3 ms·

> The basics are largely standardized items. Do you think that if everyone in that story got a $2k BI check that the huts they live in would continue to rent f

> The basics are largely standardized items. Do you think that if everyone in that story got a $2k BI check that the huts they live in would continue to rent for $300? Doubtful - very doubtful.

hpcjoe 9y ago
Exactly. Rent seeking behavior, to extract more from tenants would be expected. This would spread. Causing other prices to rise.
- ianai 9y ago
  There’s not going to be that much UBI to extract. Plus the assured UBI would empower people to move away from excise rent seekers.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    UBI is going to go in the order of priority for: * roof over ones' head, no matter how shitty * food, no matter how shitty * minimum utilities * booze, drugs * other the first 3 would capture everything just as they do now.
  - hpcjoe 9y ago
    I am going to assume I am more cynical than you on this. Rent seeking behavior is usually aimed hardest at those least likely to protest, or without resources to protest. Someone can rent seek another if the other person has no other effective choices, regardless of UBI or not. That is, UBI in isolation will likely fail. UBI is likely, at best, a bandaid, and should not be isolated. Should be part of a broader scope of programs that help people jumpstart a move, training, etc. That said, I do think we need it[1]. But it should be combined with other programs that help people (not redistributive programs per se, but things that help people do the things that they can't do or even consider doing now). [1] I think we need it, as disruption will continue across industries, geos, and will impact people in very negative ways. So we need a way for them to help themselves while they consider options. If this means helping them get mobile and settled at a new location, help finding a job, and training, that could be tremendous if linked with UBI.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Man, that's like trying to move to a state that has less nitrogen in its atmosphere. Rent-seekers are everywhere. If you go anywhere they currently are not, they will follow the scent of your wallet to wherever you end up.
MaysonL 9y ago
They wouldn't continue to live in $300/month huts. They'd be able to move.
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  You assume they would. As soon as the UBI hits, the 300$ huts become $1300 huts. And we have the same pattern all over again. Enable them to mobile, independent of UBI. Enable them to get food, health care (real stuff, not the obamacare crap[1]), job training, child care (if needed), relocation and housing assistance. Don't hand them money for these things (apart from UBI), but help them with a health card that handles medical/dental/etc. Give them a "credit" card that they can use with a set of well scrutinized vendors for relo/housing. Etc. [1] when my $dayjob-1 died, I had to sign my family up for obamacare. About the same amount I paid for my old good plan. Much higher deductibles, covered almost no meds, little hospitalization. The thing needs to be fixed, not repealed. Fixing it is going to be hard as it was designed to fail and be replaced with single payer. So there is that.

> The basics are largely standardized items. Do you think that if everyone in that story got a $2k BI check that the huts they live in would continue to rent for $300? Doubtful - very doubtful.

hpcjoe 9y ago

Exactly. Rent seeking behavior, to extract more from tenants would be expected. This would spread. Causing other prices to rise.

ianai 9y ago
There’s not going to be that much UBI to extract. Plus the assured UBI would empower people to move away from excise rent seekers.
- notyourday 9y ago
  UBI is going to go in the order of priority for: * roof over ones' head, no matter how shitty * food, no matter how shitty * minimum utilities * booze, drugs * other the first 3 would capture everything just as they do now.
- hpcjoe 9y ago
  I am going to assume I am more cynical than you on this. Rent seeking behavior is usually aimed hardest at those least likely to protest, or without resources to protest. Someone can rent seek another if the other person has no other effective choices, regardless of UBI or not. That is, UBI in isolation will likely fail. UBI is likely, at best, a bandaid, and should not be isolated. Should be part of a broader scope of programs that help people jumpstart a move, training, etc. That said, I do think we need it[1]. But it should be combined with other programs that help people (not redistributive programs per se, but things that help people do the things that they can't do or even consider doing now). [1] I think we need it, as disruption will continue across industries, geos, and will impact people in very negative ways. So we need a way for them to help themselves while they consider options. If this means helping them get mobile and settled at a new location, help finding a job, and training, that could be tremendous if linked with UBI.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Man, that's like trying to move to a state that has less nitrogen in its atmosphere. Rent-seekers are everywhere. If you go anywhere they currently are not, they will follow the scent of your wallet to wherever you end up.

MaysonL 9y ago

They wouldn't continue to live in $300/month huts. They'd be able to move.

hpcjoe 9y ago
You assume they would. As soon as the UBI hits, the 300$ huts become $1300 huts. And we have the same pattern all over again. Enable them to mobile, independent of UBI. Enable them to get food, health care (real stuff, not the obamacare crap[1]), job training, child care (if needed), relocation and housing assistance. Don't hand them money for these things (apart from UBI), but help them with a health card that handles medical/dental/etc. Give them a "credit" card that they can use with a set of well scrutinized vendors for relo/housing. Etc. [1] when my $dayjob-1 died, I had to sign my family up for obamacare. About the same amount I paid for my old good plan. Much higher deductibles, covered almost no meds, little hospitalization. The thing needs to be fixed, not repealed. Fixing it is going to be hard as it was designed to fail and be replaced with single payer. So there is that.