now it's true that centralization allows some efficiencies that decentralization does not. But it has some extra costs - and (especially) some extra risks, as well. I really don't think the ideal outcome is "everyone moves to San Francisco."
  - nosuchthing 11y ago
    Mixed use development could really happen anywhere. It's a matter of infrastructure, people need to sleep near where they work/buy/participate in the local economy. I assume it makes sense to build large amounts of affordable housing within commutable distance to large cities. It'll be interesting to see which countries are willing to address housing as infrastructure for their economy. I imagine real estate bubbles will continue to happen as long as NIMBYism and tax policy facilitate speculation. There's no sensible reason housing should cost every citizen of each generation 20 entire years of daily income.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      "It's a matter of infrastructure, people need to sleep near where they work/buy/participate in the local economy." I agree very strongly with this. The question is how we best make that happen (more). I think helping more local communities have more places to work/buy/participate is going to be a bigger win than building more housing in the places the jobs already are. People commute to San Francisco from Tracy. From Sacramento. Moving those people from Tracy to San Francisco cuts their commute. It also means the demands of those people are now more expressed in San Francisco and less in Tracy. That means fewer jobs available in Tracy and more jobs available in San Francisco; that means more demand for housing in San Francisco.

nosuchthing 11y ago

Building low cost municipal housing within commuting distance to large cities would be significantly more productive as a long term economic and city/nation infrastructure investment than the BI alternative of low income citizens being forced out of city centers and into undesirable real estate areas.

dllthomas 11y ago
Building low cost municipal housing has been done before, has often gone very poorly, and doesn't fundamentally change the dynamic - everyone still needs to move to the city, and the problem is still that we haven't built enough municipal housing. We're presently seeing low income citizens forced out of city centers and into "undesirable real estate areas" within some stretch of what could be called "commuting distance". The point is, "undesirable real estate areas" is not static. There are tons of wonderful places that are undesirable simply because they are unaffordable (not expensive - often cheap - but without sufficient income sufficiently available). A basic income will make more of these more desirable to more people. Some of these people will chose to move there rather than SF (or Hayward). This reduces demand for presently-desirable housing, which means fewer low income citizens being forced out of city centers. Now it's true that centralization allows some efficiencies that decentralization does not. But it has some extra costs - and (especially) some extra risks, as well. I really don't think the ideal outcome is "everyone moves to San Francisco."
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  Mixed use development could really happen anywhere. It's a matter of infrastructure, people need to sleep near where they work/buy/participate in the local economy. I assume it makes sense to build large amounts of affordable housing within commutable distance to large cities. It'll be interesting to see which countries are willing to address housing as infrastructure for their economy. I imagine real estate bubbles will continue to happen as long as NIMBYism and tax policy facilitate speculation. There's no sensible reason housing should cost every citizen of each generation 20 entire years of daily income.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    "It's a matter of infrastructure, people need to sleep near where they work/buy/participate in the local economy." I agree very strongly with this. The question is how we best make that happen (more). I think helping more local communities have more places to work/buy/participate is going to be a bigger win than building more housing in the places the jobs already are. People commute to San Francisco from Tracy. From Sacramento. Moving those people from Tracy to San Francisco cuts their commute. It also means the demands of those people are now more expressed in San Francisco and less in Tracy. That means fewer jobs available in Tracy and more jobs available in San Francisco; that means more demand for housing in San Francisco.