5 ms·

I am a progessive state government. I am considering legislation for the next fiscal year. I have come to learn that 100% of private landlords have increased

I am a progessive state government. I am considering legislation for the next fiscal year. I have come to learn that 100% of private landlords have increased their rents by the full amount of the UBI we introduced last year. I ban private rentals and/or private ownership of homes and/or introduce strict rent control policies (depending on precisely how progressive we're feeling this year). Congrats, mission accomplished.

estearum 8mo ago
Yes! Excellent work. Now there is no incentive for anyone to build housing for our growing population!
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  Indeed, a critical problem. But wait ... what's that? You say there are places where the state builds housing? How could it be?
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Sure but now you're not just talking about UBI, are you? You're now talking about UBI, plus rent controls, plus state-built housing. All to make UBI actually do anything at all other than enrich existing landlords. Why don't we just skip the UBI and the rent controls and instead just have the state build housing?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      Because UBI is largely orthogonal to those things. It's a way of taking productivity gains and ensuring that the entire population benefits from them.
      - estearum 8mo ago
        But... without those other changes... UBI doesn't benefit the entire population, as we've just established. It benefits landlords.
        PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        The broader claim that you're making is that any increase in after-tax income benefits only the rent-seeking classes (since the same argument you've made for landlords would apply to all other rent seekers, including netflix, airlines and more). I don't know enough about economics these days to know if anyone who knows a lot about thus stuff thinks this is true, but it seems on the face of it to be absurd, since it would mean that pay raises are substantially diminished by rents paid for anything where demand is not elastic. I mean, I'm not insisting that cannot possibly be true, but it seems unlikely ...
        estearum 8mo ago
        No, this argument does not apply to rent-seeking classes. I am describing land ownership specifically. Land is a totally n-of-one asset in that it is completely inelastic. It is not created nor destroyed by any human intervention whatsoever, and so its supply is not affected by prices whatsoever. The relevance of this is amplified by the fact that land is a required input for all forms of production. People and machines must exist in space, and therefore demand land. This does not apply to any other asset that we care about.
        PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        OK, so there are classes of activity that are fairly inelastic, but not as inelastic as those requiring use of land. Fair enough. But why would the cost of air travel not increase in response to UBI? It's not inelastic, but modest increases don't appear to reduce demand much at all. Or eggs (again, not inelastic, but not very elastic either)? The housing:land demand ratio is also not fixed, due to multi-level dwellings (hence, for example, Singapore or Hong Kong), or increased density (e.g. ADUs or smaller lots). I just don't see why you see UBI only affecting owners of a nearly-inelastic resource (land) rather than everything else too (even if to a lesser degree) ?
- EGG_CREAM 8mo ago
  I am a progressive government. The free market has failed to provide a necessary service. So now I pass a law that creates a not for profit contractor that builds houses. It’s not that complicated. We do it with fire departments, police, and many other services already. Free market might have been more efficient theoretically, but when it fails in practice we find another solution.
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Yes, so un-complicated that we're now talking about state-built housing just to make UBI do anything other than enrich landlords. UBI is a bad idea. State-built housing is not necessarily a bad idea. You can just do the latter and skip the former.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      Por que no los dos?
    - EGG_CREAM 8mo ago
      I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in rich countries to disprove that assertion. I do see what you mean, I think, now that I’m rereading and contemplating. A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm. Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?
      - estearum 8mo ago
        > A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Yes largely correct, but more specifically than "wealthy and powerful," I am referring directly to the landed class, wealthy or not. This type of infusion will ultimately be baked into the cost of land, which will propagate up to rent, then up to wages, then up to goods. The gains will accrue almost entirely to the landed class in the form of higher land rents with no symmetrical increase in costs because land itself does not incur costs. > Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement? It wouldn't have the same effect but it'd have an analogous effect in the localized markets in which those subsidies are applied. For example, you'd expect the price of land (and so rent → wages → goods) to increase where retiring people congregate. But it'd be less harmful to the exact degree that the subsidy itself is less broadly "helpful."
- UncleMeat 8mo ago
  Of course there is an incentive to build housing. Developers build homes and then sell them to people who live in those homes.
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Did you miss the part where GP was proposing price controls?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
      In response to what is deemed to be unreasonable and/or undesirable landlord behavior ... such controls would not stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties.
      - estearum 8mo ago
        "Unreasonable behavior" is just "setting market prices." Correct it wouldn't stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties but it would destroy the incentive to produce additional housing, so nobody wins.
    - UncleMeat 8mo ago
      Not everybody who buys a home is a landlord.
- rybosworld 8mo ago
  Are you implying that landlords are naturally incentivized to build homes? Because in most circumstances, the exact opposite is true. In the U.S., the government has a number of programs that offer landlords vouchers in order to encourage them to build out more homes.
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Landlords are different things from developers. Sometimes (more rarely than people think) a single entity plays both roles, but it's impossible to reason about this space if you conflate the two Yes, developers build homes to make money. This is how approximately 100% of the housing supply in the US was created.
    - rybosworld 8mo ago
      I was not conflating the two - I literally meant that there are incentives in place to encourage landlords to develop new homes. I am not referring to groups whose primary interest is to develop and sell - but to develop and own. I know a lot of landlords think they are a persecuted class that is providing a necessary service - but that largely isn't true. Broadly you can imagine two scenarios for simplicity sake. 1) Housing supply is abundant. Landlords have to compete on service superior maintenance, better units, better locations, etc.). Renting a home behaves like any other service industry that we come to know and love. 2) Housing supply is constrained. The situation plaguing much of the modern world. Land is limited. Landlords earn a higher IRR from jacking rents than they do from buying additional units. The landlords profit from control of the access to a scare resource rather than from providing anything of value. Plainly: rent-seeking is evil.
- LightBug1 8mo ago
  Did you just imply that landlords are incentivised to build housing for a growing population?! * scream laughs *
  - estearum 8mo ago
    Landlords != developers You should take some time to understand this extremely basic distinction before forming such strong conclusions.
    - LightBug1 8mo ago
      Maybe, but I had a good laugh at the implication, and now how you've stretched your reasoning, so I'm ok with it. Thanks.

estearum 8mo ago

Yes! Excellent work. Now there is no incentive for anyone to build housing for our growing population!

PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
Indeed, a critical problem. But wait ... what's that? You say there are places where the state builds housing? How could it be?
- estearum 8mo ago
  Sure but now you're not just talking about UBI, are you? You're now talking about UBI, plus rent controls, plus state-built housing. All to make UBI actually do anything at all other than enrich existing landlords. Why don't we just skip the UBI and the rent controls and instead just have the state build housing?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    Because UBI is largely orthogonal to those things. It's a way of taking productivity gains and ensuring that the entire population benefits from them.
    - estearum 8mo ago
      But... without those other changes... UBI doesn't benefit the entire population, as we've just established. It benefits landlords.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        The broader claim that you're making is that any increase in after-tax income benefits only the rent-seeking classes (since the same argument you've made for landlords would apply to all other rent seekers, including netflix, airlines and more). I don't know enough about economics these days to know if anyone who knows a lot about thus stuff thinks this is true, but it seems on the face of it to be absurd, since it would mean that pay raises are substantially diminished by rents paid for anything where demand is not elastic. I mean, I'm not insisting that cannot possibly be true, but it seems unlikely ...
        estearum 8mo ago
        No, this argument does not apply to rent-seeking classes. I am describing land ownership specifically. Land is a totally n-of-one asset in that it is completely inelastic. It is not created nor destroyed by any human intervention whatsoever, and so its supply is not affected by prices whatsoever. The relevance of this is amplified by the fact that land is a required input for all forms of production. People and machines must exist in space, and therefore demand land. This does not apply to any other asset that we care about.
        PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
        OK, so there are classes of activity that are fairly inelastic, but not as inelastic as those requiring use of land. Fair enough. But why would the cost of air travel not increase in response to UBI? It's not inelastic, but modest increases don't appear to reduce demand much at all. Or eggs (again, not inelastic, but not very elastic either)? The housing:land demand ratio is also not fixed, due to multi-level dwellings (hence, for example, Singapore or Hong Kong), or increased density (e.g. ADUs or smaller lots). I just don't see why you see UBI only affecting owners of a nearly-inelastic resource (land) rather than everything else too (even if to a lesser degree) ?
EGG_CREAM 8mo ago
I am a progressive government. The free market has failed to provide a necessary service. So now I pass a law that creates a not for profit contractor that builds houses. It’s not that complicated. We do it with fire departments, police, and many other services already. Free market might have been more efficient theoretically, but when it fails in practice we find another solution.
- estearum 8mo ago
  Yes, so un-complicated that we're now talking about state-built housing just to make UBI do anything other than enrich landlords. UBI is a bad idea. State-built housing is not necessarily a bad idea. You can just do the latter and skip the former.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    Por que no los dos?
  - EGG_CREAM 8mo ago
    I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in rich countries to disprove that assertion. I do see what you mean, I think, now that I’m rereading and contemplating. A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm. Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?
    - estearum 8mo ago
      > A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Yes largely correct, but more specifically than "wealthy and powerful," I am referring directly to the landed class, wealthy or not. This type of infusion will ultimately be baked into the cost of land, which will propagate up to rent, then up to wages, then up to goods. The gains will accrue almost entirely to the landed class in the form of higher land rents with no symmetrical increase in costs because land itself does not incur costs. > Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement? It wouldn't have the same effect but it'd have an analogous effect in the localized markets in which those subsidies are applied. For example, you'd expect the price of land (and so rent → wages → goods) to increase where retiring people congregate. But it'd be less harmful to the exact degree that the subsidy itself is less broadly "helpful."
UncleMeat 8mo ago
Of course there is an incentive to build housing. Developers build homes and then sell them to people who live in those homes.
- estearum 8mo ago
  Did you miss the part where GP was proposing price controls?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
    In response to what is deemed to be unreasonable and/or undesirable landlord behavior ... such controls would not stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties.
    - estearum 8mo ago
      "Unreasonable behavior" is just "setting market prices." Correct it wouldn't stop landlords from continuing to earn from their properties but it would destroy the incentive to produce additional housing, so nobody wins.
  - UncleMeat 8mo ago
    Not everybody who buys a home is a landlord.
rybosworld 8mo ago
Are you implying that landlords are naturally incentivized to build homes? Because in most circumstances, the exact opposite is true. In the U.S., the government has a number of programs that offer landlords vouchers in order to encourage them to build out more homes.
- estearum 8mo ago
  Landlords are different things from developers. Sometimes (more rarely than people think) a single entity plays both roles, but it's impossible to reason about this space if you conflate the two Yes, developers build homes to make money. This is how approximately 100% of the housing supply in the US was created.
  - rybosworld 8mo ago
    I was not conflating the two - I literally meant that there are incentives in place to encourage landlords to develop new homes. I am not referring to groups whose primary interest is to develop and sell - but to develop and own. I know a lot of landlords think they are a persecuted class that is providing a necessary service - but that largely isn't true. Broadly you can imagine two scenarios for simplicity sake. 1) Housing supply is abundant. Landlords have to compete on service superior maintenance, better units, better locations, etc.). Renting a home behaves like any other service industry that we come to know and love. 2) Housing supply is constrained. The situation plaguing much of the modern world. Land is limited. Landlords earn a higher IRR from jacking rents than they do from buying additional units. The landlords profit from control of the access to a scare resource rather than from providing anything of value. Plainly: rent-seeking is evil.
LightBug1 8mo ago
Did you just imply that landlords are incentivised to build housing for a growing population?! * scream laughs *
- estearum 8mo ago
  Landlords != developers You should take some time to understand this extremely basic distinction before forming such strong conclusions.
  - LightBug1 8mo ago
    Maybe, but I had a good laugh at the implication, and now how you've stretched your reasoning, so I'm ok with it. Thanks.