4 ms·

> If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, i

> If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. What you're describing is a special case of the exact sort of inflation that critics are afraid of (more money for tenants across the board just means more money that rentiers can extract). If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system.

cmiles74 9y ago
I think the issue is that in this case the municipality does not have a functioning sanitation system. Requiring that the municipality implement such a system would require a pretty massive outlay of money and would likely be a tough sell: the state would need to require it of the municipality and somehow fund it. That said, you make a good point that landlords (in many cases) extract as much "value" from their tenants as they possibly can. If they knew each tenant was getting a fixed amount of additional income we could expect them to increase rents by approximately that amount and that would be bad. My example was optimistic in that it presumed this would not be the case. I do think my basic idea is sound: if people had a basic income of a certain amount, then we could expect systems supporting those people to improve (to some degree) by a portion of that amount.
lotu 9y ago
> If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system. That's assuming the only objective was to fix trailor park sewage, when realistically there are thousands or maybe tens of thousands of similar problems that different populations. The federal government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. If they tried lots of needs would end up overlooked. So instead you provide the UBI and let the money get directed to the most pressing need.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > The government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. We already made the assumption that they do, with the original claim " If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system". Without that requirement, you're taking on the risk that the rentiers will extract the additional income and make no changes to the sewage system. That assumes a few things: (1) The trailer park owners don't currently have the money to building a sewage system (2) The lack of money is the only reason that the owners aren't building a sewage system (3) The owners don't have other goals that they prioritize higher than providing a sewage system to tenants (4) The amount that the rentiers would be able to extract from the stipend would be enough to cover a sewage system I'm generally pretty sympathetic to the premise that allowing rational actors to choose how to spend their limited resources tends to produce results that ~everyone agrees are better than top-down planned efforts. But when you're talking about a situation in which the negotiating leverage of the two parties is so drastically imbalanced, and a problem which has such wide-reaching externalities as this one does, that's a really big leap of faith to take. Compare that to the alternative, where we've identified a concrete problem that we're looking to solve, and we use a normal process for budgeting and directing funds towards a targeted goal.
skybrian 9y ago
Inflation is happening if prices go up without any benefit to customers. It's not what's happening if there is an increase in quality. This sounds like something in between where there's a law requiring an increase in quality. I expect that wouldn't be necessary. People with (a little) more money have more options and can vote with their feet by moving to a better trailer park.

cmiles74 9y ago

I think the issue is that in this case the municipality does not have a functioning sanitation system. Requiring that the municipality implement such a system would require a pretty massive outlay of money and would likely be a tough sell: the state would need to require it of the municipality and somehow fund it. That said, you make a good point that landlords (in many cases) extract as much "value" from their tenants as they possibly can. If they knew each tenant was getting a fixed amount of additional income we could expect them to increase rents by approximately that amount and that would be bad. My example was optimistic in that it presumed this would not be the case. I do think my basic idea is sound: if people had a basic income of a certain amount, then we could expect systems supporting those people to improve (to some degree) by a portion of that amount.

lotu 9y ago

> If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system. That's assuming the only objective was to fix trailor park sewage, when realistically there are thousands or maybe tens of thousands of similar problems that different populations. The federal government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. If they tried lots of needs would end up overlooked. So instead you provide the UBI and let the money get directed to the most pressing need.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> The government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. We already made the assumption that they do, with the original claim " If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system". Without that requirement, you're taking on the risk that the rentiers will extract the additional income and make no changes to the sewage system. That assumes a few things: (1) The trailer park owners don't currently have the money to building a sewage system (2) The lack of money is the only reason that the owners aren't building a sewage system (3) The owners don't have other goals that they prioritize higher than providing a sewage system to tenants (4) The amount that the rentiers would be able to extract from the stipend would be enough to cover a sewage system I'm generally pretty sympathetic to the premise that allowing rational actors to choose how to spend their limited resources tends to produce results that ~everyone agrees are better than top-down planned efforts. But when you're talking about a situation in which the negotiating leverage of the two parties is so drastically imbalanced, and a problem which has such wide-reaching externalities as this one does, that's a really big leap of faith to take. Compare that to the alternative, where we've identified a concrete problem that we're looking to solve, and we use a normal process for budgeting and directing funds towards a targeted goal.

skybrian 9y ago

Inflation is happening if prices go up without any benefit to customers. It's not what's happening if there is an increase in quality. This sounds like something in between where there's a law requiring an increase in quality. I expect that wouldn't be necessary. People with (a little) more money have more options and can vote with their feet by moving to a better trailer park.