31–40 of 70 posts
I wish they'd release as much data as possible regarding the experiment so other cities and countries could have actual data to look at instead of hypotheses.
I still haven't seen a good explanation for how UBI on a truly universal scale isn't going to just raise housing prices to capture the surplus. I mean, if my landlord knew I (and anybody else who could theoretically live in my apartment) had a spare $2000/month, forever, I'm pretty sure he'd want it.
What if it's not spare? It's their only $2000/month so they're not going to pay that much for rent, and someone else will offer lower prices to get that money. These same people aren't tied to a job, so they can more easily move somewhere cheaper too.
I still haven't seen a good explanation for how UBI on a truly universal scale isn't going to just raise housing prices to capture the surplus. I mean, if my landlord knew I (and anybody else who could theoretically live in my apartment) had a spare $2000/month, forever, I'm pretty sure he'd want it.
I'd have a much nicer van down by the river...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you structure that bonus if you get a promotion that takes you to 7,501? You would get an impressive pay cut. If you structure it like taxes where only the first 7.5k get doubled then a bunch of people that don't need it will also get free money making the program cost more.
You're right! That would be a major concern and an incredibly serious flaw in such a program. Maybe the description could be parsed slightly differently? Some might read parent's description to be proposing a bonus on W2 income the a limit on the bonus only of $7,500. Thus an income greater than that receives the full bonus. The structural problem you have correctly identified thus does not arise!
It would make sense to assume there is some cut off, and given how government cut offs work in the past, it would be reasonable to assume the cut off will be implemented in a fashion that creates a graph where sometimes raises will result in less pay, at least when combined with existing government aid programs.
I still haven't seen a good explanation for how UBI on a truly universal scale isn't going to just raise housing prices to capture the surplus. I mean, if my landlord knew I (and anybody else who could theoretically live in my apartment) had a spare $2000/month, forever, I'm pretty sure he'd want it.
That's always been what I wondered as well. UBI solves everything, except for the part where an actor who knows explicitly that all of his tenants will be getting a flat amount per month, then why not raise prices to capture some of that as well? Why wouldn't everything just increase in price slightly, everyone can afford a little bit more now.
This is not true. UBI doesn't create money out of nowhere. It redistributes existing money. Poor people can afford more, and rich people can afford less, because taxes increase.
I still haven't seen a good explanation for how UBI on a truly universal scale isn't going to just raise housing prices to capture the surplus. I mean, if my landlord knew I (and anybody else who could theoretically live in my apartment) had a spare $2000/month, forever, I'm pretty sure he'd want it.
That is not how any market works. Just because your customers have more money does not change the supply or demand for your product. A luxury apartment fetches a high price because there is demand from tenants willing to pay the luxury price. No one is going to pay more for the same apartment unless there is more demand for apartments than there is supply like you have in NYC and SF. More income causes prices to rise…
This might be the unintended consequences of a wage/ price spiral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's always been what I wondered as well. UBI solves everything, except for the part where an actor who knows explicitly that all of his tenants will be getting a flat amount per month, then why not raise prices to capture some of that as well? Why wouldn't everything just increase in price slightly, everyone can afford a little bit more now.
These are really excellent points I hadn’t considered. On the other hand, let’s run the experiment the other way. We currently have significant numbers of people working with no hope of financial stability in their future. Will taxing them to fill the coffers of the rich improve their situation? Given the current situation of increasing wealth inequality seemingly exacerbating existing problems, I can’t imagine that…
We really do need to be building a lot of stuff, and or fixing stuff we have already done. That work is a direct stimulus, can pay pretty well, and benefits everyone public and private alike. Additionally, the returns from it can pay down all of the expensive bombs and non returned items that we currently spend or have spent on. An example is the interstate highway project. Our current president once the toll that, which is really stupid, but similar kinds of projects will deliver similar kinds of returns. The interstate highway project is still paying us great dividends years and years after it was created. Last figure I knew was 6/8 maybe 10 times the dollar spent.
The post office still getting a lot of bad press right now, is actually exemplary and its performance in return to the public. It is entirely self-funded, doesn't take any tax dollars at all, pays good wages, has a lot of value to the public, and the benefits are worth working there.
Other self-funded public works could work the very same way. Those that use it pay for it, and we all will benefit from the economic development. An example might beat networks, another example might be first line Healthcare, there are many to choose from.
One that I've been thinking about lately is energy. Well distributed public investments in energy of all forms, managed on a higher level through something like a post office, might really pay us off, and deliver a lot of options making energy competitive and well distributed.
The key thing to understanding all of this is government has agency, it's for us, by us, and we need to employ it to our mutual good. Yes, this will compete with Private Industry, but they should be competed with, otherwise they'll accumulate wealth stuff in the bank, and complain about the lack of opportunities to invest and make returns. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it's a stalemate. One we don't need.
I knocked this out really quick on Google Voice. I apologize in advance if this is a bit of a mess. Hopefully the gist comes through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it's not spare? It's their only $2000/month so they're not going to pay that much for rent, and someone else will offer lower prices to get that money. These same people aren't tied to a job, so they can more easily move somewhere cheaper too.
What landlord would continue to rent an apartment out for $X when it's easily possible to rent it out for $X+2000 or $X+1500 (not capturing the whole surplus, but a majority of it, say)?