4 ms·

I disagree strongly with your idea of "poor people would just spend on drugs" but there's a nugget of reason in it - there's a high risk that UBI without rent c

by glogla 7y ago

I disagree strongly with your idea of "poor people would just spend on drugs" but there's a nugget of reason in it - there's a high risk that UBI without rent control would just be subsidizing the landlords, without actually helping the people.

jonnycomputer 7y ago
For the most part people know best where there money needs to go; most of the financial advice people see from "experts" really is oriented toward people who have money left over after paying for necessities. As for housing, I think that this would be standard econ, really. More money means more demand, which in the absence of more supply, means higher prices. Things like housing are harder to increase the supply of than say, TVs, so yeah, they'd probably go up more than the rest. But I suspect that everyone would still be better off. I don't think rent-controls are a good idea. On the other hand, I do think that in the long run rich people gobbling up finite land is a problem;
- dllthomas 7y ago
  One thing worth noting is that UBI actually has an impact on supply,. What people want to purchase is not simply housing - it's housing in their preferred location. I think a big part of what makes housing desirable, for the bulk of the population, is ability to earn enough of an income nearby. If that's the case, UBI might actually directly create desirable housing (out of almost desirable housing) and increase supply. I don't expect this effect would be large enough that UBI would put downward pressure on housing prices overall, but I don't really know.
  - notJim 7y ago
    I don't get it, what is the mechanism by which you're proposing this would happen?
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      Imagine a unit of housing, presently empty because it's undesirable, because there are no good job available nearby. There are some pretty good jobs, but none available that pay quite enough that competing for housing elsewhere isn't more attractive to the marginal consumer. A UBI makes the pay matter a little less, and so makes places like that more attractive. It doesn't, first order, cause more units to be built. But that is not the only way to increase supply. Longer term, that kind of calculation about potential units, in places where it's easy to build, might lead to more units built. But that gets more complicated.
notJim 7y ago
If this is true, it would also be futile to raise the minimum wage (which I, and most leftists I know would support), because landlords would just capture the extra wage. I don't think this is supported by data from places where the minimum wage was raised.

by glogla 7y ago

jonnycomputer 7y ago

For the most part people know best where there money needs to go; most of the financial advice people see from "experts" really is oriented toward people who have money left over after paying for necessities. As for housing, I think that this would be standard econ, really. More money means more demand, which in the absence of more supply, means higher prices. Things like housing are harder to increase the supply of than say, TVs, so yeah, they'd probably go up more than the rest. But I suspect that everyone would still be better off. I don't think rent-controls are a good idea. On the other hand, I do think that in the long run rich people gobbling up finite land is a problem;

dllthomas 7y ago
One thing worth noting is that UBI actually has an impact on supply,. What people want to purchase is not simply housing - it's housing in their preferred location. I think a big part of what makes housing desirable, for the bulk of the population, is ability to earn enough of an income nearby. If that's the case, UBI might actually directly create desirable housing (out of almost desirable housing) and increase supply. I don't expect this effect would be large enough that UBI would put downward pressure on housing prices overall, but I don't really know.
- notJim 7y ago
  I don't get it, what is the mechanism by which you're proposing this would happen?
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    Imagine a unit of housing, presently empty because it's undesirable, because there are no good job available nearby. There are some pretty good jobs, but none available that pay quite enough that competing for housing elsewhere isn't more attractive to the marginal consumer. A UBI makes the pay matter a little less, and so makes places like that more attractive. It doesn't, first order, cause more units to be built. But that is not the only way to increase supply. Longer term, that kind of calculation about potential units, in places where it's easy to build, might lead to more units built. But that gets more complicated.

notJim 7y ago

If this is true, it would also be futile to raise the minimum wage (which I, and most leftists I know would support), because landlords would just capture the extra wage. I don't think this is supported by data from places where the minimum wage was raised.