5 ms·

> $31,200 * 328,300,000 population of USA = $10,242,960,000,000 To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure.

by danans 8y ago

> $31,200 * 328,300,000 population of USA = $10,242,960,000,000 To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure. Secondly, a UBI isn't a living wage, so $15 in today to dollars is not a starting figure, because that is a wage in exchange for work. UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. In low cost areas it could function as a living wage, and even cover a significant portion of housing.

linuxftw 8y ago
> UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. This merely will keep wages low (what currently is happening) by subsidizing poor pay. Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Without subsidized housing, employers would literally have to pay more or rents would have to go down; there wouldn't be anyone able to sustain the rents. The big difference is, with subsidized housing, society has created a captive poverty tier.
- danans 8y ago
  > Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Many wealthy people who live in rent-controlled or property-tax capped housing benefited handsomely from the huge tax break passed by the previous Congress. Some of them have normal income but large inherited wealthbheld in securities like stocks, which also appreciated due to the corporate cuts. They can afford to live in places their income couldn't otherwise support. Your logic applies equally to that situation. You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. UBI doesn't erase the reality that some people got a better deal in housing, or life, but for a huge number of people who are scraping by, it helps put a floor under them.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    Anyone that is a net payer of taxes benefits from a tax cut. > You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. > At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand, raising rents. Without subsidized housing, wages would need to raise in order for people to live in a given location or rents would need to fail. Failing rents make rental units less profitable, thus more people would be able to purchase homes and get out off the rent treadmill entirely. Solving the affordable housing problem cannot be achieved by subsidizing low wages and high rents.
    - danans 8y ago
      > A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. All systems of tax, benefits, and even property rights are redistribution schemes, including the recent tax cut, which was a redistribution upwards in the income/wealth scale. Redistribution is always relative to the previous state of societal wealth and resource distribution. There is no set point of "fairness". > Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand What exactly is "artificial housing demand"? The need for primary housing for poorer people (as fulfilled by subsidized housing) is anything but artificial. You can't fake needing a roof over your head. The only place you can see anything like "artificial" housing demand is at the high end in demand for second homes, investment real estate, and vacation properties. > Solving the affordable housing problem cannot be achieved by subsidizing low wages and high rents. Agreed. It can only be solved by building more housing. But the purpose of UBI isn't to solve the affordable housing problem. Society can walk and chew gum at the same time by also building more housing where people want to live, which seems like an equally high a political and economic hurdle as UBI. UBI could in some cases, however, give some people the means to move away from high housing cost areas to areas where UBI goes a longer way towards providing housing for them. Many people are stuck in high-housing cost areas because that's the only place that job opportunities exist. This is not just true for professional workers, but also for blue collar and lower income workers who are even less able to afford housing in expensive metropolises.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure. How does that work? Is the UBI of both parents (or, worse, the single parent) supposed to cover the costs of raising their children for those primarily dependent on UBI?
- seba_dos1 8y ago
  Why should it? Currently UBI is $0. Is this supposed to cover these costs too?

by danans 8y ago

linuxftw 8y ago

> UBI is meant to cover the very basics, like a food and varying amounts of housing (depending on the local housing market). For some, it operates as a dividend that helps make ends meet on top of their regular work, especially in high cost areas. This merely will keep wages low (what currently is happening) by subsidizing poor pay. Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Without subsidized housing, employers would literally have to pay more or rents would have to go down; there wouldn't be anyone able to sustain the rents. The big difference is, with subsidized housing, society has created a captive poverty tier.

danans 8y ago
> Many cities have subsidized housing (and/or rent control). The net effect is these people can 'afford' to live in areas while making lower pay. Many wealthy people who live in rent-controlled or property-tax capped housing benefited handsomely from the huge tax break passed by the previous Congress. Some of them have normal income but large inherited wealthbheld in securities like stocks, which also appreciated due to the corporate cuts. They can afford to live in places their income couldn't otherwise support. Your logic applies equally to that situation. You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. UBI doesn't erase the reality that some people got a better deal in housing, or life, but for a huge number of people who are scraping by, it helps put a floor under them.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  Anyone that is a net payer of taxes benefits from a tax cut. > You will always find people who you can argue unfairly benefit from a redistribution scheme. A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. > At least with subsidized housing the program is government administered so it can be accounted for when considering UBI. Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand, raising rents. Without subsidized housing, wages would need to raise in order for people to live in a given location or rents would need to fail. Failing rents make rental units less profitable, thus more people would be able to purchase homes and get out off the rent treadmill entirely. Solving the affordable housing problem cannot be achieved by subsidizing low wages and high rents.
  - danans 8y ago
    > A redistribution scheme is inherently unfair. All systems of tax, benefits, and even property rights are redistribution schemes, including the recent tax cut, which was a redistribution upwards in the income/wealth scale. Redistribution is always relative to the previous state of societal wealth and resource distribution. There is no set point of "fairness". > Subsidized housing creates artificial housing demand What exactly is "artificial housing demand"? The need for primary housing for poorer people (as fulfilled by subsidized housing) is anything but artificial. You can't fake needing a roof over your head. The only place you can see anything like "artificial" housing demand is at the high end in demand for second homes, investment real estate, and vacation properties. > Solving the affordable housing problem cannot be achieved by subsidizing low wages and high rents. Agreed. It can only be solved by building more housing. But the purpose of UBI isn't to solve the affordable housing problem. Society can walk and chew gum at the same time by also building more housing where people want to live, which seems like an equally high a political and economic hurdle as UBI. UBI could in some cases, however, give some people the means to move away from high housing cost areas to areas where UBI goes a longer way towards providing housing for them. Many people are stuck in high-housing cost areas because that's the only place that job opportunities exist. This is not just true for professional workers, but also for blue collar and lower income workers who are even less able to afford housing in expensive metropolises.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> To start with, 24% of the population are minors, so that knocks a few trillion off that figure. How does that work? Is the UBI of both parents (or, worse, the single parent) supposed to cover the costs of raising their children for those primarily dependent on UBI?

seba_dos1 8y ago
Why should it? Currently UBI is $0. Is this supposed to cover these costs too?