I'll preface this with a note that "$1k/mo for SF residents" is not something I'd propose, and possibly not something I'd support. > giving everyone in SF $1k/

I'll preface this with a note that "$1k/mo for SF residents" is not something I'd propose, and possibly not something I'd support. > giving everyone in SF $1k/mo will result in housing rent going up by roughly $1k/mo. It would rise, but there's no reason to expect it to be close to 1/1. Note that this is very different than inflation, where the money they're being asked for is worth less (it might also cause some inflation, but that's a bit of a separate question). It is also very different from loans or grants marked specifically for housing, where recipients can't turn around and spend the money on something else. In this setting, competition remains in full force. And not simply competition of perfect substitutes. Say it rises $500/mo. If I live with parents longer, we save an extra $500/mo. If I take on an extra roommate, we save a collective extra $500/mo. There is plenty of drive to save that money, and those with the flexibility to do so will do so. Some extra cash each month will grant that flexibility to more people than currently have it. That decrease in demand will be reflected in a lower price than your analysis would suggest. (It would also probably mean fewer units bought by investors from outside the city left to sit idle. I've heard mixed reports as to how much of an impact that's had on the present situation.)