5 ms·

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

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.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  You agree that UBI will not fix poverty and/or wealth inequality, as cost of living will rise exactly to the level necessary to guarantee "slight poverty," but are still a proponent? I would be interested to see evidence that it's the welfare system itself that causes these stressors, rather than the poverty itself, which is what you seem to be stating here. Why would that be the case?
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Yes I am still a proponent. Though I don't think it's as simple as the economics simply adjusting to negate the benefits. I don't think that's true at all. When people have a different quality of life and certainty about basics, that doesn't just affect those people. It affects other people throughout the rest of the economy too. People who are poor or very poor often contribute a lot to the economy just like many other people. It just doesn't get the same recognition. Much of the work is invisible to people not actively looking for it. Probably the most clear examples are carers: Caring for their parents, their children, their ill, disabled and elderly friends and relatives. An astonishing amount of labour is performed by people who aren't paid to do it, sacrifice a lot to do it (e.g. many have little time for socialising and friends), and go largely unrecognised (after all they don't get out much, its unpaid, and its anything up to 24x7). A fair amount of cash or cash-equivalent is provided by the poor to the even poorer too, e.g. bringing over food, providing accomodation in a spare room. I think the quality and level of the overall contribution to the general economy would improve with UBI ensuring some measure of stability and peace to people at the low end, or who are facing being at the low end (e.g. redundancy during COVID-19...). I also think there is a moral imperative to provide the basics for people if it's possible; a "dignity of every person" sort of thing. I've seen what it's like for people who also have "welfare poverty", that is they can't access welfare reliably either. And I have seen people live on less than one meal a day for months as a result, saving their limited food stocks for good reason, and with no idea when their precarious housing will come to an abrupt end, and no bed to sleep on where they live, in a rich Western country. I don't think it's welfare per se that causes the stressors mentioned, but rather the complex fear and uncertainties that are rightly associated with the common versions of it. With regards to whether poverty should be seen as the cause, I think it is, but the degree of stress depends what kind of poverty you mean. Having a low level of income that is absolutely predictable, in a stable price, food and housing environment, is a completely different experience from having no idea whether you will be able to eat next week or if the money will be suddenly taken away because someone saw you walk a metre in a park near your wheelchair and decided you are "fit for work" as a result, even if you can't walk 2m. Both are experiences of poverty, but very different kinds of poverty.

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.

ethanbond 6y ago
You agree that UBI will not fix poverty and/or wealth inequality, as cost of living will rise exactly to the level necessary to guarantee "slight poverty," but are still a proponent? I would be interested to see evidence that it's the welfare system itself that causes these stressors, rather than the poverty itself, which is what you seem to be stating here. Why would that be the case?
- jlokier 6y ago
  Yes I am still a proponent. Though I don't think it's as simple as the economics simply adjusting to negate the benefits. I don't think that's true at all. When people have a different quality of life and certainty about basics, that doesn't just affect those people. It affects other people throughout the rest of the economy too. People who are poor or very poor often contribute a lot to the economy just like many other people. It just doesn't get the same recognition. Much of the work is invisible to people not actively looking for it. Probably the most clear examples are carers: Caring for their parents, their children, their ill, disabled and elderly friends and relatives. An astonishing amount of labour is performed by people who aren't paid to do it, sacrifice a lot to do it (e.g. many have little time for socialising and friends), and go largely unrecognised (after all they don't get out much, its unpaid, and its anything up to 24x7). A fair amount of cash or cash-equivalent is provided by the poor to the even poorer too, e.g. bringing over food, providing accomodation in a spare room. I think the quality and level of the overall contribution to the general economy would improve with UBI ensuring some measure of stability and peace to people at the low end, or who are facing being at the low end (e.g. redundancy during COVID-19...). I also think there is a moral imperative to provide the basics for people if it's possible; a "dignity of every person" sort of thing. I've seen what it's like for people who also have "welfare poverty", that is they can't access welfare reliably either. And I have seen people live on less than one meal a day for months as a result, saving their limited food stocks for good reason, and with no idea when their precarious housing will come to an abrupt end, and no bed to sleep on where they live, in a rich Western country. I don't think it's welfare per se that causes the stressors mentioned, but rather the complex fear and uncertainties that are rightly associated with the common versions of it. With regards to whether poverty should be seen as the cause, I think it is, but the degree of stress depends what kind of poverty you mean. Having a low level of income that is absolutely predictable, in a stable price, food and housing environment, is a completely different experience from having no idea whether you will be able to eat next week or if the money will be suddenly taken away because someone saw you walk a metre in a park near your wheelchair and decided you are "fit for work" as a result, even if you can't walk 2m. Both are experiences of poverty, but very different kinds of poverty.