3 ms·

The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no r

The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. A CoL adjustment for San Francisco isn't the problem, but rather the fact that San Francisco costs so much to begin with.

marcoperaza 10y ago
The blame for the high cost-of-living in SF lies with the people of California, and especially the people of SF. It'd create a massive moral hazard to have the federal government subsidize that. Run your city like a gravy-train and everyone else will bail you out. People will, I hope, never stand for that. I'm very wary of insulating people from the consequences of their decisions, especially entire political units.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. That isn't a problem. You get a concentration of people collecting a basic income who move into a low cost area, then they have money to buy housing and food and so on so there are jobs needed to construct housing and sell food, so then some of them get those jobs. Then they have even more money which leads to even more jobs etc. and soon enough the low cost area isn't so low cost, but that isn't a problem anymore because now they have jobs.
- fzeroracer 10y ago
  This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. So now you force these poor people out of homes that they used to be able to afford into even poorer areas with worse job security. This is assuming that they're even able to acquire new jobs. And it would only get worse with automation. A basic income that doesn't scale based off of CoL is one that's bound to fail in the face of automation.
  - imtringued 10y ago
    How is a basic income that scales based off of CoL even supposed to work? A UBI causes the cost of living to rise in the short run. If you readjust the UBI the cost of living will rise again and again. Cities like San Francisco will become more attractive because they not only have more jobs they also pay you more UBI. The more people move in, the higher the cost of living if housing supply is constrained. Readjusting the UBI then makes the city even more attractive. At the same time small cities become less attractive because not only are people moving into the city but their UBI is shrinking too.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. A basic income would allow you to move to some town in Oregon or Colorado without having to worry about starving to death until you can find a job as a bouncer or the like. Once you do the presence of people like you creates some other jobs for plumbers and carpenters etc. The idea that this is going to turn every Podunk town in America into San Francisco or New York City and leave the poor with nowhere to live is clearly untrue.
skybrian 10y ago
Many retirees choose to live in Florida because they no longer have a job and would rather live somewhere sunny with low expenses. UBI would have a similar effect - maybe you still want to have a job, but you can choose to accept a somewhat lower paying job to live somewhere nice. It would also put less pressure on places like San Francisco. Being less dependent on jobs is a good thing. We should allow this migration to happen naturally, rather than subsidizing people to stay where they are.
iopq 10y ago
San Francisco costs so much because so many people want to live there. Not every person who wants to live there should be able to live there - there's only so much housing in the city.
chongli 10y ago
Yeah. The solution is to property tax those businesses out of the high cost of living areas. If basic income were paid for entirely by a new progressive property tax (or even better, a land value tax) it could ratchet down the wealth inequality, not just the income inequality.

marcoperaza 10y ago

The blame for the high cost-of-living in SF lies with the people of California, and especially the people of SF. It'd create a massive moral hazard to have the federal government subsidize that. Run your city like a gravy-train and everyone else will bail you out. People will, I hope, never stand for that. I'm very wary of insulating people from the consequences of their decisions, especially entire political units.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> The problem of course with that argument is that people also need to move into higher-cost areas in order to find jobs for certain industries. If there was no regional adjustment that encourages individuals to stay put. Poor people congregate in low-cost areas with low job opportunities. That isn't a problem. You get a concentration of people collecting a basic income who move into a low cost area, then they have money to buy housing and food and so on so there are jobs needed to construct housing and sell food, so then some of them get those jobs. Then they have even more money which leads to even more jobs etc. and soon enough the low cost area isn't so low cost, but that isn't a problem anymore because now they have jobs.

fzeroracer 10y ago
This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. So now you force these poor people out of homes that they used to be able to afford into even poorer areas with worse job security. This is assuming that they're even able to acquire new jobs. And it would only get worse with automation. A basic income that doesn't scale based off of CoL is one that's bound to fail in the face of automation.
- imtringued 10y ago
  How is a basic income that scales based off of CoL even supposed to work? A UBI causes the cost of living to rise in the short run. If you readjust the UBI the cost of living will rise again and again. Cities like San Francisco will become more attractive because they not only have more jobs they also pay you more UBI. The more people move in, the higher the cost of living if housing supply is constrained. Readjusting the UBI then makes the city even more attractive. At the same time small cities become less attractive because not only are people moving into the city but their UBI is shrinking too.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > This is far too simplistic, especially when you consider the issue of gentrification and the rise of housing costs associated with it. You ignore that this leads back to the same issue: Poor people are now living in a higher-cost area where their previously held job no longer suffices to live. A basic income would allow you to move to some town in Oregon or Colorado without having to worry about starving to death until you can find a job as a bouncer or the like. Once you do the presence of people like you creates some other jobs for plumbers and carpenters etc. The idea that this is going to turn every Podunk town in America into San Francisco or New York City and leave the poor with nowhere to live is clearly untrue.

skybrian 10y ago

Many retirees choose to live in Florida because they no longer have a job and would rather live somewhere sunny with low expenses. UBI would have a similar effect - maybe you still want to have a job, but you can choose to accept a somewhat lower paying job to live somewhere nice. It would also put less pressure on places like San Francisco. Being less dependent on jobs is a good thing. We should allow this migration to happen naturally, rather than subsidizing people to stay where they are.

iopq 10y ago

San Francisco costs so much because so many people want to live there. Not every person who wants to live there should be able to live there - there's only so much housing in the city.

chongli 10y ago

Yeah. The solution is to property tax those businesses out of the high cost of living areas. If basic income were paid for entirely by a new progressive property tax (or even better, a land value tax) it could ratchet down the wealth inequality, not just the income inequality.