4 ms·

How would that relate to landlords? If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties. The landlord would have to ge

by Chris2048 5y ago

How would that relate to landlords? If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties. The landlord would have to get their UBI directly, and that might still not be enough.

wongarsu 5y ago
If everyone has UBI, then people still have some money with which to pay rent (or at least pay a portion of the rent). That makes it much less likely that you need an eviction moratorium, and lessens the impact of having one. And of course the assumption "if everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money" isn't right, since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. Many people would get basically the same, just with less bureaucratic overhead. And to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes, so you would expect the money of someone earning median income to not really change at all (depending on the exact tax scheme).
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > people still have some money with which to pay rent And as a result, money will devalue, and rents will go up. So long as UBI recipients are competing with each other over housing, that's how it will work. > since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. If UBI is universal, why would unemployment benefits be cut? wouldn't that mean the unemployed get comparatively less? > to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes The problem with this is that tax rates now follow from UBI. Previously we might say "The tax people pay is X% of income". Now we pay a fixed sum $Y to everyone and we need to make up for $Y * P ; where P is the size of the population. that means the average tax payed needs to be $Y per person. This obviously can't be equally distributed (otherwise Y = 0) but now the relative tax rate depends explicitly on population size. You've just moved the goalpost by making income less relevant, and citizenship more relevant; Now every new immigrant making less than average wage, increases the tax rate for everyone making more than average wage. Instead of opposing tax rates, the wealthy will oppose immigration rates. The benefit of not guaranteeing tax-derived UBI, is that no one has to care who enters the country, b/c it doesn't have any effect on them.
gruez 5y ago
>If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties But people are only competing for rental properties because they need jobs, because cities are where all the jobs are. If getting a job isn't a requirement, they can move to oklahoma or something and get a cheap rental there.
- danaris 5y ago
  In the short term, UBI—even a proper one that actually provides a bare minimum to live on—isn't likely to make lots of people leave their jobs for long enough to move expecting to live only off UBI. That's more likely to be a long-term process as people gain more bargaining power and the money distribution becomes more equal across the country.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    I suppose this depends on whether UBI is supposed to be a form of welfare, adding a buffer against unemployment, and greasing the wheels of the economy; or if it's supposed to be a star-trekkian form of post-scarcity neo-economy. Assuming the former; I see a big problem in that the desired outcome: "people gain more bargaining power" as unlikely so long as UBI is only a monetary pay-out. power is relative. Universal anything can't fix that. It's like saying "everyone should be above average". If everyone got more money, money will just become less valuable. The only effect will be to piss off those with mostly monetary assets (who aren't in a position to sell-off before the change), and increase the value of non-monetary investments. Instead, the focus should first be on the pinch-points, i.e. the scarce assets that money is intended to buy. Government housing projects, for example: leverage the large amounts of capital the government has by buying large lots of land and rapidly developing it. Create a large supply of basic housing w/ amenities, and allow this to apply market pressure naturally. AFAIK, this is the kind of approach China is taking: large social projects for core infrastructure, high-speed national railways; entire cities built cheaply from scratch in remote areas. The large amount of capital pays off when these cities develop into more desirable locations, and unemployment/poverty is decreased.
    - 5y ago

wongarsu 5y ago

If everyone has UBI, then people still have some money with which to pay rent (or at least pay a portion of the rent). That makes it much less likely that you need an eviction moratorium, and lessens the impact of having one. And of course the assumption "if everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money" isn't right, since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. Many people would get basically the same, just with less bureaucratic overhead. And to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes, so you would expect the money of someone earning median income to not really change at all (depending on the exact tax scheme).

Chris2048 5y ago
> people still have some money with which to pay rent And as a result, money will devalue, and rents will go up. So long as UBI recipients are competing with each other over housing, that's how it will work. > since UBI as "proposed" my comment would replace other safety nets like unemployment benefits. If UBI is universal, why would unemployment benefits be cut? wouldn't that mean the unemployed get comparatively less? > to pay for the rest of UBI you wouldn't just print money but instead raise taxes The problem with this is that tax rates now follow from UBI. Previously we might say "The tax people pay is X% of income". Now we pay a fixed sum $Y to everyone and we need to make up for $Y * P ; where P is the size of the population. that means the average tax payed needs to be $Y per person. This obviously can't be equally distributed (otherwise Y = 0) but now the relative tax rate depends explicitly on population size. You've just moved the goalpost by making income less relevant, and citizenship more relevant; Now every new immigrant making less than average wage, increases the tax rate for everyone making more than average wage. Instead of opposing tax rates, the wealthy will oppose immigration rates. The benefit of not guaranteeing tax-derived UBI, is that no one has to care who enters the country, b/c it doesn't have any effect on them.

gruez 5y ago

>If everyone has UBI, then everyone has more money to compete for the better rental properties But people are only competing for rental properties because they need jobs, because cities are where all the jobs are. If getting a job isn't a requirement, they can move to oklahoma or something and get a cheap rental there.

danaris 5y ago
In the short term, UBI—even a proper one that actually provides a bare minimum to live on—isn't likely to make lots of people leave their jobs for long enough to move expecting to live only off UBI. That's more likely to be a long-term process as people gain more bargaining power and the money distribution becomes more equal across the country.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  I suppose this depends on whether UBI is supposed to be a form of welfare, adding a buffer against unemployment, and greasing the wheels of the economy; or if it's supposed to be a star-trekkian form of post-scarcity neo-economy. Assuming the former; I see a big problem in that the desired outcome: "people gain more bargaining power" as unlikely so long as UBI is only a monetary pay-out. power is relative. Universal anything can't fix that. It's like saying "everyone should be above average". If everyone got more money, money will just become less valuable. The only effect will be to piss off those with mostly monetary assets (who aren't in a position to sell-off before the change), and increase the value of non-monetary investments. Instead, the focus should first be on the pinch-points, i.e. the scarce assets that money is intended to buy. Government housing projects, for example: leverage the large amounts of capital the government has by buying large lots of land and rapidly developing it. Create a large supply of basic housing w/ amenities, and allow this to apply market pressure naturally. AFAIK, this is the kind of approach China is taking: large social projects for core infrastructure, high-speed national railways; entire cities built cheaply from scratch in remote areas. The large amount of capital pays off when these cities develop into more desirable locations, and unemployment/poverty is decreased.
  - 5y ago