6 ms·

I'm a leftist person who isn't an opponent of ubi, but is an opponent of Yang's ubi. I have no problem with raising taxes, but I do have other concerns. Namely

I'm a leftist person who isn't an opponent of ubi, but is an opponent of Yang's ubi. I have no problem with raising taxes, but I do have other concerns. Namely, if everyone got $x,xxx a month, how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount? I worry that without a well thought out plan, UBI just ends up funneling money directly back to the wealthy (eg, landlords and business owners). I'm not convinced yet that Yang has a thorough enough plan here.

macspoofing 6y ago
>how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount? Two ways to answer this: 1) If you're printing money, then yes, prices will rise, and if price controls are implemented it will lead to shortages (e.g. Venezuela) 2) If you're not printing money, then competition will simply lower the cost. It's the same as today - outside of terrible policies like rent-control, why don't landlords just raise rents by $5000? Because the renters will leave and rent from a landlord that undercuts the crazy landlord. In the market, profits tend to 0 and if profits are too high more supply will come in to get a cut of the profits. It's not magic. >BI just ends up funneling money directly back to the wealthy (eg, landlords and business owners). Your view on reality is skewed. I mean, yes, people will buy products and services from landlords and business owners. That's not 'funnelling money' anywhere, that's just buying products and services. What do you think people will do with that money, if not to buy things they want and/or need. >I'm not convinced yet that Yang has a thorough enough plan here. For sure. UBI does not solve anything and is unworkable, but not for the reasons you stated.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  You have a lot more faith in markets than I do. I don't believe that we've been particularly well served by the housing or health care markets. It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing. I think we fundamentally disagree, though, which is ok. I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of). I'm not sure we're going to find much common ground via internet forum.
  - chillacy 6y ago
    > 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing Curious where you live because in Seattle this has definitely kept the rent prices from growing as fast as in the SFBA. Admittedly these are apartments on the expensive side though, affordable housing is not a priority for developers because it's not as profitable per square foot. Blame {wealth inequality | zoning}, depending on your outlook.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Seattle. And housing prices here are astronomical. My home has nearly tripled in value over seven years.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        So why wouldn't developers simply build higher-density housing to maximize this crazy profit per square foot? Why not buy your single-family home, demolish it, and build a multi-family/multi-storey apartment building and maximize the profit from that high-value land? Do they hate money? ... or are there regulatory barriers preventing them from doing that - barriers that are supported by existing property owners, who like their house prices tripling every 7 years. It must be that they hate money.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >we've been particularly well served by the housing or health care markets. Healthcare is going to be special. We're OK with a person not getting a Lexus if they can't afford one, but we are deeply uncomfortable with treating, say, cancer surgery the same way. So healthcare will always have a social component. That's not the case for housing. Housing can be managed the markets just fine, you just need to make sure you don't constrain it a level where it cannot react to demand. Where housing fails, it's always the case of local regulations, from property owners who want to limit supply to keep their house prices up to activist and the local council who will restrict high-density housing development for the dumbest reasons (e.g. if the shadow of the new housing development falling on a playground - true story). You mentioned you're from Seattle - are you sure housing isn't constrained due to crazy progressive municipal policies? >I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of) This is very perplexing to me. We know rent control hurts housing supply, and it hurts people that it purports to help because we have data on this from decades of studying this policy. There is no economist that supports it. I don't understand how it keeps coming back. >It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing. Where? Do you mean places like Seattle or San Francisco which make it almost impossible to build new development? Why wouldn't you look at regulatory policies of those areas before wanting to socialize an entire industry? >You have a lot more faith in markets than I do. It's not about faith in anything. Because markets are a messy, chaotic and complicated bottom-up structures where the individual transaction is impossible to predict, but where everything optimizes (at some minima) on a large scale - some people tend to be fundamentally uncomfortable with it. So the alternative is to fix the messiness of the markets by imposing a 'clean' top-down policy where the one true answer is dictated. The problem is that nobody at the top fully understands all the variables of the underlying messiness and hence they always get it wrong. If you take that to the extreme, you end up with a Communist disaster.
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
Do you believe welfare is similar in that regard? If not, why?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  No. Healthy public housing, universal healthcare, free public transit don't have the same ability for the benefits to be converted to income for a landlord.
  - oldsklgdfth 6y ago
    I think any situation where you know that payment is guaranteed there is the potential for profiteering. In universal healthcare, insurance knows the government will foot the bill and can tack on a little more. In my experience this is the case when dealing with large entities. This is slightly the case with government contracts. They are a cash cow of sorts.
dang 6y ago
What's Yang's answer about that? If he had a FAQ that would certainly be on it.
- gist 6y ago
  As a landlord [1] I can answer that question. Btw, I have not found any UBI proponent addressing it either (they tend to avoid that with economic speak if at all) [2] Rent will go up. All you have to do is look what happens in 'hot' markets (SFO/NYC/Bay Area) where there are so many dollars floating around. [1] Both commercial and residential but not in a hot market a 'normal' market. [2] Including Yang
  - starpilot 6y ago
    By how much? Do you assume that the full UBI amount will be available for tenants to pay rent, and that no other prices will increase? I imagine that landlords in aggregate would understand that it would not be in their benefit to raise all rents by an amount equal to the UBI if they want to keep tenants. Yang's campaign estimated that prices would go up about 12%, so for higher income (like many on HN) this would be net decrease in spending power. For someone in poverty, going from $12k to $24k per year, this could be life changing.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      I think rents and other costs will rise to the equilibrium point where a lot of people are stressed by the price but just about able to pay it. Same as now. It's not a coincidence that the cost of living is equal to the amount which lots of people struggle with, yet are just about coping with. However, a key benefit of UBI is that the situation is stable and predictable for people on it. Currently, people who are just about coping are living in constant low-level fear that their circumstances will change for the worse. For people who would have to turn to government support, a legitimate fear is not knowing what claims will be allowed, or being asked difficult questions about lifestyle for which there is no safe, honest answer. That fear has a lot of consequences. For example measured IQ is lowered in that state. People do not make the best decisions; they can't. They are sicker too. They can't make plans. They can't make investments in their own future. UBI addresses this uncertainty and fear, even if the markets react so nobody (on average) is better off compared with basic costs of living such as rent and food. And so it makes life better.
daenz 6y ago
>how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount That's a feature of the plan. Rents will go up, and wages will go down, but by that point, people will be committed to UBI, and the only solution will be the gov to step in and control the prices.
- meddlepal 6y ago
  > will be the gov to step in and control the prices. Because that will work out so well.
Tiktaalik 6y ago
Yeah the best solution is that we, as in our local governments, should be our own landlords and own more of the property that we rent out. Not just housing for the poor, but for every spectrum of wealth. If rental housing is such a good investment, then let's get in on it ourselves.
Passthepeas 6y ago
so by that logic, if we took money away from people the rent would go down? The answer is yes, it probably would, but not enough to negate the effect of the wealth change. With a UBI of $1,000 I would expect rent might go up in some areas by maybe up to a few hundred but this idea that rent would somehow skyrocket to the point that it would nullify any benefit seems a ridiculous assertion to me.
- robotresearcher 6y ago
  What forces would stop landlords capturing a large part of this money?
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    Nothing. Landlords regularly capture upside from social, economic, or technological improvements. Cue conversation on the actual remedy to rampant wealth inequality, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

macspoofing 6y ago

>how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount? Two ways to answer this: 1) If you're printing money, then yes, prices will rise, and if price controls are implemented it will lead to shortages (e.g. Venezuela) 2) If you're not printing money, then competition will simply lower the cost. It's the same as today - outside of terrible policies like rent-control, why don't landlords just raise rents by $5000? Because the renters will leave and rent from a landlord that undercuts the crazy landlord. In the market, profits tend to 0 and if profits are too high more supply will come in to get a cut of the profits. It's not magic. >BI just ends up funneling money directly back to the wealthy (eg, landlords and business owners). Your view on reality is skewed. I mean, yes, people will buy products and services from landlords and business owners. That's not 'funnelling money' anywhere, that's just buying products and services. What do you think people will do with that money, if not to buy things they want and/or need. >I'm not convinced yet that Yang has a thorough enough plan here. For sure. UBI does not solve anything and is unworkable, but not for the reasons you stated.

Pfhreak 6y ago
You have a lot more faith in markets than I do. I don't believe that we've been particularly well served by the housing or health care markets. It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing. I think we fundamentally disagree, though, which is ok. I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of). I'm not sure we're going to find much common ground via internet forum.
- chillacy 6y ago
  > 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing Curious where you live because in Seattle this has definitely kept the rent prices from growing as fast as in the SFBA. Admittedly these are apartments on the expensive side though, affordable housing is not a priority for developers because it's not as profitable per square foot. Blame {wealth inequality | zoning}, depending on your outlook.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Seattle. And housing prices here are astronomical. My home has nearly tripled in value over seven years.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      So why wouldn't developers simply build higher-density housing to maximize this crazy profit per square foot? Why not buy your single-family home, demolish it, and build a multi-family/multi-storey apartment building and maximize the profit from that high-value land? Do they hate money? ... or are there regulatory barriers preventing them from doing that - barriers that are supported by existing property owners, who like their house prices tripling every 7 years. It must be that they hate money.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >we've been particularly well served by the housing or health care markets. Healthcare is going to be special. We're OK with a person not getting a Lexus if they can't afford one, but we are deeply uncomfortable with treating, say, cancer surgery the same way. So healthcare will always have a social component. That's not the case for housing. Housing can be managed the markets just fine, you just need to make sure you don't constrain it a level where it cannot react to demand. Where housing fails, it's always the case of local regulations, from property owners who want to limit supply to keep their house prices up to activist and the local council who will restrict high-density housing development for the dumbest reasons (e.g. if the shadow of the new housing development falling on a playground - true story). You mentioned you're from Seattle - are you sure housing isn't constrained due to crazy progressive municipal policies? >I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of) This is very perplexing to me. We know rent control hurts housing supply, and it hurts people that it purports to help because we have data on this from decades of studying this policy. There is no economist that supports it. I don't understand how it keeps coming back. >It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing. Where? Do you mean places like Seattle or San Francisco which make it almost impossible to build new development? Why wouldn't you look at regulatory policies of those areas before wanting to socialize an entire industry? >You have a lot more faith in markets than I do. It's not about faith in anything. Because markets are a messy, chaotic and complicated bottom-up structures where the individual transaction is impossible to predict, but where everything optimizes (at some minima) on a large scale - some people tend to be fundamentally uncomfortable with it. So the alternative is to fix the messiness of the markets by imposing a 'clean' top-down policy where the one true answer is dictated. The problem is that nobody at the top fully understands all the variables of the underlying messiness and hence they always get it wrong. If you take that to the extreme, you end up with a Communist disaster.

ImprobableTruth 6y ago

Do you believe welfare is similar in that regard? If not, why?

Pfhreak 6y ago
No. Healthy public housing, universal healthcare, free public transit don't have the same ability for the benefits to be converted to income for a landlord.
- oldsklgdfth 6y ago
  I think any situation where you know that payment is guaranteed there is the potential for profiteering. In universal healthcare, insurance knows the government will foot the bill and can tack on a little more. In my experience this is the case when dealing with large entities. This is slightly the case with government contracts. They are a cash cow of sorts.

dang 6y ago

What's Yang's answer about that? If he had a FAQ that would certainly be on it.

gist 6y ago
As a landlord [1] I can answer that question. Btw, I have not found any UBI proponent addressing it either (they tend to avoid that with economic speak if at all) [2] Rent will go up. All you have to do is look what happens in 'hot' markets (SFO/NYC/Bay Area) where there are so many dollars floating around. [1] Both commercial and residential but not in a hot market a 'normal' market. [2] Including Yang
- starpilot 6y ago
  By how much? Do you assume that the full UBI amount will be available for tenants to pay rent, and that no other prices will increase? I imagine that landlords in aggregate would understand that it would not be in their benefit to raise all rents by an amount equal to the UBI if they want to keep tenants. Yang's campaign estimated that prices would go up about 12%, so for higher income (like many on HN) this would be net decrease in spending power. For someone in poverty, going from $12k to $24k per year, this could be life changing.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    I think rents and other costs will rise to the equilibrium point where a lot of people are stressed by the price but just about able to pay it. Same as now. It's not a coincidence that the cost of living is equal to the amount which lots of people struggle with, yet are just about coping with. However, a key benefit of UBI is that the situation is stable and predictable for people on it. Currently, people who are just about coping are living in constant low-level fear that their circumstances will change for the worse. For people who would have to turn to government support, a legitimate fear is not knowing what claims will be allowed, or being asked difficult questions about lifestyle for which there is no safe, honest answer. That fear has a lot of consequences. For example measured IQ is lowered in that state. People do not make the best decisions; they can't. They are sicker too. They can't make plans. They can't make investments in their own future. UBI addresses this uncertainty and fear, even if the markets react so nobody (on average) is better off compared with basic costs of living such as rent and food. And so it makes life better.

daenz 6y ago

>how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount That's a feature of the plan. Rents will go up, and wages will go down, but by that point, people will be committed to UBI, and the only solution will be the gov to step in and control the prices.

meddlepal 6y ago
> will be the gov to step in and control the prices. Because that will work out so well.

Tiktaalik 6y ago

Yeah the best solution is that we, as in our local governments, should be our own landlords and own more of the property that we rent out. Not just housing for the poor, but for every spectrum of wealth. If rental housing is such a good investment, then let's get in on it ourselves.

Passthepeas 6y ago

so by that logic, if we took money away from people the rent would go down? The answer is yes, it probably would, but not enough to negate the effect of the wealth change. With a UBI of $1,000 I would expect rent might go up in some areas by maybe up to a few hundred but this idea that rent would somehow skyrocket to the point that it would nullify any benefit seems a ridiculous assertion to me.

robotresearcher 6y ago
What forces would stop landlords capturing a large part of this money?
- ethanbond 6y ago
  Nothing. Landlords regularly capture upside from social, economic, or technological improvements. Cue conversation on the actual remedy to rampant wealth inequality, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism