5 ms·

You mention rent. Something I'm confused about BI is that it doesn't seem to account for regional prices - 8k for housing goes a lot further in Newark than it

You mention rent. Something I'm confused about BI is that it doesn't seem to account for regional prices - 8k for housing goes a lot further in Newark than it does in Manhattan, and when you start comparing different regions the differences are probably even greater

Grishnakh 10y ago
Of course it doesn't, and it shouldn't. If it did, everyone would move to the high-cost locations because they'd get paid more, and then the BI would have to spiral upwards endlessly to pay for that. If someone demands to live in the most posh district of SanFran, for instance, why should society pay for that (esp. when it won't be just them, it'll be hordes of people wanting to move there)? If someone wants to live in an expensive area, they need to earn their own money to pay for it. The whole point of BI is to make sure people aren't starving or homeless or in danger of that. If you can live comfortably on the BI in bumfuck, PA or KS, then that's enough for you: society has done its part in making sure you're provided for. Maybe it's not exactly where you want to live, but society has no obligation to provide for your whims. If you don't like it, get a job and make more money.
- arprocter 10y ago
  But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? Edit: also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that
  - technofire 10y ago
    If a bunch of people move to the middle of nowhere, they will need goods and services, and thus jobs will be created as enterprising people move to provide them.
    - ascagnel_ 10y ago
      But those customers don't have money to spend -- why would anything but the most predatory business (rent-to-own/layaway firms, payday loans, etc) move to service them?
      - geon 10y ago
        The people themselves can provide the services. They have no other jobs anyway, remember?
      - geon 10y ago
        The people themselves can provide the services. They have no other jobs anyway, remember?
      - Grishnakh 10y ago
        They do have money to spend: their UBI check. Part of it will go to rent, but the rest will go to things like groceries/food, clothes, the local water and electric companies, the local Wawa/Sheetz, etc. Layaway firms aren't that bad, it's the payday loan places that are bad. That can be fixed with legislation, if we stop electing crooks like Hillary and her buddy DWS who are in the pocket of the payday-loan industry.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    >But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? In theory, no. A UBI is not a free pass for a luxurious lifestyle, it's a basic income. If you want more than that, you'll have to work. If you want to not work at all and sit on your ass, then sure, you can go move to Tornado Alley or frigid Minot or wherever and live cheap and make some extra cash doing odd jobs like shoveling snow maybe, and smoke pot most of the time. I don't think most people want to live that way; people are too greedy for that, and want a nicer standard of living than the bare minimum. So, people will strike a balance, like they already do: they'll look for places that are affordable, but where jobs are also located. But unlike now, they won't feel so much pressure to live where jobs are, and might take a chance moving somewhere cheaper. We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities, and maybe some revitalization of small towns, but overall I don't think it'll be all that huge. I would expect a lot of people to move out of the really high-rent places where they're being subsidized by government programs to stay there. >also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that Why not? If they can't pay the rent, they'll be evicted. Then they'll have nothing but the clothes on their backs, and their UBI check, so if they want to have a roof over their head, they'll get a bus ticket to someplace cheap. This is a good thing: they're not contributing productively to their current city of residence, and instead of draining it of taxpayer funds, and they're taking up space that could be used for more economically productive residents. If their labor is really needed there, then the business owners need to raise their wages to allow them to afford the rent there, otherwise the businesses can go under. If the place is so high-rent that all the businesses move out and all the service workers move out, no problem, it'll collapse under its own weight and then after the landlords all go bankrupt the rents will go back to sustainable levels. Trying to keep people like that in an area isn't doing anyone any favors, except those who are profiting from the situation.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      > We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities Some midwestern states already offer free land+settlement programs to anybody who's willing to move in http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html and market distortions made real estate in some US cities extremely affordable http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-house-detroit-article-1.1415014 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-hous... Yet the economic activity in those geographies leaves much to be desired.
  - sgnelson 10y ago
    See: Spatial Mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_mismatch

Grishnakh 10y ago

Of course it doesn't, and it shouldn't. If it did, everyone would move to the high-cost locations because they'd get paid more, and then the BI would have to spiral upwards endlessly to pay for that. If someone demands to live in the most posh district of SanFran, for instance, why should society pay for that (esp. when it won't be just them, it'll be hordes of people wanting to move there)? If someone wants to live in an expensive area, they need to earn their own money to pay for it. The whole point of BI is to make sure people aren't starving or homeless or in danger of that. If you can live comfortably on the BI in bumfuck, PA or KS, then that's enough for you: society has done its part in making sure you're provided for. Maybe it's not exactly where you want to live, but society has no obligation to provide for your whims. If you don't like it, get a job and make more money.

arprocter 10y ago
But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? Edit: also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that
- technofire 10y ago
  If a bunch of people move to the middle of nowhere, they will need goods and services, and thus jobs will be created as enterprising people move to provide them.
  - ascagnel_ 10y ago
    But those customers don't have money to spend -- why would anything but the most predatory business (rent-to-own/layaway firms, payday loans, etc) move to service them?
    - geon 10y ago
      The people themselves can provide the services. They have no other jobs anyway, remember?
    - geon 10y ago
      The people themselves can provide the services. They have no other jobs anyway, remember?
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      They do have money to spend: their UBI check. Part of it will go to rent, but the rest will go to things like groceries/food, clothes, the local water and electric companies, the local Wawa/Sheetz, etc. Layaway firms aren't that bad, it's the payday loan places that are bad. That can be fixed with legislation, if we stop electing crooks like Hillary and her buddy DWS who are in the pocket of the payday-loan industry.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? In theory, no. A UBI is not a free pass for a luxurious lifestyle, it's a basic income. If you want more than that, you'll have to work. If you want to not work at all and sit on your ass, then sure, you can go move to Tornado Alley or frigid Minot or wherever and live cheap and make some extra cash doing odd jobs like shoveling snow maybe, and smoke pot most of the time. I don't think most people want to live that way; people are too greedy for that, and want a nicer standard of living than the bare minimum. So, people will strike a balance, like they already do: they'll look for places that are affordable, but where jobs are also located. But unlike now, they won't feel so much pressure to live where jobs are, and might take a chance moving somewhere cheaper. We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities, and maybe some revitalization of small towns, but overall I don't think it'll be all that huge. I would expect a lot of people to move out of the really high-rent places where they're being subsidized by government programs to stay there. >also what happens to all the people living in projects in what would otherwise be expensive areas? Ship them off to a sparsely populated non desirable area? Good luck with that Why not? If they can't pay the rent, they'll be evicted. Then they'll have nothing but the clothes on their backs, and their UBI check, so if they want to have a roof over their head, they'll get a bus ticket to someplace cheap. This is a good thing: they're not contributing productively to their current city of residence, and instead of draining it of taxpayer funds, and they're taking up space that could be used for more economically productive residents. If their labor is really needed there, then the business owners need to raise their wages to allow them to afford the rent there, otherwise the businesses can go under. If the place is so high-rent that all the businesses move out and all the service workers move out, no problem, it'll collapse under its own weight and then after the landlords all go bankrupt the rents will go back to sustainable levels. Trying to keep people like that in an area isn't doing anyone any favors, except those who are profiting from the situation.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    > We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities Some midwestern states already offer free land+settlement programs to anybody who's willing to move in http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html and market distortions made real estate in some US cities extremely affordable http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-house-detroit-article-1.1415014 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-hous... Yet the economic activity in those geographies leaves much to be desired.
- sgnelson 10y ago
  See: Spatial Mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_mismatch