4 ms·

Personally, I really hate this comment, for several reasons. First, let's consider the price of the rent. Assume for a moment that somebody manages to fix all

Personally, I really hate this comment, for several reasons. First, let's consider the price of the rent. Assume for a moment that somebody manages to fix all mental health problems, alcoholism and so on, and that magically everyone manages to find a good job that pays reasonably well. This is supposedly the dream land of the pure capitalists: everyone works and is productive and so no handouts are received. Well, what would you suppose happens to the rent in this situation? If everyone is able to pay, then rents would go up, wouldn't they? So the difference between UBI and this is only that in one case people don't necessarily have to work, while in the latter case they have to spend 8+ of their lives doing stuff they may not like. What this means is that your main point is simply that you don't want people to have money to pay for housing, because that may make prices go up for you. You are literally advocating that some people must be homeless so that life for us is easier. Secondly, the rent argument consistently ignores the fact that if you don't have to work, you can go live wherever you want. One could go live in Alaska and buy 1km2 of land for 10$ because who gives a shit? construct their own igloo or something and then live there forever. This would additionally free them up to spend a larger part of UBI on other products. Instead there is this weird assumption that people will forever cluster in SF or other highly populated centers, because apparently humans are ants and like to breathe pollution.

op00to 6y ago
Thank you for this reply.
ethanbond 6y ago
You’re articulating clearly why even solving all underlying causes of homelessness wouldn’t actually cure homelessness. Why don’t you believe your own argument? In any case, while that is the obvious conclusion (as you’ve stated), I never took the position that we merely need to fix mental health etc. I am not saying UBI will work but will make prices go up so I don’t like it. I am saying that UBI won’t work, it will in fact make inequality worse, AND there’s a solution that will work. It’s the LVT. Once we have LVT, then we could do UBI and the upside would not get absorbed by landlords. It’s odd to me that you’re claiming that I’m being dismissive of poor folks but you’re literally advocating moving to an igloo in Alaska as a solution?
- jlokier 6y ago
  If we accept that a feature of cities is people want to live in them, and will compete for that, therefore UBI won't help people live in cities. How does LVT help poorer people live in cities? The competition for clustered housing continues, that's a fundamental cause. Richer people still have an advantage over poorer people in economic competition. Instead of people renting and landlords scooping up all the UBI, with LVT you have people competing to buy housing and LVT scooping up all that people can obtain (whether it's UBI, earnings or something else). Poorer people don't have much luck buying housing in the first place, because of mortgage gatekeeping, even when the actual cost of purchase (mortgage payments) is significantly lower then renting. Even when they do, they pay more for the same level of housing in the end (mortgage interest). So a switch to a city economy where housing is primarily based around purchases would seem to be not so good for poorer people trying to live there, unless something can be done about access to long-term credit.
  - ethanbond 6y ago
    LVT would help in a few ways: 1) Public investments such as subways yield increases to public coffers (today, the landlords who happen to own land near a new subway station get a windfall off the city’s billions of dollars of investment). This would incentivize public investment. 2) Land speculation goes away, and development is strongly incentivized, so more units come online and push prices down. 3) Both of the above improvements, as well as private investments made due to public/communal value (such as HQ2 not being built in the middle of nowhere), would funnel huge amounts of money to public coffers. We as a democratic society can decide if we want service workers living in our cities (I reckon anyone who lives in reality does want this) and have the resources to fund making that possible. Things like functioning transit systems go a long, long way.
    - opwieurposiu 6y ago
      Land tax is a better then income tax, because it is more efficient. UBI is better then 100 different need based programs because it is more efficient. But government/politicians do not value efficiency, they value bureaucracy. So they will stand in the way of anything better. Clearly what we need is a UBG, Universal Bureaucrat Guillotine.
Chris2048 6y ago
If a city in the US existed where everyone magically got their problems fixed, I imaging it would be seen as a desirable place to live, so no wonder the rents go up. Rent is an auction, so there is a dynamic/negation about living in a place. It's not true that rents go up if "everyone is able to pay" - only if "everyone is able willing to pay"; where are competing cities with lower rents in this example?
Ultcyber 6y ago
I think you are overestimating the ease of people moving from one place to another. While job may be a primary reason people live in the cities, there are other important reasons like access to entertainment, shops, being close to other friends who leave nearby etc. It's not as simple as saying "oh, I could spare 500$ a month by moving in the middle of nowhere, let's do it". Not everybody wants to live in suburban/rural areas and spend most of his time at home.
- squeaky-clean 6y ago
  > oh, I could spare 500$ a month by moving in the middle of nowhere, let's do it For $500/mo sure. But if it's like people say and landlords try to raise rent $2k/mo like people are saying, then yes people would definitely move. Also you could easily save $500/mo right now by moving from a big city to somewhere small. Right now, without UBI being a thing. The rent difference under a hypothetical UBI rent increase would be far more than $500/mo.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  You think suburban people stay home all the time? What sort of overgeneralization is that? Suburbs = guaranteed vehicle = travel not just mandatory for commuting, but at will, as desired.

op00to 6y ago

Thank you for this reply.

ethanbond 6y ago

You’re articulating clearly why even solving all underlying causes of homelessness wouldn’t actually cure homelessness. Why don’t you believe your own argument? In any case, while that is the obvious conclusion (as you’ve stated), I never took the position that we merely need to fix mental health etc. I am not saying UBI will work but will make prices go up so I don’t like it. I am saying that UBI won’t work, it will in fact make inequality worse, AND there’s a solution that will work. It’s the LVT. Once we have LVT, then we could do UBI and the upside would not get absorbed by landlords. It’s odd to me that you’re claiming that I’m being dismissive of poor folks but you’re literally advocating moving to an igloo in Alaska as a solution?

jlokier 6y ago
If we accept that a feature of cities is people want to live in them, and will compete for that, therefore UBI won't help people live in cities. How does LVT help poorer people live in cities? The competition for clustered housing continues, that's a fundamental cause. Richer people still have an advantage over poorer people in economic competition. Instead of people renting and landlords scooping up all the UBI, with LVT you have people competing to buy housing and LVT scooping up all that people can obtain (whether it's UBI, earnings or something else). Poorer people don't have much luck buying housing in the first place, because of mortgage gatekeeping, even when the actual cost of purchase (mortgage payments) is significantly lower then renting. Even when they do, they pay more for the same level of housing in the end (mortgage interest). So a switch to a city economy where housing is primarily based around purchases would seem to be not so good for poorer people trying to live there, unless something can be done about access to long-term credit.
- ethanbond 6y ago
  LVT would help in a few ways: 1) Public investments such as subways yield increases to public coffers (today, the landlords who happen to own land near a new subway station get a windfall off the city’s billions of dollars of investment). This would incentivize public investment. 2) Land speculation goes away, and development is strongly incentivized, so more units come online and push prices down. 3) Both of the above improvements, as well as private investments made due to public/communal value (such as HQ2 not being built in the middle of nowhere), would funnel huge amounts of money to public coffers. We as a democratic society can decide if we want service workers living in our cities (I reckon anyone who lives in reality does want this) and have the resources to fund making that possible. Things like functioning transit systems go a long, long way.
  - opwieurposiu 6y ago
    Land tax is a better then income tax, because it is more efficient. UBI is better then 100 different need based programs because it is more efficient. But government/politicians do not value efficiency, they value bureaucracy. So they will stand in the way of anything better. Clearly what we need is a UBG, Universal Bureaucrat Guillotine.

Chris2048 6y ago

If a city in the US existed where everyone magically got their problems fixed, I imaging it would be seen as a desirable place to live, so no wonder the rents go up. Rent is an auction, so there is a dynamic/negation about living in a place. It's not true that rents go up if "everyone is able to pay" - only if "everyone is able willing to pay"; where are competing cities with lower rents in this example?

Ultcyber 6y ago

I think you are overestimating the ease of people moving from one place to another. While job may be a primary reason people live in the cities, there are other important reasons like access to entertainment, shops, being close to other friends who leave nearby etc. It's not as simple as saying "oh, I could spare 500$ a month by moving in the middle of nowhere, let's do it". Not everybody wants to live in suburban/rural areas and spend most of his time at home.

squeaky-clean 6y ago
> oh, I could spare 500$ a month by moving in the middle of nowhere, let's do it For $500/mo sure. But if it's like people say and landlords try to raise rent $2k/mo like people are saying, then yes people would definitely move. Also you could easily save $500/mo right now by moving from a big city to somewhere small. Right now, without UBI being a thing. The rent difference under a hypothetical UBI rent increase would be far more than $500/mo.
zentiggr 6y ago
You think suburban people stay home all the time? What sort of overgeneralization is that? Suburbs = guaranteed vehicle = travel not just mandatory for commuting, but at will, as desired.