> soon as you give people 1000 dollars, their rent, transport, and other associated costs will go up by exactly $1000 I don't think this is actually true, thou

> soon as you give people 1000 dollars, their rent, transport, and other associated costs will go up by exactly $1000 I don't think this is actually true, though I'd love to see an economic model that would convince me otherwise. Sure, if the only income anyone had was UBI income, then increasing UBI by $1000 would (to a first order approximation) increase everyone's purchasing power equally, and the price of goods would increase by the same amount. (Though note that even in this simplified situation, due to effects like price/wage inelasticities, you wouldn't expect every price to move at the same time). In the current UBI proposal, however, many people would still earn most of their dollars from other sources, and so the changes of purchasing power wouldn't be evenly distributed. My intuitive model for this is that if the average person gets 1% of their income from UBI, and then UBI doubles to 2% of income, then prices should inflate by 1%, because everyone has 1% more to bid on the goods they want. But for those who are getting 100% of their income from UBI, then that 1% inflation on goods doesn't affect them the same way; it just means their purchasing power decreased by 1%, after doubling, so they still got a 99% increase. 1% is a placeholder, you'd need to model this with real data of course, true median salary and the proposed UBI. Obviously the reality is way more complex since you have different mixes of goods and services purchased by the different segments of the population (e.g. perhaps more people in the bottom quartile of income rent than the top quartile), but we don't need to go into that much detail to disprove the argument above (at least with the level of detail that was afforded in the parent post).