4 ms·

> if ubi is permanent… The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a

> if ubi is permanent… The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. And whilst the masses our back out in the wilds scrounging up their money, the landlord class will be consolidating into an every smaller group. Inflation is what happens when too much money chases a limited supply of goods. And desirable housing is always limited.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kiba 5y ago
That's why you need to fight asset inflation, reduce red tapes and increasing housing opportunities.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Sure, but it behoves advocates to UBI to say: "We have a solution that not only includes handing outs cash to everyone forever, but to fight the associated, unavoidable rent inflation we will introduce sweeping changes to hard-earned building standards, negatively alter the character of many many neighbourhoods, and add a massive beurocracy to introduce and enforce with the power of the state all sorts of price controls." They don't do this because obviously far fewer people would think its a good idea.
  - kiba 5y ago
    I thought the problem was with bureaucracy, especially with restrictive zoning laws, and the propensity to say no.
  - onetrueliberal 5y ago
    Bureaucracy is a wellspring of employment.
jlmorton 5y ago
Rent is only affected by income/capacity to pay to the extent that supply is limited. You could give everyone currently living in Detroit $10,000/month, and it wouldn't impact rental prices at all, because there is an abundance of supply. Do the same thing in NYC, and indeed rental prices will soar.
notJim 5y ago
> The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. This doesn't make sense. If it was the case, raising the minimum wage would have the same result, but studies have shown that people are better off when the minimum wage goes up. Landlords do not have infinite power to raise prices, because they are in competition with one another. To the extent landlords have too much power, it's largely because we have decided to prevent the construction of new housing for many years. > And desirable housing is always limited. Does not have to be if you allow people to build more housing, and fix the regulations that make it overly expensive to do so.
- chii 5y ago
  I would argue raising minimum wage doesn't have the same effect, because the value produced by the job on this minimum wage, in totality, is still higher than the minimum wage (because if it weren't, those jobs would then be gone, and the person would end up with no job, rather than a raised minimum wage).
TuringNYC 5y ago
It depends on how much UBI is. There is plenty of housing in the US, for example -- except there isnt enough near where jobs exist. If UBI was sufficient for survival, people could migrate away from high cost areas to exurbs. There are huge swaths of housing once you go far enough, except that isnt possible if you still need to supplement UBI with a job and are hence tied to a major metro area.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kiba 5y ago

That's why you need to fight asset inflation, reduce red tapes and increasing housing opportunities.

throwaway210222 5y ago
Sure, but it behoves advocates to UBI to say: "We have a solution that not only includes handing outs cash to everyone forever, but to fight the associated, unavoidable rent inflation we will introduce sweeping changes to hard-earned building standards, negatively alter the character of many many neighbourhoods, and add a massive beurocracy to introduce and enforce with the power of the state all sorts of price controls." They don't do this because obviously far fewer people would think its a good idea.
- kiba 5y ago
  I thought the problem was with bureaucracy, especially with restrictive zoning laws, and the propensity to say no.
- onetrueliberal 5y ago
  Bureaucracy is a wellspring of employment.

jlmorton 5y ago

Rent is only affected by income/capacity to pay to the extent that supply is limited. You could give everyone currently living in Detroit $10,000/month, and it wouldn't impact rental prices at all, because there is an abundance of supply. Do the same thing in NYC, and indeed rental prices will soar.

notJim 5y ago

> The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. This doesn't make sense. If it was the case, raising the minimum wage would have the same result, but studies have shown that people are better off when the minimum wage goes up. Landlords do not have infinite power to raise prices, because they are in competition with one another. To the extent landlords have too much power, it's largely because we have decided to prevent the construction of new housing for many years. > And desirable housing is always limited. Does not have to be if you allow people to build more housing, and fix the regulations that make it overly expensive to do so.

chii 5y ago
I would argue raising minimum wage doesn't have the same effect, because the value produced by the job on this minimum wage, in totality, is still higher than the minimum wage (because if it weren't, those jobs would then be gone, and the person would end up with no job, rather than a raised minimum wage).

TuringNYC 5y ago

It depends on how much UBI is. There is plenty of housing in the US, for example -- except there isnt enough near where jobs exist. If UBI was sufficient for survival, people could migrate away from high cost areas to exurbs. There are huge swaths of housing once you go far enough, except that isnt possible if you still need to supplement UBI with a job and are hence tied to a major metro area.