4 ms·
I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then
by doh 6y ago
I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords.
That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again.
I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Meaning that UBI should somehow provide shelter, security and food.
It might be easier that it seems. Most nations already have monopoly on violence (police).
Food is more tricky. We already do subsidize farmers, so maybe this could be extended and basic food could be provided by the government (bread and such) or subsidized in full by it.
Shelter is the trickiest. There are some interesting cases across the World where governments have strong regulation around housing. One idea could be that every new development of multi-family housing or condos has to "donate" 10% of them to the municipality. These are then held by the city, that can "rent" it out to people who need them. They can't sell it. This would push the cost of these developments by 10% but it would essentially wipe out homelessness.
There are some ideas that I thought through over the years. As I said, I unfortunately don't have the answers.
- berkeleyjunk 6y agoI think Singapore is really ahead in the affordable housing front. They have nice places where people actually want to live. I am not sure if and how it is possible to replicate this on a larger scale.
- doh 6y agoCalifornia has requirements that developers have to designate certain units for low income. However, for larger developments, they found a loophole, where multiple developers pool all of these units and put them in a separate building. I think it completely beats the purpose. The whole point of this should be so people that hit the bottom don't feel like outcasts. We would be so much better off if we helped them to get on their feet so they can be productive again.
- nbardy 6y agoThis is my biggest worry with UBI. Won't most of the extra wealth just be captured by rent-seeking?
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Won't most of the extra wealth just be captured by rent-seeking? There is no (first order; reductions in bureaucratic inefficiencies and social ills probably provide some as second-order effects) extra wealth, just a compression of the income distribution compared to the status quo ante.
- chillacy 6y agoYou might find interesting experiments on housing in Asia. Specifically Singapore has a housing subsidy system such that basic housing is subsidized to be affordable for all. In China land is rented from the government on a lease. This does tend to have the weird side effect of encouraging massive build-outs as it's how cities raise money. One of the more interesting ideas I heard is that zoning is a cause of developers only building luxury apartments in US cities. If there were no minimum apartment size, a building could be split into smaller spaces such that the profitability per sq ft remains the same. > then the rents go up by the same amount I can believe that rents go up. I am skeptical that specifically rents go up by _exactly the same amount_ and in every neighborhood when a portable income source is introduced, such that it perfectly cancels it and we're back to nothing. I don't hear this criticism brought out for a minimum wage hike or tax reductions.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> That means if everyone gets $1,000/month They don't, net, unless UBI is fully monetized rather than paid for through either current taxes or borrowing, either one of which takes money from some group of people to redistribute.