14 ms·

How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Consider a very smart and very poor person. You walk up to him and say "Hey, want 1200 dollar

How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Consider a very smart and very poor person. You walk up to him and say "Hey, want 1200 dollars?" Do you think he'll say "No, that would increase my dependence on the rich." I don't. I just can't conceive of the mechanism. Slum lords try to separate the poor from their money now. Pretty much everyone does. The only difference is, the poor would have more money. There's probably going to be predation on the mentally ill or incompetent. That could be solved by helping those people, limiting what they can buy, or harshly punishing the exploiters - some combination. But even if they were cheated out of their UBI I don't see how they'd be worse off (without assuming people wouldn't help the mentally incompetent if they had UBI which seems dubious to me).

DSingularity 6y ago
Let’s say rent is 1000$ right now and UBI gives everyone 2000$ a month. What do you think every landlord will do next year?
- op00to 6y ago
  You tell us.
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    If it’s so obvious, why do all supporters of UBI ignore the issue? If you really care about the well being of the worlds population then address the underlying problems. Provide them access to the education you received (starting with primary school, not college). Prevent their exploitation by the companies. Especially those that we often work for! I would bet a better effect can be realized by investing in public education at the primary-high school levels. Make teacher salaries competitive with engineers. Enable all schools to have the equipment and teacher qualities they need.
    - playworker 6y ago
      We're not ignoring the issue, we just don't think the issue is the same one you do. The main issue in the world at the moment is income inequality, the things that you are listing stem from that, you can't fix education inequality without first addressing the income issue - UBI proposes that we tackle the source of the problem rather than trying to patch things up downstream
      - bsenftner 6y ago
        You cannot fix wealth inequality by giving the paltry amount of monthly stipend UBI is discussing. To address wealth inequality you need to educate the public better and you need to regulate capitalism better. Simply giving people UBI is a gift to the educated capitalist who will simply raise prices while simultaneously paying lobbyists to insure raising their prices is legal.
        playworker 6y ago
        What paltry amount are we discussing? The concept of UBI is that it pays a living wage, enough to feed, clothe and house someone. It might not eradicate wealth inequality but it definitely narrows the gap/reduces it. I'm assuming you accept that the poor are getting poorer and the wealthy are getting wealthier - how do you propose to stop that without UBI?
        bsenftner 6y ago
        UBI alone is not a solution, it needs to be accompanied with access to adequately funded education and affordable housing and healthcare. Education is the #1 driver of success, and at minimum a better commitment to education by the United States will pay back multiple times over. Additionally, what leads you to believe UBI will allow an individual enough to feed, clothe and house themselves? Sure, that's the "idea" but in this world you think that would become a reality? No way. UBI as implemented will be watered down and it's effect will be a net zero, triggering the conservatives to cry "see! it does not work!"
        6y ago
- kemotep 6y ago
  Raise it to 2000. But the parent was talking about how now with UBI, people don't need to work to pay that. With food stamps, and other welfare programs that already exist to cover your other costs you don't have to work to be able to afford living anymore. Sure you can't go anywhere or have a fancy new phone or car but your income from work could pay for those things instead of just barely being able to stay alive.
  - DSingularity 6y ago
    Yeah, that is a fair point. Nonetheless, at this point we are not providing them a general income and instead society will just be subsidizing rent. I don’t like this solution because it is a pretend-solution. What are the causes of poverty? Prevent them. What are the barriers to mobility in the job market? Alleviate them. UBI helps but in my opinion it is just sweeping the problem under the rug.
    - kemotep 6y ago
      That is a fair concern to have which is why UBI isn't a cure all. There certainly can be a lot more effort put into ending poverty.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > What are the causes of poverty? Value capture by capitalists. Perverse incentives of means-tested welfare programs. Making choices that are suboptimal from an expected value perspective because they are better from a risk perspective when you can't afford to take risks. > Prevent them. UBI prevents or reduces all of those causes. > What are the barriers to mobility in the job market? People not having the resources to take time off their current job to retrain, either via formal training program or taking temporary lower-paid work in a different field, among others. > Alleviate them. UBI does.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Why wouldn't the landlord raise rent to $3000 if it's clear that most of their tenants could manage to find a job on the side to cover the difference? That's what they already have to do now, right?
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Raising rent ... and building more houses. Raising rent skews incentive significantly towards renting. Eventually the market becomes efficient as supply outstrips demand and rent sinks again. With an ability to command higher rent, renting becomes profitable on properties that were previously not profitable to build on. In the long run, I expect rent to fall relative to the current state of affairs as housing is overprovisioned (using the added income from more rent) and moves more towards a buyer's market. Furthermore, with UBI workers are in a stronger negotiating position so we'll see more work from home which also lowers rent by reducing competition in the cities.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  What if every landlord but one raised the price by 1000 a month, and that one realized he could get more business by raising only 900 a month, so in response to that one landlord others lowered to only +800 so the one countered with +700... Etc. Etc.
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    This argument would be much more persuasive if each landlord could supply an effectively unlimited supply of housing. As things currently stand, a landlord reducing his rent would clear his limited inventory first, but the broader effects of the actions of a single agent would be fairly muted.
    - afarrell 6y ago
      If only there was a way to turn money into more housing on top of the same area.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        After a while there's not. You need some urban planning, not just random accumulation of new housing...
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Zoning also needs fixes
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        It is amusing that folks kind of ignore the possibility of multiple storeys (and increasing supply of housing generally).
      - ac29 6y ago
        Sure, in theory you can eminent domain a neighborhood of low density housing and replace it with higher density housing. In practice though, its politically impossible most places.
  - 6y ago
- baaym 6y ago
  I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in other countries there are laws against such increases in rent - especially 'social' rent for those with low income.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    In most of the US, I believe there are no laws. California recently passed some legislation limiting rental increases per year, but it's still something like 7-8%, which is ludicrous. The first world country I'm from has, effectively, nation-wide rent control (varies by region) and rent increases are limited to something around 1%, set each year (tracking inflation somewhat). In the US, this will work very poorly: a landlord can just bump your rent by exactly the UBI amount and get away with it. Otherwise, they would have to wait for a vacancy to set the rent. But eventually, I agree that the rent would just absorb the UBI in many cases.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Of course, laws against property tax increases but not rent increases.
    - blargmaster33 6y ago
      And you end up with black markets an 20+ queues ... Just like in Sweden.
  - rodolphoarruda 6y ago
    In the country I live, rent is indexed and adjusted to inflation on an yearly basis. When the contract expires, parties have the chance to negotiate rent value at contract renewal to either increase it or decrease it.
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    Many big cities in the US have forms of rent control. Usually this is tied to a particular tenant, if the old tenant moves out the landlord can charge a market rate.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  Does that happen with any other product? Are other consumer products priced based on calculation of consumers' incomes, or are they priced based on demand and competition in the market? I think rent in high-COL cities is more determined by high demand there than landlords' personal assessment of the residents' average incomes. With UBI, people would be more free to move away from areas with high rent. There could be more free competition on housing/rent across the whole country, which might drive down rents.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    I think higher education in top colleges is priced in a similar way. >I think rent in high-COL cities is more determined by high demand there than landlords' personal assessment of the residents' average incomes. A landlord doesn't have to personally assess the average income of the residents. The high demand will roughly do the assessment for them. >With UBI, people would be more free to move away from areas with high rent. This is something UBI allows, but I'm skeptical whether people will actually do that. Remote work also allows people to do that, but until the virus it hadn't really been considered as a serious option in the vast majority of workplaces.
    - buran77 6y ago
      > This is something UBI allows, but I'm skeptical whether people will actually do that I am a supporter of the UBI theory but I have to say I am skeptical of the implementation. People are usually incentivized to move towards the places that provide opportunity - jobs, education, etc. UBI might dampen that incentive. Given that most leadership systems are strongly influenced by the rich I have to wonder whether a system like UBI will be implemented in such a way that people are less dependent on the rich rather than actually becoming even more dependent.
    - jonfw 6y ago
      higher education in ALL colleges is priced in a similar way. They've all raised their prices in accordance with the amount of money the government is willing to guarantee kids will have access to.
- bhl 6y ago
  It's mentioned in the article indirectly: when you enable consumers to demand more, you increase competitive pressures amongst producers as well. Your landlord raises your rent by $1000? That's fine: you move to another town that's cheaper. Landlords are no longer competing within a town or city; now, they're competing with landlords every where else.
  - sangli 6y ago
    Just move to other town? Is that a feasible solution?
    - pixelbash 6y ago
      It is if you don't have to live somewhere specific to earn enough money to pay rent.
      - dagurp 6y ago
        If you only have UBI anyway you might not be as tied down by your current job
      - sangli 6y ago
        Job is one part of life. A human is not like a variable in program that can be refactored into another class as needed. What you are saying would work perfectly for a young college graduate, without much family or friends, who has no dependency or no one dependent on them. Now imagine a young single mother or father that depends on their family for babysitting or caring for the child while they try to become functioning member of society. Imagine someone with some health condition that needs access to certain medical facilities. People live in cities and migrate to cities because they can access schools, colleges, entertainment, public transport, medical facilities, better opportunities, parks etc etc. They can't just pick and move and uproot themselves. I think people who work in technology do not have enough exposure to the poor and struggling members of the society. I grew up in a really really poor family and when I talk to my coworkers it is very apparent that they don't understand poor people.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  The UBI must be indexed on the cost of life and updated every year.
  - bsenftner 6y ago
    Exactly what will not happen, and a major reason why UBI will be a colossal failure if implemented. In our current political climate there is no way in hell UBI is implemented fairly and with rational checks and balances. The effort to implement UBI will be riddled with "pork" and what end up with in reality will be a sad, sad joke.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > The UBI must be indexed on the cost of life and updated every year. That makes no sense at all. UBI is just an income redistribution scheme, thus it can only work if it's linked to productivity. Otherwise you create a system that's bound to fail and collapse in the times it's needed the most: an economic crisis.
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  Nothing, because UBI+salary = previous salary. So everyone's part of income available for paying rent is the same. Only difference is that the guy who earns $2500 right now might be able to get a better job because he can quit without immediately losing his apartment.
  - saiya-jin 6y ago
    I can't see inflation not catching up with whatever UBI provides within couple of years. In the example above, rent will go obviously up, as will prices of products and services. When everybody has more money, I for sure can ask for more for my services/products. As for dependency, the money won't magically spawn on the table, they will be earned by state on taxes and then paid to citizens/residents. So you depend on who is in power anyway since there will be many rules, exceptions etc. It brings another new universe for corruption, leftist politicians to promise (and deliver) higher payments that next generations will have to pay back and so on... All these mental games, me, you, everybody... we can't get the full picture of everything mixing up with everything else - economy, mentality of individual and groups, greediness, black swan events, selfishness etc. and come up with a nice simulation how it will end up all joined together. That's just wishful thinking and people pick up side which they prefer, nothing more.
    - diffeomorphism 6y ago
      > When everybody has more money, Which is not the case. Hence, rent will obviously not change, as will prices of products and services. > the money won't magically spawn on the table Exactly!
    - Simon_says 6y ago
      > the money won't magically spawn on the table LOL, yes it will.
- musha68k 6y ago
  Good point. Basic income plus free, well situated and high quality housing would be a much more effective enabling factor for the less privileged.
- afarrell 6y ago
  Lobby their local government to prevent new apartments from being constructed unless they meet 47 conditions and are truly affordable.
- 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
  Perhaps nothing, his tenants will likely move to apartments in better neighborhoods, or, buy their own homes. He'll need to keep rents the same to continue to attract replacement tenants.
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    So demand for cheap apartments fall and prices stagnate. But you can't just think about one step, you have to consider the implications of that step. For example, if people are moving out of their bad apartments into nicer apartments and homes, demand for nice apartments and homes will increase, driving prices higher. Which makes sense--suddenly there is much more money available for housing. But that's not the end of the story, either. What is the incentive for the owners of small apartment complexes? It seems clear. They need to renovate their apartments so that they can capture the new up-market demand. Successful, mid-tier apartments could buy up cheaper complexes to renovate them and charge higher prices (this happens even now). The low-demand, low-price alternatives will fade away, because the land owners can make more money with slightly nicer, more expensive units.
    - evan_ 6y ago
      Why would the low-price apartments see lower demand? There’s going to be a huge number of folks who are now making a low income looking for housing. Many of these people are currently either totally unhoused or living with family/friends because they can’t afford even low-price places. If there’s a huge new demand won’t apply in fact increase?
  - jonfw 6y ago
    They'll buy their own homes? Through cheap government sponsored mortgages? Add that to the list of government spending that will expand under UBI. They'll move to better neighborhoods? What's going to happen to the people living in those neighborhoods? It's not like there are houses sitting vacant...
    - 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
- Applejinx 6y ago
  But you're making a straight-up Maoist argument here. You are arguing that the rent-seeker class (quite literally) are so uncontrollably avaricious that there is no way to moderate them: logically, they must be destroyed and we must go with communism because there is NO possible balance to be struck between rent-seekers and proletariat. I'm pretty lefty but I sure wouldn't go so far as that. Tell them not to bleed the tenants totally dry. Try making rules. Try enforcing rules. If that doesn't work, THEN we can talk along 'kill all the landlords' lines, but I am just not convinced it's that simple. I think there is room in a liberal market capitalist system with social supports (such as UBI, which is nothing more than a lower overhead social welfare system) to allow people to have property and stuff without it automatically going to Mao's worst nightmares. Yes, people are greedy, but that's not the only thing in the system.
- JoshuaDavid 6y ago
  Invest in building luxury housing in areas with high quality of living in order to lure people who can now afford better apartments and are no longer tied to a particular area?
- devonkim 6y ago
  As a former landlord I’d do the same thing I did then - keep my price low if I like my tenant or increase / not renew the lease to kick them out essentially. There’s a lot of variables to pricing for different kinds of landlords. It’s also illegal / breach of contract to increase rent based upon a person’s increased income as well unless it’s outside a lease period. I was told this as a landlord and I was mostly interested in getting a good tenant rather than trying to get the most dollars anyway. A bad tenant costs you far, far more than whatever you’d have increased your rent by.
coldtea 6y ago
>How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Because it's not about mere money, but about power. Getting double the money you get now doesn't make you more powerful than e.g. Jeff Bezos. In some instances it might make you less (e.g. if the cost of living increases because of the extra money circulating, if you start depending on the extra money, etc.)
- archsurface 6y ago
  Is there more money circulating? If people quit their £30k job for UBI.
  - eanzenberg 6y ago
    More circulating money means the value of money is less. If everyone’s a millionaire, then no one feels like one.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - boring_twenties 6y ago
    Some people might even quit their $100k+ jobs if they had a $40k UBI.
    - 6510 6y ago
      That is and always was a popular remark but the trials showed people might work fewer hours but for the most part become more productive when the fear of losing everything is removed from the equation.
      - boring_twenties 6y ago
        Sorry, but I don't understand exactly what you mean. It sounds like you're saying most people wouldn't quit, which doesn't conflict with my statement, which is that "some people" would quit. If you want to try to dispute that, you'll have a tough time with me, since I personally already have quit, even without the UBI, and from much more than $100k.
CodeShmode 6y ago
UBI is given in replacement for government services.
- fragmede 6y ago
  for welfare, and other welfare-like government services. Other services, like issuing passports, the DMV/RMV, running busses, would still continue to exist.
bobthechef 6y ago
It puts you at the mercy of the government. Of course, you could argue that that practically puts you at the mercy of the rich because governments are heavily influenced by the rich, but it really doesn't matter who you're at the mercy of. It's a mistake to fixate solely on the rich as the only people you should worry about being at the mercy of. Take government grants and other forms of funding received by universities. Sure, it sounds nice, but the result is that institutions slowly begin to depend on these sources of funding to the degree that their successful operation and even very existence depends on them. This puts universities in a very dangerous position and this dependence has been used to steer universities in directions they might not otherwise have gone.
dunnevens 6y ago
It depends on how UBI would play out. For example, let's say UBI gives everyone $40,000 a year. In much of the non-coastal US, that's enough to live on. But, pricing might still be based on everyone having a job. So prices now reflect the assumption people have 40k + whatever their salary is. I could see the rent-seekers adjusting their charges accordingly. A slumlord could now price their rents on a poor person making $60k a year (40k + 20k from their job) instead of just on the $20k alone. Doubling or tripling the rent. Consumer goods would possibly follow the same pattern. Maybe UBI would come with some sort of rent or price controls. Or maybe the fear of massive inflation would temper the greed of the rent-seekers. I don't know how it would play out. And I have to say I'm generally in favor of UBI. Just thinking out loud about how it might not be as helpful as it could be.
- Retric 6y ago
  Slumlords require a limited supply of local housing to gain leverage. If people on UBI are free to move then slumlords are competing with each other, so the same market forces that keeps prices low everywhere else are in effect. Some people on UBI would happily trade worse living conditions for more spending cash. But that freedom of choice is what enables efficient resource allocation.
  - EricE 6y ago
    "Slumlords require a limited supply of local housing to gain leverage. " Indeed - if you want to get rid of slumloards then how about getting government out of the way of new housing being created? San Francisco is the poster child for how utterly draconian zoning laws screw everyone, but lower income people disproportionately.
    - WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
      It wasn't "getting government out of the way." It was literally government working in tandem with the trade-union interests of finance, insurance, and real-estate to preserve the value of the "asset," real estate. The problem is BOTH the government AND allied private industry working AGAINST the interests of their constituents and clients. The correction here will be MASSIVE.
ellis-bell 6y ago
a slumlord could then just hike the rent up by ubi(ish) dollars oh, all my tenants have an "extra" $2,000 a month? they can pay more. housing is inelastic so tenants are the ones who have to bear the increase.
- lmm 6y ago
  Housing is inelastic at the moment, in part because people have to live somewhere where they can get a job.
  - ellis-bell 6y ago
    also because there is a fixed amount of land (like literally the surface of the earth occupies a finite area at least on human time scales) and because building housing stock takes time and because of zoning restrictions and other institutional constraints and because of cultural reasons (e.g. to live near family, bc they prefer living in a certain environment like a big city etc.) and because you (almost literally) can't live without shelter ...
    - lmm 6y ago
      > also because there is a fixed amount of land (like literally the surface of the earth occupies a finite area at least on human time scales) Not really. If the Earth's surface was populated at the same density as, say, Paris, that would be over 3 trillion people. > and because building housing stock takes time Not a whole lot of time actually with modern techniques. See the speed at which some of the Corona hospitals were built. > and because of zoning restrictions and other institutional constraints Which only apply to existing cities. Right now there are houses in the middle of Iowa - or even Detroit - that cost a small fraction of what a house in a city with good job prospects costs. If UBI became a thing, people would be able to move to those places. Not everyone would want to, but some would, and that would be enough to move the prices.
hammock 6y ago
>How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Because that money is coming from the rich. Would you say your boss/employer has less power over you the more you make? IF that is the case, it's not because of how much you make but rather because of how much value you have to the company. In the case of UBI, there is no value exchange, only a handout. If there is a value exchange, it's merely the prospect of less riots/civil unrest. (This is not even to mention the wash effects of inflation, which are covered well in the other comments on this thread)
fragmede 6y ago
There's a difference between random one-time gifts of $1,200, and depending on the largess of a single patron every month in order to feed yourself. The B in UBI stands for basic, not luxury, and it's unclear that those dependent on UBI to survive would be able to save money. UBI will help the destitute, but if the person holding the purse strings, be it a billionaire philanthropist, the government, or your employer, and you're dependent on that to survive, that gives that entity power over you.

DSingularity 6y ago

Let’s say rent is 1000$ right now and UBI gives everyone 2000$ a month. What do you think every landlord will do next year?

op00to 6y ago
You tell us.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  If it’s so obvious, why do all supporters of UBI ignore the issue? If you really care about the well being of the worlds population then address the underlying problems. Provide them access to the education you received (starting with primary school, not college). Prevent their exploitation by the companies. Especially those that we often work for! I would bet a better effect can be realized by investing in public education at the primary-high school levels. Make teacher salaries competitive with engineers. Enable all schools to have the equipment and teacher qualities they need.
  - playworker 6y ago
    We're not ignoring the issue, we just don't think the issue is the same one you do. The main issue in the world at the moment is income inequality, the things that you are listing stem from that, you can't fix education inequality without first addressing the income issue - UBI proposes that we tackle the source of the problem rather than trying to patch things up downstream
    - bsenftner 6y ago
      You cannot fix wealth inequality by giving the paltry amount of monthly stipend UBI is discussing. To address wealth inequality you need to educate the public better and you need to regulate capitalism better. Simply giving people UBI is a gift to the educated capitalist who will simply raise prices while simultaneously paying lobbyists to insure raising their prices is legal.
      - playworker 6y ago
        What paltry amount are we discussing? The concept of UBI is that it pays a living wage, enough to feed, clothe and house someone. It might not eradicate wealth inequality but it definitely narrows the gap/reduces it. I'm assuming you accept that the poor are getting poorer and the wealthy are getting wealthier - how do you propose to stop that without UBI?
        bsenftner 6y ago
        UBI alone is not a solution, it needs to be accompanied with access to adequately funded education and affordable housing and healthcare. Education is the #1 driver of success, and at minimum a better commitment to education by the United States will pay back multiple times over. Additionally, what leads you to believe UBI will allow an individual enough to feed, clothe and house themselves? Sure, that's the "idea" but in this world you think that would become a reality? No way. UBI as implemented will be watered down and it's effect will be a net zero, triggering the conservatives to cry "see! it does not work!"
      - 6y ago
kemotep 6y ago
Raise it to 2000. But the parent was talking about how now with UBI, people don't need to work to pay that. With food stamps, and other welfare programs that already exist to cover your other costs you don't have to work to be able to afford living anymore. Sure you can't go anywhere or have a fancy new phone or car but your income from work could pay for those things instead of just barely being able to stay alive.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Yeah, that is a fair point. Nonetheless, at this point we are not providing them a general income and instead society will just be subsidizing rent. I don’t like this solution because it is a pretend-solution. What are the causes of poverty? Prevent them. What are the barriers to mobility in the job market? Alleviate them. UBI helps but in my opinion it is just sweeping the problem under the rug.
  - kemotep 6y ago
    That is a fair concern to have which is why UBI isn't a cure all. There certainly can be a lot more effort put into ending poverty.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > What are the causes of poverty? Value capture by capitalists. Perverse incentives of means-tested welfare programs. Making choices that are suboptimal from an expected value perspective because they are better from a risk perspective when you can't afford to take risks. > Prevent them. UBI prevents or reduces all of those causes. > What are the barriers to mobility in the job market? People not having the resources to take time off their current job to retrain, either via formal training program or taking temporary lower-paid work in a different field, among others. > Alleviate them. UBI does.
- shawnz 6y ago
  Why wouldn't the landlord raise rent to $3000 if it's clear that most of their tenants could manage to find a job on the side to cover the difference? That's what they already have to do now, right?
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Raising rent ... and building more houses. Raising rent skews incentive significantly towards renting. Eventually the market becomes efficient as supply outstrips demand and rent sinks again. With an ability to command higher rent, renting becomes profitable on properties that were previously not profitable to build on. In the long run, I expect rent to fall relative to the current state of affairs as housing is overprovisioned (using the added income from more rent) and moves more towards a buyer's market. Furthermore, with UBI workers are in a stronger negotiating position so we'll see more work from home which also lowers rent by reducing competition in the cities.
ALittleLight 6y ago
What if every landlord but one raised the price by 1000 a month, and that one realized he could get more business by raising only 900 a month, so in response to that one landlord others lowered to only +800 so the one countered with +700... Etc. Etc.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  This argument would be much more persuasive if each landlord could supply an effectively unlimited supply of housing. As things currently stand, a landlord reducing his rent would clear his limited inventory first, but the broader effects of the actions of a single agent would be fairly muted.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    If only there was a way to turn money into more housing on top of the same area.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      After a while there's not. You need some urban planning, not just random accumulation of new housing...
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Zoning also needs fixes
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      It is amusing that folks kind of ignore the possibility of multiple storeys (and increasing supply of housing generally).
    - ac29 6y ago
      Sure, in theory you can eminent domain a neighborhood of low density housing and replace it with higher density housing. In practice though, its politically impossible most places.
- 6y ago
baaym 6y ago
I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in other countries there are laws against such increases in rent - especially 'social' rent for those with low income.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  In most of the US, I believe there are no laws. California recently passed some legislation limiting rental increases per year, but it's still something like 7-8%, which is ludicrous. The first world country I'm from has, effectively, nation-wide rent control (varies by region) and rent increases are limited to something around 1%, set each year (tracking inflation somewhat). In the US, this will work very poorly: a landlord can just bump your rent by exactly the UBI amount and get away with it. Otherwise, they would have to wait for a vacancy to set the rent. But eventually, I agree that the rent would just absorb the UBI in many cases.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Of course, laws against property tax increases but not rent increases.
  - blargmaster33 6y ago
    And you end up with black markets an 20+ queues ... Just like in Sweden.
- rodolphoarruda 6y ago
  In the country I live, rent is indexed and adjusted to inflation on an yearly basis. When the contract expires, parties have the chance to negotiate rent value at contract renewal to either increase it or decrease it.
- jacobr1 6y ago
  Many big cities in the US have forms of rent control. Usually this is tied to a particular tenant, if the old tenant moves out the landlord can charge a market rate.
ubercow13 6y ago
Does that happen with any other product? Are other consumer products priced based on calculation of consumers' incomes, or are they priced based on demand and competition in the market? I think rent in high-COL cities is more determined by high demand there than landlords' personal assessment of the residents' average incomes. With UBI, people would be more free to move away from areas with high rent. There could be more free competition on housing/rent across the whole country, which might drive down rents.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  I think higher education in top colleges is priced in a similar way. >I think rent in high-COL cities is more determined by high demand there than landlords' personal assessment of the residents' average incomes. A landlord doesn't have to personally assess the average income of the residents. The high demand will roughly do the assessment for them. >With UBI, people would be more free to move away from areas with high rent. This is something UBI allows, but I'm skeptical whether people will actually do that. Remote work also allows people to do that, but until the virus it hadn't really been considered as a serious option in the vast majority of workplaces.
  - buran77 6y ago
    > This is something UBI allows, but I'm skeptical whether people will actually do that I am a supporter of the UBI theory but I have to say I am skeptical of the implementation. People are usually incentivized to move towards the places that provide opportunity - jobs, education, etc. UBI might dampen that incentive. Given that most leadership systems are strongly influenced by the rich I have to wonder whether a system like UBI will be implemented in such a way that people are less dependent on the rich rather than actually becoming even more dependent.
  - jonfw 6y ago
    higher education in ALL colleges is priced in a similar way. They've all raised their prices in accordance with the amount of money the government is willing to guarantee kids will have access to.
bhl 6y ago
It's mentioned in the article indirectly: when you enable consumers to demand more, you increase competitive pressures amongst producers as well. Your landlord raises your rent by $1000? That's fine: you move to another town that's cheaper. Landlords are no longer competing within a town or city; now, they're competing with landlords every where else.
- sangli 6y ago
  Just move to other town? Is that a feasible solution?
  - pixelbash 6y ago
    It is if you don't have to live somewhere specific to earn enough money to pay rent.
    - dagurp 6y ago
      If you only have UBI anyway you might not be as tied down by your current job
    - sangli 6y ago
      Job is one part of life. A human is not like a variable in program that can be refactored into another class as needed. What you are saying would work perfectly for a young college graduate, without much family or friends, who has no dependency or no one dependent on them. Now imagine a young single mother or father that depends on their family for babysitting or caring for the child while they try to become functioning member of society. Imagine someone with some health condition that needs access to certain medical facilities. People live in cities and migrate to cities because they can access schools, colleges, entertainment, public transport, medical facilities, better opportunities, parks etc etc. They can't just pick and move and uproot themselves. I think people who work in technology do not have enough exposure to the poor and struggling members of the society. I grew up in a really really poor family and when I talk to my coworkers it is very apparent that they don't understand poor people.
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
The UBI must be indexed on the cost of life and updated every year.
- bsenftner 6y ago
  Exactly what will not happen, and a major reason why UBI will be a colossal failure if implemented. In our current political climate there is no way in hell UBI is implemented fairly and with rational checks and balances. The effort to implement UBI will be riddled with "pork" and what end up with in reality will be a sad, sad joke.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > The UBI must be indexed on the cost of life and updated every year. That makes no sense at all. UBI is just an income redistribution scheme, thus it can only work if it's linked to productivity. Otherwise you create a system that's bound to fail and collapse in the times it's needed the most: an economic crisis.
diffeomorphism 6y ago
Nothing, because UBI+salary = previous salary. So everyone's part of income available for paying rent is the same. Only difference is that the guy who earns $2500 right now might be able to get a better job because he can quit without immediately losing his apartment.
- saiya-jin 6y ago
  I can't see inflation not catching up with whatever UBI provides within couple of years. In the example above, rent will go obviously up, as will prices of products and services. When everybody has more money, I for sure can ask for more for my services/products. As for dependency, the money won't magically spawn on the table, they will be earned by state on taxes and then paid to citizens/residents. So you depend on who is in power anyway since there will be many rules, exceptions etc. It brings another new universe for corruption, leftist politicians to promise (and deliver) higher payments that next generations will have to pay back and so on... All these mental games, me, you, everybody... we can't get the full picture of everything mixing up with everything else - economy, mentality of individual and groups, greediness, black swan events, selfishness etc. and come up with a nice simulation how it will end up all joined together. That's just wishful thinking and people pick up side which they prefer, nothing more.
  - diffeomorphism 6y ago
    > When everybody has more money, Which is not the case. Hence, rent will obviously not change, as will prices of products and services. > the money won't magically spawn on the table Exactly!
  - Simon_says 6y ago
    > the money won't magically spawn on the table LOL, yes it will.
musha68k 6y ago
Good point. Basic income plus free, well situated and high quality housing would be a much more effective enabling factor for the less privileged.
afarrell 6y ago
Lobby their local government to prevent new apartments from being constructed unless they meet 47 conditions and are truly affordable.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
Perhaps nothing, his tenants will likely move to apartments in better neighborhoods, or, buy their own homes. He'll need to keep rents the same to continue to attract replacement tenants.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  So demand for cheap apartments fall and prices stagnate. But you can't just think about one step, you have to consider the implications of that step. For example, if people are moving out of their bad apartments into nicer apartments and homes, demand for nice apartments and homes will increase, driving prices higher. Which makes sense--suddenly there is much more money available for housing. But that's not the end of the story, either. What is the incentive for the owners of small apartment complexes? It seems clear. They need to renovate their apartments so that they can capture the new up-market demand. Successful, mid-tier apartments could buy up cheaper complexes to renovate them and charge higher prices (this happens even now). The low-demand, low-price alternatives will fade away, because the land owners can make more money with slightly nicer, more expensive units.
  - evan_ 6y ago
    Why would the low-price apartments see lower demand? There’s going to be a huge number of folks who are now making a low income looking for housing. Many of these people are currently either totally unhoused or living with family/friends because they can’t afford even low-price places. If there’s a huge new demand won’t apply in fact increase?
- jonfw 6y ago
  They'll buy their own homes? Through cheap government sponsored mortgages? Add that to the list of government spending that will expand under UBI. They'll move to better neighborhoods? What's going to happen to the people living in those neighborhoods? It's not like there are houses sitting vacant...
  - 11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
Applejinx 6y ago
But you're making a straight-up Maoist argument here. You are arguing that the rent-seeker class (quite literally) are so uncontrollably avaricious that there is no way to moderate them: logically, they must be destroyed and we must go with communism because there is NO possible balance to be struck between rent-seekers and proletariat. I'm pretty lefty but I sure wouldn't go so far as that. Tell them not to bleed the tenants totally dry. Try making rules. Try enforcing rules. If that doesn't work, THEN we can talk along 'kill all the landlords' lines, but I am just not convinced it's that simple. I think there is room in a liberal market capitalist system with social supports (such as UBI, which is nothing more than a lower overhead social welfare system) to allow people to have property and stuff without it automatically going to Mao's worst nightmares. Yes, people are greedy, but that's not the only thing in the system.
JoshuaDavid 6y ago
Invest in building luxury housing in areas with high quality of living in order to lure people who can now afford better apartments and are no longer tied to a particular area?
devonkim 6y ago
As a former landlord I’d do the same thing I did then - keep my price low if I like my tenant or increase / not renew the lease to kick them out essentially. There’s a lot of variables to pricing for different kinds of landlords. It’s also illegal / breach of contract to increase rent based upon a person’s increased income as well unless it’s outside a lease period. I was told this as a landlord and I was mostly interested in getting a good tenant rather than trying to get the most dollars anyway. A bad tenant costs you far, far more than whatever you’d have increased your rent by.

coldtea 6y ago

>How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Because it's not about mere money, but about power. Getting double the money you get now doesn't make you more powerful than e.g. Jeff Bezos. In some instances it might make you less (e.g. if the cost of living increases because of the extra money circulating, if you start depending on the extra money, etc.)

archsurface 6y ago
Is there more money circulating? If people quit their £30k job for UBI.
- eanzenberg 6y ago
  More circulating money means the value of money is less. If everyone’s a millionaire, then no one feels like one.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- boring_twenties 6y ago
  Some people might even quit their $100k+ jobs if they had a $40k UBI.
  - 6510 6y ago
    That is and always was a popular remark but the trials showed people might work fewer hours but for the most part become more productive when the fear of losing everything is removed from the equation.
    - boring_twenties 6y ago
      Sorry, but I don't understand exactly what you mean. It sounds like you're saying most people wouldn't quit, which doesn't conflict with my statement, which is that "some people" would quit. If you want to try to dispute that, you'll have a tough time with me, since I personally already have quit, even without the UBI, and from much more than $100k.

CodeShmode 6y ago

UBI is given in replacement for government services.

fragmede 6y ago
for welfare, and other welfare-like government services. Other services, like issuing passports, the DMV/RMV, running busses, would still continue to exist.

bobthechef 6y ago

It puts you at the mercy of the government. Of course, you could argue that that practically puts you at the mercy of the rich because governments are heavily influenced by the rich, but it really doesn't matter who you're at the mercy of. It's a mistake to fixate solely on the rich as the only people you should worry about being at the mercy of. Take government grants and other forms of funding received by universities. Sure, it sounds nice, but the result is that institutions slowly begin to depend on these sources of funding to the degree that their successful operation and even very existence depends on them. This puts universities in a very dangerous position and this dependence has been used to steer universities in directions they might not otherwise have gone.

dunnevens 6y ago

It depends on how UBI would play out. For example, let's say UBI gives everyone $40,000 a year. In much of the non-coastal US, that's enough to live on. But, pricing might still be based on everyone having a job. So prices now reflect the assumption people have 40k + whatever their salary is. I could see the rent-seekers adjusting their charges accordingly. A slumlord could now price their rents on a poor person making $60k a year (40k + 20k from their job) instead of just on the $20k alone. Doubling or tripling the rent. Consumer goods would possibly follow the same pattern. Maybe UBI would come with some sort of rent or price controls. Or maybe the fear of massive inflation would temper the greed of the rent-seekers. I don't know how it would play out. And I have to say I'm generally in favor of UBI. Just thinking out loud about how it might not be as helpful as it could be.

Retric 6y ago
Slumlords require a limited supply of local housing to gain leverage. If people on UBI are free to move then slumlords are competing with each other, so the same market forces that keeps prices low everywhere else are in effect. Some people on UBI would happily trade worse living conditions for more spending cash. But that freedom of choice is what enables efficient resource allocation.
- EricE 6y ago
  "Slumlords require a limited supply of local housing to gain leverage. " Indeed - if you want to get rid of slumloards then how about getting government out of the way of new housing being created? San Francisco is the poster child for how utterly draconian zoning laws screw everyone, but lower income people disproportionately.
  - WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
    It wasn't "getting government out of the way." It was literally government working in tandem with the trade-union interests of finance, insurance, and real-estate to preserve the value of the "asset," real estate. The problem is BOTH the government AND allied private industry working AGAINST the interests of their constituents and clients. The correction here will be MASSIVE.

ellis-bell 6y ago

a slumlord could then just hike the rent up by ubi(ish) dollars oh, all my tenants have an "extra" $2,000 a month? they can pay more. housing is inelastic so tenants are the ones who have to bear the increase.

lmm 6y ago
Housing is inelastic at the moment, in part because people have to live somewhere where they can get a job.
- ellis-bell 6y ago
  also because there is a fixed amount of land (like literally the surface of the earth occupies a finite area at least on human time scales) and because building housing stock takes time and because of zoning restrictions and other institutional constraints and because of cultural reasons (e.g. to live near family, bc they prefer living in a certain environment like a big city etc.) and because you (almost literally) can't live without shelter ...
  - lmm 6y ago
    > also because there is a fixed amount of land (like literally the surface of the earth occupies a finite area at least on human time scales) Not really. If the Earth's surface was populated at the same density as, say, Paris, that would be over 3 trillion people. > and because building housing stock takes time Not a whole lot of time actually with modern techniques. See the speed at which some of the Corona hospitals were built. > and because of zoning restrictions and other institutional constraints Which only apply to existing cities. Right now there are houses in the middle of Iowa - or even Detroit - that cost a small fraction of what a house in a city with good job prospects costs. If UBI became a thing, people would be able to move to those places. Not everyone would want to, but some would, and that would be enough to move the prices.

hammock 6y ago

>How are you more at the mercy of the rich if you have more money? Because that money is coming from the rich. Would you say your boss/employer has less power over you the more you make? IF that is the case, it's not because of how much you make but rather because of how much value you have to the company. In the case of UBI, there is no value exchange, only a handout. If there is a value exchange, it's merely the prospect of less riots/civil unrest. (This is not even to mention the wash effects of inflation, which are covered well in the other comments on this thread)

fragmede 6y ago

There's a difference between random one-time gifts of $1,200, and depending on the largess of a single patron every month in order to feed yourself. The B in UBI stands for basic, not luxury, and it's unclear that those dependent on UBI to survive would be able to save money. UBI will help the destitute, but if the person holding the purse strings, be it a billionaire philanthropist, the government, or your employer, and you're dependent on that to survive, that gives that entity power over you.