6 ms·

I think the other poster's argument is that the price of the basics will be artificially inflated as those sellers know that low income/basic income people have

by tdfx 10y ago

I think the other poster's argument is that the price of the basics will be artificially inflated as those sellers know that low income/basic income people have additional money to spend on required items. The price of a penthouse apartment will not increase, but a slumlord that knows the government will be mailing checks to everyone would certainly have no qualms with raising the rent by a few hundred dollars to accommodate the extra income he knows his tenants have available. EDIT: To add to this, it's worth pointing out that many corner stores in low income neighborhoods already take advantage of peoples' lack of access to easy transportation to charge unusually high prices for common convenience store items. It's already more expensive to be poor, and I think basic income would just increase the predatory practices that are already happening.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
I agree that it's hard to say what would happen with regards to rent seekers, but corner stores aren't in the same situation. Their increased costs are either due to the rents being increased by the person who owns the building, or the simple fact that they do not have economies of scale so they end up with higher prices on the items that don't expire quickly in order to make a profit as they won't make much off of gasoline or milk, for example. There are plenty of discount stores that are working their way in, e.g. Dollar General, Family Dollar, but they don't have control over the rents either and in alot of larger cities they also are facing opposition from the small businesses that would be out of business since they would have no chance of competing on price at that point. Whether having every small bodega or other small retail shop replaced by 7-11, Dollar General, Family Dollar, etc. and yet another avenue for access to the middle class shutdown is worth the affordable prices for everyone else is debatable. I can see both sides of this anyways.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
Why would people stay in expensive slums when they can e.g. move to countryside and live there for a fraction of those money on basic income? I think predatory practices will decrease because people will be voting with their feet, no longer constrained by where they live.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  People are social animals. Not everybody will move even if they were personally better off by moving. Also not everybody can afford to move.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    > can afford to move Basic income is precisely about "afford" part. Those who won't move will benefit too because landlords will have to work on retention.
    - amazon_not 10y ago
      > Basic income is precisely about "afford" part. This assumes that basic income either includes an allowance for moving or contains enough of a surplus over basic needs that savings can be accumulated.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        I actually think that communities might sponsor your moving on their turf as this will mean you'll spend your BI there for prolonged time.
- douche 10y ago
  One of the most attractive aspects of basic income is exactly this. $10000 a year stretches a lot farther out in the boonies than it does in SF or NYC, and if you don't have to be there to work, that opens up a lot of degrees of freedom.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    At the same time, it does create potential for severe clustering based on income, possibly resulting "basic income ghettos", with all the problems that entails.
    - 10y ago
orangecat 10y ago
a slumlord that knows the government will be mailing checks to everyone would certainly have no qualms with raising the rent by a few hundred dollars to accommodate the extra income he knows his tenants have available He can try, but then he'd lose out to competing landlords who don't raise rents as much (or at all). It's like gas stations; owners know that people are willing to buy almost as much gas at $3/gallon as they are at $2. But when the price of oil falls, they can't just keep charging $3, because their competitors will charge less and take all their customers.

by tdfx 10y ago

nikdaheratik 10y ago

I agree that it's hard to say what would happen with regards to rent seekers, but corner stores aren't in the same situation. Their increased costs are either due to the rents being increased by the person who owns the building, or the simple fact that they do not have economies of scale so they end up with higher prices on the items that don't expire quickly in order to make a profit as they won't make much off of gasoline or milk, for example. There are plenty of discount stores that are working their way in, e.g. Dollar General, Family Dollar, but they don't have control over the rents either and in alot of larger cities they also are facing opposition from the small businesses that would be out of business since they would have no chance of competing on price at that point. Whether having every small bodega or other small retail shop replaced by 7-11, Dollar General, Family Dollar, etc. and yet another avenue for access to the middle class shutdown is worth the affordable prices for everyone else is debatable. I can see both sides of this anyways.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

Why would people stay in expensive slums when they can e.g. move to countryside and live there for a fraction of those money on basic income? I think predatory practices will decrease because people will be voting with their feet, no longer constrained by where they live.

amazon_not 10y ago
People are social animals. Not everybody will move even if they were personally better off by moving. Also not everybody can afford to move.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  > can afford to move Basic income is precisely about "afford" part. Those who won't move will benefit too because landlords will have to work on retention.
  - amazon_not 10y ago
    > Basic income is precisely about "afford" part. This assumes that basic income either includes an allowance for moving or contains enough of a surplus over basic needs that savings can be accumulated.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      I actually think that communities might sponsor your moving on their turf as this will mean you'll spend your BI there for prolonged time.
douche 10y ago
One of the most attractive aspects of basic income is exactly this. $10000 a year stretches a lot farther out in the boonies than it does in SF or NYC, and if you don't have to be there to work, that opens up a lot of degrees of freedom.
- int_19h 10y ago
  At the same time, it does create potential for severe clustering based on income, possibly resulting "basic income ghettos", with all the problems that entails.
  - 10y ago

orangecat 10y ago

a slumlord that knows the government will be mailing checks to everyone would certainly have no qualms with raising the rent by a few hundred dollars to accommodate the extra income he knows his tenants have available He can try, but then he'd lose out to competing landlords who don't raise rents as much (or at all). It's like gas stations; owners know that people are willing to buy almost as much gas at $3/gallon as they are at $2. But when the price of oil falls, they can't just keep charging $3, because their competitors will charge less and take all their customers.