4 ms·

>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 lifest

>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.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  No one is taking advantage of those opportunities because there's no jobs there. With a UBI, people who want to just live off the UBI alone may decide to move to places like that, esp. if they're itching to "get away from it all" and live in solitude in a rural setting (in the case of KS anyway). They can't do it now because you can't survive without an income, and there's no jobs there. You can't survive on free land alone. Growing your own food isn't that easy, nor is it very nutritious (early farmers had terrible health and were a foot shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors; eating too much of the same thing is bad for you). Without an income, where are you going to get money for seeds? And how are you going to pay for other things like electricity to run your well pump, or parts to fix your well pump when it breaks? With a UBI, those things suddenly become possible if you really want that kind of lifestyle. As for Detroit, $500 houses aren't very appealing in a place with a reputation for horrible crime, and where again there's no jobs (if there were good jobs there, the houses wouldn't cost $500). But who knows, a UBI might allow a bunch of young hipsters to move into the place and try to turn it into an art colony or something.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    Fair enough. There're examples of that behavior in the retiree community, where a Social Security recipient moves to Costa Rica, Thailand, New Zealand or (until recent violence spike) Mexico to arbitrage their Social Security check into greater buying power.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      Yes, but Costa Rica, Thailand, and New Zealand are not barren, desolate places where these retirees need to live "off the grid". They're civilized, populated places; retirees move there because the cost of living is much lower: they can afford a nice home and some servants which they can't afford on the Social Security pension here. With a UBI scheme, this can't be allowed. People on Social Security can do this because they've earned that check by paying into the system over their working years (and in reality, expats like that have more money than just a measly SS check; it's not that cheap to live in those places, especially NZ; these are middle-class and up people with IRAs). UBI is not like this: it's unearned, but it's a dividend paid to citizens in the society for being part of that society, and taking advantage of the fruits of that society (like automated production). It's also an investment: it's meant to allow citizens to be free of severe financial worry, so they can take more risks (like starting a new business), or take more time off for good mental health. Part of the bargain, however, is that they have to actually stay in the society. That UBI check they get needs to be spent in the country, where it can be circulated back into the economy, for it all to work. If they just move to Costa Rica and spend all their UBI money there, that isn't helping the American economy.

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.

Grishnakh 10y ago
No one is taking advantage of those opportunities because there's no jobs there. With a UBI, people who want to just live off the UBI alone may decide to move to places like that, esp. if they're itching to "get away from it all" and live in solitude in a rural setting (in the case of KS anyway). They can't do it now because you can't survive without an income, and there's no jobs there. You can't survive on free land alone. Growing your own food isn't that easy, nor is it very nutritious (early farmers had terrible health and were a foot shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors; eating too much of the same thing is bad for you). Without an income, where are you going to get money for seeds? And how are you going to pay for other things like electricity to run your well pump, or parts to fix your well pump when it breaks? With a UBI, those things suddenly become possible if you really want that kind of lifestyle. As for Detroit, $500 houses aren't very appealing in a place with a reputation for horrible crime, and where again there's no jobs (if there were good jobs there, the houses wouldn't cost $500). But who knows, a UBI might allow a bunch of young hipsters to move into the place and try to turn it into an art colony or something.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  Fair enough. There're examples of that behavior in the retiree community, where a Social Security recipient moves to Costa Rica, Thailand, New Zealand or (until recent violence spike) Mexico to arbitrage their Social Security check into greater buying power.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Yes, but Costa Rica, Thailand, and New Zealand are not barren, desolate places where these retirees need to live "off the grid". They're civilized, populated places; retirees move there because the cost of living is much lower: they can afford a nice home and some servants which they can't afford on the Social Security pension here. With a UBI scheme, this can't be allowed. People on Social Security can do this because they've earned that check by paying into the system over their working years (and in reality, expats like that have more money than just a measly SS check; it's not that cheap to live in those places, especially NZ; these are middle-class and up people with IRAs). UBI is not like this: it's unearned, but it's a dividend paid to citizens in the society for being part of that society, and taking advantage of the fruits of that society (like automated production). It's also an investment: it's meant to allow citizens to be free of severe financial worry, so they can take more risks (like starting a new business), or take more time off for good mental health. Part of the bargain, however, is that they have to actually stay in the society. That UBI check they get needs to be spent in the country, where it can be circulated back into the economy, for it all to work. If they just move to Costa Rica and spend all their UBI money there, that isn't helping the American economy.