7 ms·

I just don't get the logic. If, today, the trailer park owner is not required to provide adequate sanitation (which strikes me as heinous btw), why would UBI c

I just don't get the logic. If, today, the trailer park owner is not required to provide adequate sanitation (which strikes me as heinous btw), why would UBI change that? Either the state couldn't care less or their are laws that are being flouted. Either way, it's not clear why a change in distribution methodology would change either. The bit of your argument that I completely agree would occur is that the trailer park owner will charge the renters more. That's pretty much a given. Whether or not the renters will receive anything for that rent change is likely to be an orthogonal question. My concern with UBI isn't that it won't work. It's that it's a right winger's wet dream. I mean, imagine. With a great fanfare of fairness, we give everyone $x00/month. Dismantle all the means tested benefits for pensioners, disabled etc. Then watch as successive governments either ratchet it up or ratchet it down depending on their persuasion and the state of the economy. And as a target for when things get tight, it's a bloody big one. The only really meaningful change from the status quo would be that the the truly disadvantaged would get royally stiffed.

cmiles74 9y ago
You make a good point that landlords will increase their rent to eat up the majority of the basic income increase and that's a real concern. I'm not sure what can be done about that. What I think might be a positive aspect of basic income is that we can expect everyone to have more money, so we can expect them to spend some of that money to improve their situation. The sanitation issue in this trailer park is one example I thought of as the story was posted recently. In my opinion, when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way. If employment isn't growing in their location there's no way to increase their income without basic income. Tax breaks will not help them as their income is already so minimal.
- lucozade 9y ago
  > when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way You are, of course, correct. Why? Because the investment usually needs some form of capital outlay and folk don't have the capital nor have reasonable access to capital. And UBI, assuming it's at a non-trivial level, will not solve the former problem but most definitely will the latter. Again, imagine what happens when you give a lot of poor folk access to a regular, guaranteed, future income stream. Overnight, you've pretty much taken all the default risk out of the payday loan business. Let's assume the first call is from a septic tank company. You can have that $15k tank installed next week! What's the monthly payment on that going to be? And what if it's not the sanitation company who calls. What if it's a white goods company or an AC company or an auto financer? And note, I'm not arguing that poor people make poor financial decisions. Some do, some don't. Like rich folk. But these are all things that would genuinely make their lives better. And, they are very likely to get offered them. At a "reasonable" interest rate. So there's no solution? I don't know. I do know that it can be substantially better than it is today without diving into the unknown. It's not as if no welfare state models have been attempted to varying degrees of success (for varying definitions of success). But that's really the point. If you want to "fix" poverty, the problem isn't the distribution model, it's actually having people want to fix poverty.
013a 9y ago
I agree. UBI is such a fascinating idea, but much like communism it feels like an extreme that will never work in practice. Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy which absolutely affects supply/demand for the things everyone needs (food, shelter). Food might be fine because there's a lot of competition, but landlords? Rental prices are almost completely set by market demand, not cost of service. Its possible UBI could help sidestep this by allowing more people to purchase homes, but housing supply is constrained in many urban areas today; adding more capital to that market will increase prices. Granted, this isn't as bad a thing as money entering the renter markets, because that money just goes to build more developments and eat up more land that could be owned by people to build equity instead of corporations. But its still something to keep in mind.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy No, it's not, in most proposals, since it's funded by a combination of new taxes and displacing other spending programs. If you fund it by printing money, sure, it's new money, but that's not what is usually proposed with UBI.
  - AaronM 9y ago
    If those new taxes primarily target the rich and large corporations it would be, since a disproportionate amount of money they earn is not being spent.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Yes, housing prices are constrained in some urban areas and there increased income would tend to go towards increases in rent. But there's more competition from low cost areas if people have an income that's not tied to a job. Take a look at social security to see how this plays out. Why do you think so many retirees move to Florida?

cmiles74 9y ago

You make a good point that landlords will increase their rent to eat up the majority of the basic income increase and that's a real concern. I'm not sure what can be done about that. What I think might be a positive aspect of basic income is that we can expect everyone to have more money, so we can expect them to spend some of that money to improve their situation. The sanitation issue in this trailer park is one example I thought of as the story was posted recently. In my opinion, when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way. If employment isn't growing in their location there's no way to increase their income without basic income. Tax breaks will not help them as their income is already so minimal.

lucozade 9y ago
> when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way You are, of course, correct. Why? Because the investment usually needs some form of capital outlay and folk don't have the capital nor have reasonable access to capital. And UBI, assuming it's at a non-trivial level, will not solve the former problem but most definitely will the latter. Again, imagine what happens when you give a lot of poor folk access to a regular, guaranteed, future income stream. Overnight, you've pretty much taken all the default risk out of the payday loan business. Let's assume the first call is from a septic tank company. You can have that $15k tank installed next week! What's the monthly payment on that going to be? And what if it's not the sanitation company who calls. What if it's a white goods company or an AC company or an auto financer? And note, I'm not arguing that poor people make poor financial decisions. Some do, some don't. Like rich folk. But these are all things that would genuinely make their lives better. And, they are very likely to get offered them. At a "reasonable" interest rate. So there's no solution? I don't know. I do know that it can be substantially better than it is today without diving into the unknown. It's not as if no welfare state models have been attempted to varying degrees of success (for varying definitions of success). But that's really the point. If you want to "fix" poverty, the problem isn't the distribution model, it's actually having people want to fix poverty.

013a 9y ago

I agree. UBI is such a fascinating idea, but much like communism it feels like an extreme that will never work in practice. Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy which absolutely affects supply/demand for the things everyone needs (food, shelter). Food might be fine because there's a lot of competition, but landlords? Rental prices are almost completely set by market demand, not cost of service. Its possible UBI could help sidestep this by allowing more people to purchase homes, but housing supply is constrained in many urban areas today; adding more capital to that market will increase prices. Granted, this isn't as bad a thing as money entering the renter markets, because that money just goes to build more developments and eat up more land that could be owned by people to build equity instead of corporations. But its still something to keep in mind.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Everyone gets an extra $1000/month. Great. That's extra money flowing into an economy No, it's not, in most proposals, since it's funded by a combination of new taxes and displacing other spending programs. If you fund it by printing money, sure, it's new money, but that's not what is usually proposed with UBI.
- AaronM 9y ago
  If those new taxes primarily target the rich and large corporations it would be, since a disproportionate amount of money they earn is not being spent.
skybrian 9y ago
Yes, housing prices are constrained in some urban areas and there increased income would tend to go towards increases in rent. But there's more competition from low cost areas if people have an income that's not tied to a job. Take a look at social security to see how this plays out. Why do you think so many retirees move to Florida?