3 ms·

It is certainly possible that some goods or services that are inelastic in supply will experience cost inflation if they are goods or services that are mostly o

It is certainly possible that some goods or services that are inelastic in supply will experience cost inflation if they are goods or services that are mostly or entirely consumed by a market segment that becomes richer from basic income. I'm not convinced that housing is generally an example of such a good, but some housing may well be. However, the same is true of targeted assistance to only the poor for only housing -- it increases their effective wealth for the purposes of competing only for housing, and, if anything, it will make it worse than a more general guaranteed income would.

bduerst 12y ago
That was my point - Basic Income doesn't provide any additional benefits to targeted assistance, and would actually be a detriment in markets with income-elastic demand.
- aetherson 12y ago
  I know what your point is, but if you imagined that I repeated your point, you're wrong. What I said was that targeted assistance was MORE likely to cause price inflation in areas like, say, housing than guaranteed income was, precisely because it generates "income" that can only be spent in competition for this particular housing category. The benefit of basic income over targeted assistance is that basic income is relatively low-administration cost to flexibly meet the needs of people who don't have housing needs, and in that it is a relatively non-market-distorting intervention.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Bureaucracy has overhead, I'll give you that, but I assume you're saying that UBI is a replacement for assistance programs, rather than being used alongside them? That's the only way for cost administrative cost savings. What about when UBI isn't enough for something as trivial as Medicaid? Would UBI cover the cost of health insurance for everyone, since it's replacing the "expensively adminsitrative" medicaid? Even if you took away employer insurance today, many people with steady income can't even afford their own health insurance.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      I don't think that basic income could replace healthcare programs. It might replace section 8 housing and food stamps and at least some kinds of disability and unemployment insurance and some kinds of child credits and so forth. I actually don't think it would successfully replace any of those things, which is one of the reasons I don't really support it. But it's an intriguing idea that should be debated on its merits.
      - bduerst 12y ago
        For sure. I think that switching healthcare over to being a public utility would open the door to debating a lot of different programs, including basic income. Maybe then someone will figure out a way to handle the housing issue.
- gnopgnip 12y ago
  Basic income reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance. Also it could create increased mobility in the job market compared the current system. (You could leave your current job without waiting weeks or months for unemployment/disability/EBT) Basic income would create an elastic supply of labor potentially reducing the prices of many goods that is not considered in the above analysis. (When one has a basic income provided already you don't have to charge as much for services. More people would be competing to provide the same services)
  - bduerst 12y ago
    >reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance. Only if UBI replaces all other programs, and i'm guessing it won't be enough for people to afford a Medicaid replacement. Typically you only qualify for unemployement, disability, etc. when you're been let go, not when you're quiting voluntarily (and it usually only takes a week to get). Even then, it's certain percentage of your current income, so as to not disrupt your lifestyle. I doubt many people will voluntarily quit to be on a much lower UBI just so they can look for a new job. But then again maybe there are studies on this...?

bduerst 12y ago

That was my point - Basic Income doesn't provide any additional benefits to targeted assistance, and would actually be a detriment in markets with income-elastic demand.

aetherson 12y ago
I know what your point is, but if you imagined that I repeated your point, you're wrong. What I said was that targeted assistance was MORE likely to cause price inflation in areas like, say, housing than guaranteed income was, precisely because it generates "income" that can only be spent in competition for this particular housing category. The benefit of basic income over targeted assistance is that basic income is relatively low-administration cost to flexibly meet the needs of people who don't have housing needs, and in that it is a relatively non-market-distorting intervention.
- bduerst 12y ago
  Bureaucracy has overhead, I'll give you that, but I assume you're saying that UBI is a replacement for assistance programs, rather than being used alongside them? That's the only way for cost administrative cost savings. What about when UBI isn't enough for something as trivial as Medicaid? Would UBI cover the cost of health insurance for everyone, since it's replacing the "expensively adminsitrative" medicaid? Even if you took away employer insurance today, many people with steady income can't even afford their own health insurance.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    I don't think that basic income could replace healthcare programs. It might replace section 8 housing and food stamps and at least some kinds of disability and unemployment insurance and some kinds of child credits and so forth. I actually don't think it would successfully replace any of those things, which is one of the reasons I don't really support it. But it's an intriguing idea that should be debated on its merits.
    - bduerst 12y ago
      For sure. I think that switching healthcare over to being a public utility would open the door to debating a lot of different programs, including basic income. Maybe then someone will figure out a way to handle the housing issue.
gnopgnip 12y ago
Basic income reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance. Also it could create increased mobility in the job market compared the current system. (You could leave your current job without waiting weeks or months for unemployment/disability/EBT) Basic income would create an elastic supply of labor potentially reducing the prices of many goods that is not considered in the above analysis. (When one has a basic income provided already you don't have to charge as much for services. More people would be competing to provide the same services)
- bduerst 12y ago
  >reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance. Only if UBI replaces all other programs, and i'm guessing it won't be enough for people to afford a Medicaid replacement. Typically you only qualify for unemployement, disability, etc. when you're been let go, not when you're quiting voluntarily (and it usually only takes a week to get). Even then, it's certain percentage of your current income, so as to not disrupt your lifestyle. I doubt many people will voluntarily quit to be on a much lower UBI just so they can look for a new job. But then again maybe there are studies on this...?