4 ms·

It's certainly more complicated than I understand, but I see it like this... Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or mo

It's certainly more complicated than I understand, but I see it like this... Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or more out of town and commutes to work each day. This is because their pay is better in town than out of town so it's worth it financially overall. Or they simply are paying more in housing costs than they should, are feeding money up the rent chain instead of saving to say own their own house and have a tenuous living environment for a family. Case 2: With UBI the person can just move to a place where housing costs are $300 a month and do whatever they want without worrying about how they'll support themselves in an emergency where they can't find work. They could start a business. Volunteer. Stay at home and raise kids. Take care of the neighbors kids and teach them gardening. Or work if the pay is actually high enough to justify it, which seems to push more money down to human workers over profit automatons. Hey, teachers could live and teach in cities with smaller school budgets! Is that inflation? I suppose in the sense of rising buying power diluting the dollar some, but assuming it's paid for by a high progressive tax after a certain income amount, I think it's just wealth redistribution that levels out the overall geographical housing cost to income ratio. I think it would reduce the power of landlords, though certainly doomsayers say it will just push up rental and house prices. I think this is possible to a point, but honestly seems too locally focused. I think a lot of people would leave where they are if they knew they could support themselves somewhere new. $1000 a month would offset decreased pay more in an absolute sense in a lower cost of living area. This will make it feasible for a family to move safely to a new place without a job lined up. Or know that if they join a union and get fired they'll have baseline support. It's hard for me to see this as favoring anyone but lower income human workers even if it's not perfect in every way.

Zanni 7y ago
You make a good case why UBI might not affect rent in high-rent areas, but what makes you think there would be a place where housing costs are $300 a month when everyone has UBI? Why wouldn't the floor immediately become $1000 everywhere?
- qqqwerty 7y ago
  In the hypothetical case where the minimum rent in the entire US becomes $1000 (and the laws of supply/demand have not magically disappeared), then that means all of the livable areas in the country have been revitalized enough to demand such a price. Considering how poorly many rural and exurban communities have fared in the last few decades, that feels like a nice problem to have. Its also worth mentioning that the US is very big and there are a lot of places that are just not that attractive to live in[1]. So I feel like it will be quite a while before we get to that point. And a final point. UBI is not meant to provide free rent. It is a form of social welfare and safety net. The fact that the real estate market is so imbalanced in the US is a failure of capitalism (why aren't startups and companies moving to low-cost of living areas?) And the fact that UBI can help bring some balance to real estate markets is nice side benefit, but its main goal it to act as a counter weight to the ruthlessness of market economies. [1] https://dimewilltell.com/free-land/ https://dimewilltell.com/free-land/
ukabwlsbeux 7y ago
I don’t see how it would reduce the power of landlords. If more people want to live in an area than housing can support, rents will increase to whatever level they can sustain to find the equilibrium where fewer people can afford it. If fewer people want to live in an area than housing supports, rents will fall.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Right, a market where a lot of people suddenly have the ability to move to a less expensive town and not have to worry about finding a job or worry about commute times. They may do so eventually if they wish, but I think this is a huge amount of leverage over landlords and would reduce housing demand. I'm not saying it's good for San Francisco tech workers, but I don't think rent costing two thirds of your take home pay is historically typical. Based on that history I do not think landlords could effectively collude to keep prices high if people are willing and able to walk away.

Zanni 7y ago

You make a good case why UBI might not affect rent in high-rent areas, but what makes you think there would be a place where housing costs are $300 a month when everyone has UBI? Why wouldn't the floor immediately become $1000 everywhere?

qqqwerty 7y ago
In the hypothetical case where the minimum rent in the entire US becomes $1000 (and the laws of supply/demand have not magically disappeared), then that means all of the livable areas in the country have been revitalized enough to demand such a price. Considering how poorly many rural and exurban communities have fared in the last few decades, that feels like a nice problem to have. Its also worth mentioning that the US is very big and there are a lot of places that are just not that attractive to live in[1]. So I feel like it will be quite a while before we get to that point. And a final point. UBI is not meant to provide free rent. It is a form of social welfare and safety net. The fact that the real estate market is so imbalanced in the US is a failure of capitalism (why aren't startups and companies moving to low-cost of living areas?) And the fact that UBI can help bring some balance to real estate markets is nice side benefit, but its main goal it to act as a counter weight to the ruthlessness of market economies. [1] https://dimewilltell.com/free-land/ https://dimewilltell.com/free-land/

ukabwlsbeux 7y ago

I don’t see how it would reduce the power of landlords. If more people want to live in an area than housing can support, rents will increase to whatever level they can sustain to find the equilibrium where fewer people can afford it. If fewer people want to live in an area than housing supports, rents will fall.

neltnerb 7y ago
Right, a market where a lot of people suddenly have the ability to move to a less expensive town and not have to worry about finding a job or worry about commute times. They may do so eventually if they wish, but I think this is a huge amount of leverage over landlords and would reduce housing demand. I'm not saying it's good for San Francisco tech workers, but I don't think rent costing two thirds of your take home pay is historically typical. Based on that history I do not think landlords could effectively collude to keep prices high if people are willing and able to walk away.