4 ms·

The problem with a UBI is not the UBI itself, but the fact that landlords could just raise their price. You need to solve the contradiction within the economy

by kiba 8mo ago

The problem with a UBI is not the UBI itself, but the fact that landlords could just raise their price. You need to solve the contradiction within the economy in order to make UBI works. The current way our taxation policy work is to tax labor and capital, which is the basis of our economy, while flinching away from taxing land, which derives much of its value from the surrounding economic activity rather than an owner's effort. By the way, the UBI is an old idea. In the 19th century, it was known as the Citizen's Dividend.

limagnolia 8mo ago
If cities allowed more supply to be constructed, landlords couldn't just raise the price.
- WesolyKubeczek 8mo ago
  I know of cities where real estate development is rampant, sometimes to the detriment of quality, and yet apartment prices are soaring.
  - parineum 8mo ago
    That's because, in the places where housing is expensive, it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there. It's a pipe dream that you can out build demand in these places. Reducing prices of housing in nice places to live (by any means, including building) will only result in more demand up until that insatiable demand is satisfied. Nice places to live can't support all the people that want to live there. Because demand is, for all intents and purposes, insatiable, the dollar value of housing/property isn't based on supply and demand because supply can't practically be increased to affect demand. Instead, the price is related to what a prospective buyer can afford to pay _every month_ and, thus, is related to interest rates. Interest rates go down, prices go up to the point where a prospective buyer's mortgage payment would be the same. People who bring up the (un)affordability of housing are never talking about Oklahoma, they're talking about the Bay Area, Southern California, New York City, Seattle, Portland, etc. All places that are so desirable, they can't practically support everyone that wants to live there.
    - 9rx 8mo ago
      > it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there. I can't figure out how to make the math make sense even if I were to build a house in the middle of nowhere. Time and materials is the real killer. Some day, when AI eliminates software development as a career, maybe you will be able to hire those people to build you houses for next to nothing, but right now I don't think it matters where or how many you build. The only way the average Joe is going to be able to afford one — at least until population decline fixes the problem naturally — is for someone else to take a huge loss on construction. And, well, who is going to line up to do that?
      - parineum 8mo ago
        You can't afford a 175k house on a software engineer salary? https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3024-N-Vermont-Ave-Oklahoma-City-OK-73107/21909221_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3024-N-Vermont-Ave-Oklaho...
        9rx 8mo ago
        "Built in 1954" doesn't sound like new construction. Of course you can buy used houses at a fraction of the cost. That's nothing new. Maybe you missed it, but the discussion here about building new to make homes more affordable.
        parineum 8mo ago
        > building new to make homes more affordable No need to build new, a plethora of affordable homes are available.
        9rx 8mo ago
        If one was freely able to move about the entire world you may have a point. Especially given current events, I am not sure the country in which that house is located would take kindly to many of us moving there. In a more practical reality you're not going to find anything for anywhere close to that price even in the middle of nowhere, never mind somewhere where everyone wants to live. That is where earlier comments suggest building more housing would help. Except it is not clear who can afford new construction either. It is even more expensive.
- jodrellblank 8mo ago
  It seems London hit record levels of empty properties in 2024, some 30,000 of them worth £2Bn or so. What part of your idea was supposed to stop that happening and why didn't it work?
  - jimnotgym 8mo ago
    Too much capital, too few assets. We can't keep building assets, so perhaps we need to do something about the capital? We could tax it and pay some of the money to artists?
  - forgotaccount3 8mo ago
    > What part of your idea was supposed to stop that happening The part where people see their money burning away paying maintenance and tax on deteriorating assets. Why are people holding assets unused? Because they don't believe that the city will allow sufficient development to allow them to purchase like-assets in the future if they chose to reinvest and the carrying cost is minimal because council taxes are trivial relative to the value of the asset. If my research is correct, Kensington council taxes are under 10k USD per year.
- autoexec 8mo ago
  Just like in the US, there are a ton of homes in Ireland just sitting vacant. Supply isn't nearly as large a problem as affordability. Ireland introduced a vacant homes tax to try to help, but it seems they haven't gone far enough.

by kiba 8mo ago

limagnolia 8mo ago

If cities allowed more supply to be constructed, landlords couldn't just raise the price.

WesolyKubeczek 8mo ago
I know of cities where real estate development is rampant, sometimes to the detriment of quality, and yet apartment prices are soaring.
- parineum 8mo ago
  That's because, in the places where housing is expensive, it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there. It's a pipe dream that you can out build demand in these places. Reducing prices of housing in nice places to live (by any means, including building) will only result in more demand up until that insatiable demand is satisfied. Nice places to live can't support all the people that want to live there. Because demand is, for all intents and purposes, insatiable, the dollar value of housing/property isn't based on supply and demand because supply can't practically be increased to affect demand. Instead, the price is related to what a prospective buyer can afford to pay _every month_ and, thus, is related to interest rates. Interest rates go down, prices go up to the point where a prospective buyer's mortgage payment would be the same. People who bring up the (un)affordability of housing are never talking about Oklahoma, they're talking about the Bay Area, Southern California, New York City, Seattle, Portland, etc. All places that are so desirable, they can't practically support everyone that wants to live there.
  - 9rx 8mo ago
    > it's expensive because a _LOT_ of people want to live there. I can't figure out how to make the math make sense even if I were to build a house in the middle of nowhere. Time and materials is the real killer. Some day, when AI eliminates software development as a career, maybe you will be able to hire those people to build you houses for next to nothing, but right now I don't think it matters where or how many you build. The only way the average Joe is going to be able to afford one — at least until population decline fixes the problem naturally — is for someone else to take a huge loss on construction. And, well, who is going to line up to do that?
    - parineum 8mo ago
      You can't afford a 175k house on a software engineer salary? https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3024-N-Vermont-Ave-Oklahoma-City-OK-73107/21909221_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3024-N-Vermont-Ave-Oklaho...
      - 9rx 8mo ago
        "Built in 1954" doesn't sound like new construction. Of course you can buy used houses at a fraction of the cost. That's nothing new. Maybe you missed it, but the discussion here about building new to make homes more affordable.
        parineum 8mo ago
        > building new to make homes more affordable No need to build new, a plethora of affordable homes are available.
        9rx 8mo ago
        If one was freely able to move about the entire world you may have a point. Especially given current events, I am not sure the country in which that house is located would take kindly to many of us moving there. In a more practical reality you're not going to find anything for anywhere close to that price even in the middle of nowhere, never mind somewhere where everyone wants to live. That is where earlier comments suggest building more housing would help. Except it is not clear who can afford new construction either. It is even more expensive.
jodrellblank 8mo ago
It seems London hit record levels of empty properties in 2024, some 30,000 of them worth £2Bn or so. What part of your idea was supposed to stop that happening and why didn't it work?
- jimnotgym 8mo ago
  Too much capital, too few assets. We can't keep building assets, so perhaps we need to do something about the capital? We could tax it and pay some of the money to artists?
- forgotaccount3 8mo ago
  > What part of your idea was supposed to stop that happening The part where people see their money burning away paying maintenance and tax on deteriorating assets. Why are people holding assets unused? Because they don't believe that the city will allow sufficient development to allow them to purchase like-assets in the future if they chose to reinvest and the carrying cost is minimal because council taxes are trivial relative to the value of the asset. If my research is correct, Kensington council taxes are under 10k USD per year.
autoexec 8mo ago
Just like in the US, there are a ton of homes in Ireland just sitting vacant. Supply isn't nearly as large a problem as affordability. Ireland introduced a vacant homes tax to try to help, but it seems they haven't gone far enough.