The first results from the biggest basic income experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#131

Post by konschubert » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 8:06 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #48

konschubert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you upzone and increase supply, it becomes a buyers market and landlords have to lower their prices.

That’s true totally separate from UBI. No matter what else you do, UBI’s effect will be increased rents. In absolute terms you could overcome this by increasing supply, but 1) nothing about UBI makes increasing supply easier, and 2) UBI would reduce the positive effects on rent achieved by increasing supply. If you want to reduce the cost of living you increase supply. UBI will not affect supply nor demand, it will j…

I think I agree with you.

We need to increase supply by upzoning and speeding up permission processes.

That will increase supply, depress prices, and solve a lot of social ill without needing UBI.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#132

Post by rapind » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #47

It seems to me that every basic income ‘experiment’ is flawed because they don’t account for the externalities of higher taxes and the fact that the pool of recipients is limited enough that the market is unaffected. Giving a few thousand people a few thousand a month isn’t going to cause much on an impact on inflation and it’s not going to make rents go up across the market. Additionally, others outside the experime…

> every basic income ‘experiment’ is flawed because they don’t account for the externalities of higher taxes

I think UBI should be combined with a flat tax to achieve the same as a progressive tax but without any loopholes (because it’s so simple).

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#133

Post by danenania » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 8:33 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #128

danenania wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it’s not clear that they’d be able to charge more given that less purchasing power for high income earners would push real estate prices (and therefore rents) downward. In the study you posted, it’s not possible to isolate the variable. Many things could have affected the (minor) changes in rents. Not a good analysis. Minimum wage increases purchasing power for the employed workers, but also increases unemploy…

The decreased purchasing power at the high end 1) is a consequence of taxes , not UBI itself, and 2) wouldn’t push prices down for lower income housing writ large. At the absolute margins, a high-income earner who is being taxed into lower-income housing is increasing competition among tenants for the same low-income housing, which will increase those prices. If you want to tax high-income people into lower-income ho…

> is a consequence of taxes, not UBI itself

A distinction without a difference imo. My point is that how you pay for it is what determines the impact on prices, but I think we’re basically rehashing demand-side vs. supply-side economics at this point.

> I already know I’m able to

You don’t decide the market rate by yourself. And I don’t think you’re properly accounting for how UBI impacts this in aggregate.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#134

Post by ethanbond » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

danenania wrote: post #133

ethanbond wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The decreased purchasing power at the high end 1) is a consequence of taxes , not UBI itself, and 2) wouldn’t push prices down for lower income housing writ large. At the absolute margins, a high-income earner who is being taxed into lower-income housing is increasing competition among tenants for the same low-income housing, which will increase those prices. If you want to tax high-income people into lower-income ho…

> is a consequence of taxes, not UBI itself A distinction without a difference imo. My point is that how you pay for it is what determines the impact on prices, but I think we’re basically rehashing demand-side vs. supply-side economics at this point. > I already know I’m able to You don’t decide the market rate by yourself. And I don’t think you’re properly accounting for how UBI impacts this in aggregate.

No, how you pay for it doesn't change UBI's effect on pricing. UBI has exactly the effect I'm describing. Separately, a tax scheme may have a different, countervailing effect, regardless of whether or not it's related to UBI. That countervailing effect could arguably overcome UBI's positive pressure on prices, but it's a totally separate effect from a separate policy and even still your explanation of the mechanism looks totally incoherent.

Please explain how taxing high-income people into low-income housing doesn't increase the prices of traditionally low-income housing.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#135

Post by geysersam » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #124

underlipton wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's unrealistic. If it's purely supply and demand, the premium landlords will be able to command out of that 1000 bucks will be somewhat less than the total - and perhaps significantly less, if prospective tenants are savvy enough to hold out collectively. The only way you see the entire thing co-opted for rent is if landlords were to collude and refuse to break rank on pricing. But there's no way that would happe…

> if prospective tenants are savvy enough to hold out collectively and why would that be the case? Seems like a hard coordination problem to me.

But collective rent bargaining is common so it's clearly not impossible.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#136

Post by geysersam » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78

geysersam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree the experiments are flawed. But I'd like to raise that there also are positive effects that are not accounted for. You mentioned the impact on market prices, I think the impact on prices would be net positive, because the market would become more inclined to provide products and services for people with lower incomes, where every marginal spent dollar has a much higher impact on overall well being…

If you’re getting £1000 extra a month and I say your rent is now £1000 extra a month, you can’t and won’t say no. If you say no, I’ll just get someone else in who will give me their free money. As you’re competing with them for the same goods, you’ll have no choice but to pay the same. Meaning it’s made no difference for you as the primary costs in your life are limited by supply. For someone who owns their own house…

If that was really the case then all surplus would already be eaten by landlords and that clearly isn't the case. In some parts rents are absolutely very high but that's not everywhere. If rents increase more apartments will be built, reducing the ability of landlords to extract rent.

But I agree that inflation is likely to increase if people get more money to spend. However, I think that would mainly be over a transitional period while the economy adapts to the new demand.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#137

Post by robocat » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 10:36 PM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78

geysersam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree the experiments are flawed. But I'd like to raise that there also are positive effects that are not accounted for. You mentioned the impact on market prices, I think the impact on prices would be net positive, because the market would become more inclined to provide products and services for people with lower incomes, where every marginal spent dollar has a much higher impact on overall well being…

If you’re getting £1000 extra a month and I say your rent is now £1000 extra a month, you can’t and won’t say no. If you say no, I’ll just get someone else in who will give me their free money. As you’re competing with them for the same goods, you’ll have no choice but to pay the same. Meaning it’s made no difference for you as the primary costs in your life are limited by supply. For someone who owns their own house…

> For someone who owns their own house and makes £10,000 a month, it’s meaningless. Their inflexible goods are already covered

I disagree. Competitive middle classers would often climb up the property ladder and spend the £1,000 more on their mortgage. Mortgage payments are often a large percentage of middle class costs that constrains disposable spending (certainly true for me).

I generally agree that say rent might rise to take up any extra income from renters. But a similar dynamic occurs for owners. Especially when you look at the group level where house prices are indirectly set by householder incomes. House buyers compete with each other for how much they can pay in mortgage repayments, similarly to how renters compete with each other.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#138

Post by underlipton » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 11:10 PM UTC

RestlessMind wrote: post #124

underlipton wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's unrealistic. If it's purely supply and demand, the premium landlords will be able to command out of that 1000 bucks will be somewhat less than the total - and perhaps significantly less, if prospective tenants are savvy enough to hold out collectively. The only way you see the entire thing co-opted for rent is if landlords were to collude and refuse to break rank on pricing. But there's no way that would happe…

> if prospective tenants are savvy enough to hold out collectively and why would that be the case? Seems like a hard coordination problem to me.

Because there are multiple concrete examples of class solidarity just in the past year which point to a shift in consciousness about such issues. Covid gains were stolen; good luck doing it twice in a generation (in the hypothetical case of UBI in the next few years).

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#139

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 1:32 AM UTC

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #47

It seems to me that every basic income ‘experiment’ is flawed because they don’t account for the externalities of higher taxes and the fact that the pool of recipients is limited enough that the market is unaffected. Giving a few thousand people a few thousand a month isn’t going to cause much on an impact on inflation and it’s not going to make rents go up across the market. Additionally, others outside the experime…

What about Alaska's permanent freedom fund?

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#140

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Mon, Dec 04, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #45

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've known for a while now that the best approach Another settled science, and it for the progressive outlook. What an amazing coincidence.

Did you read his links? At least he gave some, you didn't.

Ultra progressive media outlet says UBI is great, comment posts progressive outlet sources, upvoted on a site with progressive users.

No, I’m not interested in playing that game.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out to others that the fanatics seriously think this is a known-quantity / settled science.