3 ms·

I haven't studied UBI a ton, but it seems to me like prices on non-discretionary goods would increase to absorb the additional income and the people who set tho

I haven't studied UBI a ton, but it seems to me like prices on non-discretionary goods would increase to absorb the additional income and the people who set those prices would be the ones benefiting i.e. the people already benefiting now. Rent seems like it would be a big one. I bet if you just up and gave everyone an extra $500/month then rents would rise by $500/month and house prices would increase commensurately, which is great if you're a homeowner but not so great if you're a renter (and many of the people who we are trying to help with this are renters).

JulianMorrison 8y ago
It would probably need to be linked to rent controls. Or honestly, rent nationalization. I do not feel that private landlords for residential property are a thing that should exist. They really are nothing more than accumulating a sufficient pile of money to exclude people from a human necessity, and then using the leverage to squeeze people.
gowld 8y ago
> prices on non-discretionary goods would increase Only if those are demand-priced, not commodities. That's a problem whether UBI exists or not, and therefore needs to be addressed in conjunction, not instead. Anyone who saves any money at all would benefit from increased income.
- philipodonnell 8y ago
  Can you provide examples of the difference? Are you saying commodity pricing isn't demand-based? Or am I misinterpreting you here? I don't think there are many good and services typically purchased by low-income individuals that are not demand-priced.
stevenwoo 8y ago
There are multiple studies of Alaska's Permanent Fund which supplies much less than you are quoting, only around a thousand to a couple of thousand a year per resident, and it's making a slight increase in people seeking work, counterintuitively it causes no increase of people working less than before which some opponents hypothesized. Obviously Alaska is special case compared to lower 48:low population/hard to get certain goods/not a lot of immigrants. https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic-income-policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic... Also, there appears to be no effect comparable to any of the overheated lower 48 coastal housing markets as well. https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/
- philipodonnell 8y ago
  Whether it results in seeking work is different from how prices respond, in fact, an increase in those seeking work may be a direct result of the cost of living increasing. The subsidy in Alaska is per person, thus two families in identical apartments may receive different levels of subsidy. If at any point the management company observes that their tenants are receiving more subsidies (say the average family size per apartment increases) then they could choose to raise rental rates to try to capture this. But it raises the rates on all family sizes, so a 2-person family is now paying more as a % basis than a 4-person family, so it would make it more likely that someone from the 2-person family may need to work more/get a part-time job. Obviously that's a drastic simplification, but I think it illustrates the problem with stimulating demand without trying to control supply or pricing directly.
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    Yes, those are all true and the per person thing is pointed out in the article. However, we do not see a big negative from Alaska level UBI so it seems it's worth experimenting with it in other places and at other levels.

JulianMorrison 8y ago

It would probably need to be linked to rent controls. Or honestly, rent nationalization. I do not feel that private landlords for residential property are a thing that should exist. They really are nothing more than accumulating a sufficient pile of money to exclude people from a human necessity, and then using the leverage to squeeze people.

gowld 8y ago

> prices on non-discretionary goods would increase Only if those are demand-priced, not commodities. That's a problem whether UBI exists or not, and therefore needs to be addressed in conjunction, not instead. Anyone who saves any money at all would benefit from increased income.

philipodonnell 8y ago
Can you provide examples of the difference? Are you saying commodity pricing isn't demand-based? Or am I misinterpreting you here? I don't think there are many good and services typically purchased by low-income individuals that are not demand-priced.

stevenwoo 8y ago

There are multiple studies of Alaska's Permanent Fund which supplies much less than you are quoting, only around a thousand to a couple of thousand a year per resident, and it's making a slight increase in people seeking work, counterintuitively it causes no increase of people working less than before which some opponents hypothesized. Obviously Alaska is special case compared to lower 48:low population/hard to get certain goods/not a lot of immigrants. https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic-income-policies-dont-cause-people-leave-workforce-study-finds https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2018/02/14/universal-basic... Also, there appears to be no effect comparable to any of the overheated lower 48 coastal housing markets as well. https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/ak/home-values/

philipodonnell 8y ago
Whether it results in seeking work is different from how prices respond, in fact, an increase in those seeking work may be a direct result of the cost of living increasing. The subsidy in Alaska is per person, thus two families in identical apartments may receive different levels of subsidy. If at any point the management company observes that their tenants are receiving more subsidies (say the average family size per apartment increases) then they could choose to raise rental rates to try to capture this. But it raises the rates on all family sizes, so a 2-person family is now paying more as a % basis than a 4-person family, so it would make it more likely that someone from the 2-person family may need to work more/get a part-time job. Obviously that's a drastic simplification, but I think it illustrates the problem with stimulating demand without trying to control supply or pricing directly.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  Yes, those are all true and the per person thing is pointed out in the article. However, we do not see a big negative from Alaska level UBI so it seems it's worth experimenting with it in other places and at other levels.