4 ms·

UBI would just feed directly into rents because that's how prices are set. UBI would require land value tax to ensure the public value is capture for public sp

UBI would just feed directly into rents because that's how prices are set. UBI would require land value tax to ensure the public value is capture for public spending. UBI alone is a land speculator wet dream and Yang is totally wrong to be pushing it without LVT. Yes in the middle of nowhere it can help, but most people are in cities and rents will rise there to current rent + UBI amount.

halfjoking 7y ago
Yang is willing to adjust policy positions if the data supports it. If property prices are being raised due to UBI, then I'm sure he'd support something like LVT. That's the difference with Yang. He's the most data-driven politician I've ever seen. Other politicians seem mostly ideological, and I don't think they'd adjust their policies even in the face of overwhelming data it's not working. Like if Warren used Antitrust law to break up Amazon and it didn't change any relevant metrics, I think she would still call the policy a success. Ideological politicians like that are way more dangerous than someone who wants to try new ideas and is willing to adjust if they don't work.
- vharuck 7y ago
  I can't know how Warren would adapt her beliefs in the face of contradictory data in the future, but she's done that in the past [0]. She believed in a self-correcting and fair market that would be harmed by many regulations, but then she did a study of bankruptcy claims. The results contradicted what she expected to find, and she changed her beliefs instead of her interpretation of the data. [0] https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786314251/elizabeth-warrens-journey-from-pro-business-academic-to-consumer-advocate https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786314251/elizabeth-warrens-j...
- kortilla 7y ago
  Holding onto UBI at this point is ideological for him. There is no evidence that $10k/year is near enough to alleviate people from having to take terrible jobs. $10k/year is about the equivalent of making $5/hr full time, which is below minimum wage and way into poverty. At this point his proposal is just a really expensive handout for people that already have jobs. And what critical social services are going to be cut to foot that bill?
mooreds 7y ago
I always wondered about that. I used to rent in a city with a relatively tight supply of rentals and thought that a UBI would fall right through to the landlords. Any good links to read about the land value tax component?
- amiga_500 7y ago
  From your reply you are obviously not stuck at the "rents are the cost to the landlord + 10%". Good! Have a look at this 10 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_dZvPwAj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_dZvPwAj0
monoideism 7y ago
I agree that a significant LVT would be extremely welcome. Perhaps even more so than UBI. I'm open to suggestions, but we've passed the point we were in from 1950 to 2000 where any mediocre person could work hard and be guaranteed a middle-class life. And that's wrong, not to mention very threatening to our democracy.
- philwelch 7y ago
  I'm sure that by some economic measurement, any mediocre person today could still work hard and earn enough to afford the same standard of living as the middle class of 1950. The main problem is that this isn't actually possible to pull off, since it costs 10x as much for things like housing and medicine that aren't necessarily 10x better. There just isn't the option to buy the crappy version from 70 years ago.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Medicine from 70 years ago can be superior to modern medicine. Which would you prefer if you couldn't breathe on your own, an iron lung or a tube jammed down your throat?
    - philwelch 7y ago
      By what authority and rationale do you feel so strongly about intubation, I wonder? Could it be that the entire medical profession is wrong and you are right?
      - burfog 7y ago
        There are obvious reasons that have nothing to do with quality of care. Iron lungs are physically large and heavy. They are expensive and difficult to move. Health insurance doesn't want to pay extra for your comfort. With an iron lung you can talk and eat. There is minimal difficulty; simply time your sentences or swallows to match the action of the iron lung. There is also no danger of tubes damaging your vocal cords. The choice of technology is obvious, depending on how much patient comfort is valued. It is clear that the modern system doesn't give a damn if patients are miserable.
mmmBacon 7y ago
I totally agree UBI would just be a way to transfer money to landlords. Heck you could consider SV wages as UBI; salaries are high but that income is often spent on rent or mortgages. Stock money is spent on real estate.
djrobstep 7y ago
The rent thing is a bad argument against UBI, because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor - even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty. Even for people not in poverty it would help even out their income over their life cycle - more money when they have kids, find themselves temporarily unemployed, or in retirement. Certainly land rents are totally unjust and a huge problem, and land value tax/public housing/public land ownership would be great, but the case for UBI is compelling even without any of that.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty How would that be? If your rent goes up $1000 regardless of what you're paying now, someone who earns $0 and can't afford a $600 apartment now collects $1000 and can't afford a $1600 apartment while the guy who could afford the $600 apartment by earning $1500 now has a monthly income of $2500 and a $1600 apartment.
  - djrobstep 7y ago
    For the poor person on $0, they can now afford to share a place or be less stress on their family financially. For the person on the margin of affordability they can now afford an apartment. Those on the highest incomes don't gain in a raw sense because they pay in more than they get, but still benefit from income smoothing.
- amiga_500 7y ago
  > because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor Yes, I think many things go straight back into land. The UK has 'housing benefit'. It's 'landlord benefit', because it subsidises unpayable rents.

halfjoking 7y ago

Yang is willing to adjust policy positions if the data supports it. If property prices are being raised due to UBI, then I'm sure he'd support something like LVT. That's the difference with Yang. He's the most data-driven politician I've ever seen. Other politicians seem mostly ideological, and I don't think they'd adjust their policies even in the face of overwhelming data it's not working. Like if Warren used Antitrust law to break up Amazon and it didn't change any relevant metrics, I think she would still call the policy a success. Ideological politicians like that are way more dangerous than someone who wants to try new ideas and is willing to adjust if they don't work.

vharuck 7y ago
I can't know how Warren would adapt her beliefs in the face of contradictory data in the future, but she's done that in the past [0]. She believed in a self-correcting and fair market that would be harmed by many regulations, but then she did a study of bankruptcy claims. The results contradicted what she expected to find, and she changed her beliefs instead of her interpretation of the data. [0] https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786314251/elizabeth-warrens-journey-from-pro-business-academic-to-consumer-advocate https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786314251/elizabeth-warrens-j...
kortilla 7y ago
Holding onto UBI at this point is ideological for him. There is no evidence that $10k/year is near enough to alleviate people from having to take terrible jobs. $10k/year is about the equivalent of making $5/hr full time, which is below minimum wage and way into poverty. At this point his proposal is just a really expensive handout for people that already have jobs. And what critical social services are going to be cut to foot that bill?

mooreds 7y ago

I always wondered about that. I used to rent in a city with a relatively tight supply of rentals and thought that a UBI would fall right through to the landlords. Any good links to read about the land value tax component?

amiga_500 7y ago
From your reply you are obviously not stuck at the "rents are the cost to the landlord + 10%". Good! Have a look at this 10 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_dZvPwAj0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_dZvPwAj0

monoideism 7y ago

I agree that a significant LVT would be extremely welcome. Perhaps even more so than UBI. I'm open to suggestions, but we've passed the point we were in from 1950 to 2000 where any mediocre person could work hard and be guaranteed a middle-class life. And that's wrong, not to mention very threatening to our democracy.

philwelch 7y ago
I'm sure that by some economic measurement, any mediocre person today could still work hard and earn enough to afford the same standard of living as the middle class of 1950. The main problem is that this isn't actually possible to pull off, since it costs 10x as much for things like housing and medicine that aren't necessarily 10x better. There just isn't the option to buy the crappy version from 70 years ago.
- burfog 7y ago
  Medicine from 70 years ago can be superior to modern medicine. Which would you prefer if you couldn't breathe on your own, an iron lung or a tube jammed down your throat?
  - philwelch 7y ago
    By what authority and rationale do you feel so strongly about intubation, I wonder? Could it be that the entire medical profession is wrong and you are right?
    - burfog 7y ago
      There are obvious reasons that have nothing to do with quality of care. Iron lungs are physically large and heavy. They are expensive and difficult to move. Health insurance doesn't want to pay extra for your comfort. With an iron lung you can talk and eat. There is minimal difficulty; simply time your sentences or swallows to match the action of the iron lung. There is also no danger of tubes damaging your vocal cords. The choice of technology is obvious, depending on how much patient comfort is valued. It is clear that the modern system doesn't give a damn if patients are miserable.

mmmBacon 7y ago

I totally agree UBI would just be a way to transfer money to landlords. Heck you could consider SV wages as UBI; salaries are high but that income is often spent on rent or mortgages. Stock money is spent on real estate.

djrobstep 7y ago

The rent thing is a bad argument against UBI, because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor - even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty. Even for people not in poverty it would help even out their income over their life cycle - more money when they have kids, find themselves temporarily unemployed, or in retirement. Certainly land rents are totally unjust and a huge problem, and land value tax/public housing/public land ownership would be great, but the case for UBI is compelling even without any of that.

philwelch 7y ago
> even if all the UBI money goes back into rent, UBI would equalise housing spend along the way, from rich to poor and from worker to non-worker, vastly reducing poverty How would that be? If your rent goes up $1000 regardless of what you're paying now, someone who earns $0 and can't afford a $600 apartment now collects $1000 and can't afford a $1600 apartment while the guy who could afford the $600 apartment by earning $1500 now has a monthly income of $2500 and a $1600 apartment.
- djrobstep 7y ago
  For the poor person on $0, they can now afford to share a place or be less stress on their family financially. For the person on the margin of affordability they can now afford an apartment. Those on the highest incomes don't gain in a raw sense because they pay in more than they get, but still benefit from income smoothing.
amiga_500 7y ago
> because you can make the same argument about any program that benefits the poor Yes, I think many things go straight back into land. The UK has 'housing benefit'. It's 'landlord benefit', because it subsidises unpayable rents.