5 ms·

Many places in the USA and elsewhere have NIMBY zoning policies that prevent new housing and / or dense housing from being developed, slow it down, make it sign

by novok 7y ago

Many places in the USA and elsewhere have NIMBY zoning policies that prevent new housing and / or dense housing from being developed, slow it down, make it significantly more expensive than it needs to be with 2:1 parking requirements, reduce property taxes for long term holders and so on. This reduces new housing being developed in response to demand and thus increases the price when there is an increase in demand by an inordinate amount. UBI will increase demand universally across the board in the form of cash for everyone, and inelastic supply constrained essential goods like housing will go up as a result. This RE investment article explains it a bit more: https://www.nreionline.com/finance-amp-investment/why-supply-constrained-markets-hold-so-many-advantages https://www.nreionline.com/finance-amp-investment/why-supply...

beat 7y ago
That doesn't mean rent will increase to 100% of UBI, which is exactly what you said earlier.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  If something else (what? utilities?) picks up the rest, doesn't it still nullify benefits of UBI? People say it's a stock argument, but I haven't seen any good refutation of it yet. And I say this as a fan/supporter of UBI.
  - beat 7y ago
    It will take some, but not all. That's the refutation. The problem isn't the idea that some cost-of-living things will increase in response to UBI. It's a defeatist "What's the point, the landlords will get it all" attitude that doesn't take into account the complexity of what people spend on and the supply/demand relationships of those things.
    - novok 7y ago
      What I am saying is before or when a national UBI program is created, a national law making things like zoning restrictions illegal would also need to be implemented. Kind of like japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html A couple of other (bad) examples is how national health plans are implemented in other countries, making things like being exempt from the national healthcare system illegal. Or the insurance mandate from obamacare. I'm not saying UBI shouldn't be implemented in a why bother manor, I'm saying you need both if it's going to be an effective system. If you don't, you will significantly reduce it's effectiveness.
      - beat 7y ago
        It's probably unconstitutional to eliminate zoning restrictions from the federal level. And even if it's possible, it would be political suicide, and even if it happened, it would have a lot of unintended consequences.

by novok 7y ago

beat 7y ago

That doesn't mean rent will increase to 100% of UBI, which is exactly what you said earlier.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
If something else (what? utilities?) picks up the rest, doesn't it still nullify benefits of UBI? People say it's a stock argument, but I haven't seen any good refutation of it yet. And I say this as a fan/supporter of UBI.
- beat 7y ago
  It will take some, but not all. That's the refutation. The problem isn't the idea that some cost-of-living things will increase in response to UBI. It's a defeatist "What's the point, the landlords will get it all" attitude that doesn't take into account the complexity of what people spend on and the supply/demand relationships of those things.
  - novok 7y ago
    What I am saying is before or when a national UBI program is created, a national law making things like zoning restrictions illegal would also need to be implemented. Kind of like japanese zoning: http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html A couple of other (bad) examples is how national health plans are implemented in other countries, making things like being exempt from the national healthcare system illegal. Or the insurance mandate from obamacare. I'm not saying UBI shouldn't be implemented in a why bother manor, I'm saying you need both if it's going to be an effective system. If you don't, you will significantly reduce it's effectiveness.
    - beat 7y ago
      It's probably unconstitutional to eliminate zoning restrictions from the federal level. And even if it's possible, it would be political suicide, and even if it happened, it would have a lot of unintended consequences.