3 ms·

That's always been what I wondered as well. UBI solves everything, except for the part where an actor who knows explicitly that all of his tenants will be getti

by rarec 8y ago

That's always been what I wondered as well. UBI solves everything, except for the part where an actor who knows explicitly that all of his tenants will be getting a flat amount per month, then why not raise prices to capture some of that as well? Why wouldn't everything just increase in price slightly, everyone can afford a little bit more now.

lr4444lr 8y ago
I'd presume defenders would say, because with the increased purchasing power at hand, there would be more incentive for developers to build. When instead the money is squandered through public housing, homeless shelters, halfway houses, and other intermediaries, the housing is slow to be built, with low accountability for either landlord or tenant to get and receive their value.
pmiller2 8y ago
I'm focused specifically on housing because approximately everybody needs somewhere to live. That ought to raise purchase prices and rent prices. In effect, it would mean anyone who bought before UBI raised the price would be subsidized by those who buy or rent afterward. It seems like roughly the same economics as rent control: if I, as a landlord, own rent controlled units, then I want to make as much money off them as if they were not rent controlled. Unless I can get them reclassified, the only way to do so is to raise the monthly price so that over the course of an average tenancy, the numbers add up to what I could have rented the unit for without rent control. What you end up with is effectively a Ponzi scheme.
stouset 8y ago
These are really excellent points I hadn’t considered. On the other hand, let’s run the experiment the other way. We currently have significant numbers of people working with no hope of financial stability in their future. Will taxing them to fill the coffers of the rich improve their situation? Given the current situation of increasing wealth inequality seemingly exacerbating existing problems, I can’t imagine that this is a promising approach. Since UBI is essentially the most generalized form of a benefits program, I really have to hope that it works. If it doesn’t, that seems damning to other benefits programs which are inefficiently (and IMO ineffectively, due to perverse incentives) means-tested. If it doesn’t, and if anti-UBI is virtually axiomatically a bad idea, then I’m not sure what’s left.
- ddingus 8y ago
  Public Works, using the post office as a model. We really do need to be building a lot of stuff, and or fixing stuff we have already done. That work is a direct stimulus, can pay pretty well, and benefits everyone public and private alike. Additionally, the returns from it can pay down all of the expensive bombs and non returned items that we currently spend or have spent on. An example is the interstate highway project. Our current president once the toll that, which is really stupid, but similar kinds of projects will deliver similar kinds of returns. The interstate highway project is still paying us great dividends years and years after it was created. Last figure I knew was 6/8 maybe 10 times the dollar spent. The post office still getting a lot of bad press right now, is actually exemplary and its performance in return to the public. It is entirely self-funded, doesn't take any tax dollars at all, pays good wages, has a lot of value to the public, and the benefits are worth working there. Other self-funded public works could work the very same way. Those that use it pay for it, and we all will benefit from the economic development. An example might beat networks, another example might be first line Healthcare, there are many to choose from. One that I've been thinking about lately is energy. Well distributed public investments in energy of all forms, managed on a higher level through something like a post office, might really pay us off, and deliver a lot of options making energy competitive and well distributed. The key thing to understanding all of this is government has agency, it's for us, by us, and we need to employ it to our mutual good. Yes, this will compete with Private Industry, but they should be competed with, otherwise they'll accumulate wealth stuff in the bank, and complain about the lack of opportunities to invest and make returns. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it's a stalemate. One we don't need. I knocked this out really quick on Google Voice. I apologize in advance if this is a bit of a mess. Hopefully the gist comes through.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Are you saying that every $1 spent on UBI is expected to return $X > 1 and that $X > $Y (where $Y is the return on current social service programs)? If so, I would say [citation needed], but, if proven, that would be a great argument for UBI.
    - 8y ago
modeless 8y ago
> everyone can afford a little bit more now. This is not true. UBI doesn't create money out of nowhere. It redistributes existing money. Poor people can afford more, and rich people can afford less, because taxes increase.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Rich people spend less relative to their wealth and income than poor people do. That means more people are going to be buying more things, increasing demand, which... raises prices.
  - modeless 8y ago
    Sure, the same is true of anything that increases the incomes of poor people. There's no reason to believe that the price increase would cancel out the entire benefit of UBI.
peterwwillis 8y ago
> UBI solves everything ?

by rarec 8y ago

lr4444lr 8y ago

I'd presume defenders would say, because with the increased purchasing power at hand, there would be more incentive for developers to build. When instead the money is squandered through public housing, homeless shelters, halfway houses, and other intermediaries, the housing is slow to be built, with low accountability for either landlord or tenant to get and receive their value.

pmiller2 8y ago

I'm focused specifically on housing because approximately everybody needs somewhere to live. That ought to raise purchase prices and rent prices. In effect, it would mean anyone who bought before UBI raised the price would be subsidized by those who buy or rent afterward. It seems like roughly the same economics as rent control: if I, as a landlord, own rent controlled units, then I want to make as much money off them as if they were not rent controlled. Unless I can get them reclassified, the only way to do so is to raise the monthly price so that over the course of an average tenancy, the numbers add up to what I could have rented the unit for without rent control. What you end up with is effectively a Ponzi scheme.

stouset 8y ago

These are really excellent points I hadn’t considered. On the other hand, let’s run the experiment the other way. We currently have significant numbers of people working with no hope of financial stability in their future. Will taxing them to fill the coffers of the rich improve their situation? Given the current situation of increasing wealth inequality seemingly exacerbating existing problems, I can’t imagine that this is a promising approach. Since UBI is essentially the most generalized form of a benefits program, I really have to hope that it works. If it doesn’t, that seems damning to other benefits programs which are inefficiently (and IMO ineffectively, due to perverse incentives) means-tested. If it doesn’t, and if anti-UBI is virtually axiomatically a bad idea, then I’m not sure what’s left.

ddingus 8y ago
Public Works, using the post office as a model. We really do need to be building a lot of stuff, and or fixing stuff we have already done. That work is a direct stimulus, can pay pretty well, and benefits everyone public and private alike. Additionally, the returns from it can pay down all of the expensive bombs and non returned items that we currently spend or have spent on. An example is the interstate highway project. Our current president once the toll that, which is really stupid, but similar kinds of projects will deliver similar kinds of returns. The interstate highway project is still paying us great dividends years and years after it was created. Last figure I knew was 6/8 maybe 10 times the dollar spent. The post office still getting a lot of bad press right now, is actually exemplary and its performance in return to the public. It is entirely self-funded, doesn't take any tax dollars at all, pays good wages, has a lot of value to the public, and the benefits are worth working there. Other self-funded public works could work the very same way. Those that use it pay for it, and we all will benefit from the economic development. An example might beat networks, another example might be first line Healthcare, there are many to choose from. One that I've been thinking about lately is energy. Well distributed public investments in energy of all forms, managed on a higher level through something like a post office, might really pay us off, and deliver a lot of options making energy competitive and well distributed. The key thing to understanding all of this is government has agency, it's for us, by us, and we need to employ it to our mutual good. Yes, this will compete with Private Industry, but they should be competed with, otherwise they'll accumulate wealth stuff in the bank, and complain about the lack of opportunities to invest and make returns. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it's a stalemate. One we don't need. I knocked this out really quick on Google Voice. I apologize in advance if this is a bit of a mess. Hopefully the gist comes through.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Are you saying that every $1 spent on UBI is expected to return $X > 1 and that $X > $Y (where $Y is the return on current social service programs)? If so, I would say [citation needed], but, if proven, that would be a great argument for UBI.
  - 8y ago

modeless 8y ago

> everyone can afford a little bit more now. This is not true. UBI doesn't create money out of nowhere. It redistributes existing money. Poor people can afford more, and rich people can afford less, because taxes increase.

pmiller2 8y ago
Rich people spend less relative to their wealth and income than poor people do. That means more people are going to be buying more things, increasing demand, which... raises prices.
- modeless 8y ago
  Sure, the same is true of anything that increases the incomes of poor people. There's no reason to believe that the price increase would cancel out the entire benefit of UBI.

peterwwillis 8y ago

> UBI solves everything ?