4 ms·

UBI will just be a yet another huge transfer of wealth to rentiers. Rents will eat up every last dollar of UBI, and we'll be back where we started. Capital co

UBI will just be a yet another huge transfer of wealth to rentiers. Rents will eat up every last dollar of UBI, and we'll be back where we started. Capital controls, rent controls, and punitive vacancy taxes are needed well in advance of establishing UBI. The chances of this happening on a broad scale in the US are, unfortunately, zero. Too bad.

FussyZeus 11y ago
What would you suggest? I mean we're dealing with the section of our population that either won't (or can't) do anything above the bare minimum. I don't want them to starve or freeze, I'm not a total asshole, but how much should we really be imparting onto people who effectively aren't contributing?
jayess 11y ago
The Soviet Union gave this a shot. Didn't really work out.
- _delirium 11y ago
  The Soviet Union had more of the opposite idea: you must work to earn a living. From the 1936 Soviet constitution, > In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." If you want to analogize it to a left-wing movement, an unconditional UBI is closer to a the Scandinavian social democrats' ideas of a universalist welfare system.
pstuart 11y ago
Renting should be replaced with some sort of fractional ownership.
- munin 11y ago
  like communism?
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Or you could just buy the property and be done with it. Take a little responsibility for own existence.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 11y ago
It seems likely that there will be other effects. For example, an income that isn't tied to a job makes it easier for people to move to places with a lower cost of living. (Think about why so many retirees live in Florida.)
lsc 11y ago
>Rents will eat up every last dollar of UBI, and we'll be back where we started. eh, in high demand areas, yes, that much and more. I think the difference is that a big part of why people live in high demand areas is that they need to do so in order to find work. If there's good work in an area, rentiers can jack up the price of the temporary use of their capital goods. This is where we are now. But on the other hand, with a UBI that was sufficient to live in a low-demand area, you'd see a lot more people moving to low demand areas. And there are a lot of low demand areas, making jacking up the rents on those places harder. Many of the mechanisms landlords use to jack up prices (for instance building code restrictions that vary from the standards) are not practical in rural areas, and others, like restrictions on density, are not necessary. If you don't need to live somewhere you can commute to work, fifty grand will buy you a house, septic, and a bit of land. Also, there are a lot of what you call rentiers - there need to be because jacking up pricing requires democratic support for restricting new housing, and this is usually an issue that votes on naked self-interest.

FussyZeus 11y ago

What would you suggest? I mean we're dealing with the section of our population that either won't (or can't) do anything above the bare minimum. I don't want them to starve or freeze, I'm not a total asshole, but how much should we really be imparting onto people who effectively aren't contributing?

jayess 11y ago

The Soviet Union gave this a shot. Didn't really work out.

_delirium 11y ago
The Soviet Union had more of the opposite idea: you must work to earn a living. From the 1936 Soviet constitution, > In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." If you want to analogize it to a left-wing movement, an unconditional UBI is closer to a the Scandinavian social democrats' ideas of a universalist welfare system.

pstuart 11y ago

Renting should be replaced with some sort of fractional ownership.

munin 11y ago
like communism?
FussyZeus 11y ago
Or you could just buy the property and be done with it. Take a little responsibility for own existence.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 11y ago

It seems likely that there will be other effects. For example, an income that isn't tied to a job makes it easier for people to move to places with a lower cost of living. (Think about why so many retirees live in Florida.)

lsc 11y ago

>Rents will eat up every last dollar of UBI, and we'll be back where we started. eh, in high demand areas, yes, that much and more. I think the difference is that a big part of why people live in high demand areas is that they need to do so in order to find work. If there's good work in an area, rentiers can jack up the price of the temporary use of their capital goods. This is where we are now. But on the other hand, with a UBI that was sufficient to live in a low-demand area, you'd see a lot more people moving to low demand areas. And there are a lot of low demand areas, making jacking up the rents on those places harder. Many of the mechanisms landlords use to jack up prices (for instance building code restrictions that vary from the standards) are not practical in rural areas, and others, like restrictions on density, are not necessary. If you don't need to live somewhere you can commute to work, fifty grand will buy you a house, septic, and a bit of land. Also, there are a lot of what you call rentiers - there need to be because jacking up pricing requires democratic support for restricting new housing, and this is usually an issue that votes on naked self-interest.