221–230 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! Excellent work. Now there is no incentive for anyone to build housing for our growing population!
Did you just imply that landlords are incentivised to build housing for a growing population?! * scream laughs *
You should take some time to understand this extremely basic distinction before forming such strong conclusions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation is not what suppresses production, but the actual profit margins. It's extremely hard to make money building housing because the cost of land and labor are so high. These costs are high because we now live in an advanced economy where land can do much more valuable things than "be housing", and laborers can do much more productive things than "build housing."
I disagree. Zoning, building permits, inflated utility hook-up charges, etc is what restricts me from buying a one-acre parcel and putting in 30 snug cabins.
High enough again to make it hardly profitable (if you're lucky) to do what you're allowed to do on that land.
There are entire businesses that just buy lots, change their zoning, then sell them. It's all priced in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That extra 200 will also allow some people to move to a rural area, decreasing demand, which means you won't find a renter.
Yes if you simply assert an upside down reality, this is a good solution. However, people actually move toward higher COL areas as their income permits them to. If more income meant people moved away from high COL areas, cities wouldn't exist. We'd have a flat distribution of people across approximately all land with ultra-low COL and ultra-low productivity everywhere.
I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…
Is that what UBI has become these days? That everyone is supposed to get some extra money on top of whatever they already have? ~20 years ago, when UBI was a popular idea in my country, it was understood as a technical fix to the welfare and tax systems. It was supposed to simplify the systems and make them easier to understand. It was supposed to fix the perverse incentives people with low wages face, such as the ex…
> Progressive taxation would go away.
There should be very aggressive progressive taxation. When you've absorbed a lot we should encourage you to stop hoarding and get a life.
Maybe do a license for a fund for a specific purpose. Then you can continue playing the game but the fund may only be spend on [say] high speed rail.
It seems fun to leave all the money in the companies and require them to explain to a committee what they are going to do with it. If apple says they are going to make phones the size of the fund begs to question why they are not already spending it on making phones?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Police unions aren't the same thing as other unions What about California teachers’ unions? European notaries?
I'm sure there are other things that call themselves unions but don't serve the same function we expect of organizations using that word. I'm not really knowledgeable about either of the things you mention, so I don't know if I'd view them as fitting this description or not. Both seem unlikely to have the kind of broad negative impact police unions have, which is particularly egregious because they effectively make p…
No True Scotsman. All unions are unimpeachable. Because those that aren’t aren’t real unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Zoning, building permits, inflated utility hook-up charges, etc is what restricts me from buying a one-acre parcel and putting in 30 snug cabins.
Sure, but if zoning etc didn't prevent you from doing that, the price of the land would just be far higher. High enough again to make it hardly profitable (if you're lucky) to do what you're allowed to do on that land. There are entire businesses that just buy lots, change their zoning, then sell them. It's all priced in.
If people were allowed to build as they wished, they'd build a lot of housing, much of the housing crisis would subside and then the profitability of building house would equalize with the profitability of other uses. But stable point would give a lot more people housing.
It's like... Taxation or similar things can reduce X use of resource Y. Remove taxation and eventually X use isn't any more profitable than other uses but a tautology of markets/economics, not an argument the taxation isn't limit the production involved in X use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that what UBI has become these days? That everyone is supposed to get some extra money on top of whatever they already have? ~20 years ago, when UBI was a popular idea in my country, it was understood as a technical fix to the welfare and tax systems. It was supposed to simplify the systems and make them easier to understand. It was supposed to fix the perverse incentives people with low wages face, such as the ex…
Everything you say is still the idea and I agree but where does the idea that progressive taxation would go away coming from? What does it have to do with UBI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything you say is still the idea and I agree but where does the idea that progressive taxation would go away coming from? What does it have to do with UBI?
A UBI is a method of achieving the same effect as progressive taxation without the complexity and perverse incentives of tracking everyone's income and applying different marginal rates. Suppose you have a tax system with progressive tax brackets and then a needs-based welfare system with benefits phase outs. It turns out, those two things (progressive rate structure and benefits phase outs) basically cancel each oth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can work from anywhere, but I like to live in a superstar city because I find it boring living in the suburbs. I want to be near my friends, near the live events, near the buzzing restaurants and art galleries and clothing stores where I can walk around and touch things. There will always be a concentration of people in cities for these reasons.
>There will always be a concentration of people in cities for these reasons. That's fine. Not everyone has to move. As long as the marginal city dweller would rather have cheaper housing than "buzzing restaurants and art galleries", there will be downward pressure on housing prices.
Sure a few folks will drop out of the highly competitive professional job market to go homestead somewhere. They will be a rounding error, since they have already expressed revealed preference that "bare minimum lifestyle" is not enough. Someone capable of holding down a $350k/yr white collar job is already qualified to go make $70k/yr remotely in some random city anywhere in the US they want to live but they choose not to.
As we've seen with COVID remote work, the desirable "cheap" places to live will very rapidly have price appreciation because they are starting from such a low floor to begin with.
A $300/mo increase in some 30,000 population city in the midwest is a lot more material to the market than a $300/mo decrease for a $3k/mo apartment in a top 10 city core.
It also ignores the folks who want to live in the superstar cities but cannot currently afford to. If UBI is high enough to really matter, there will simply be a reshuffling. I'd expect upper-end to perhaps go down (largely due to increased taxes and thus less disposable income for the high earning group), but the lower-end to be raised eating up basically all the UBI surplus.
Also this totally ignores the third and fourth (and more!) order effects. If people are less incentivized to work, and work carries a much higher tax load (as it must for UBI to be worth even considering) - pay for high-end jobs must increase since working is going to have less net-benefit for an individual who now has a choice to totally drop out of the workforce and have others pay for everything. Who knows? Maybe prices actually increase in those superstar cities as they become even more winner-take-all environments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol “unions” was thanks to AI deciding “ubi is” couldn’t be what I meant. This might be saying something about the possibility of this working out.
OK, but the same response still applies. There still are plenty of arguments against UBI, and you still need to actually refute them rather than just dismiss them with "they're false or moot".
But I do think in the special case of self maintaining, self manufacturing, intelligent servitors, I think the only way we can hope to sustain an economy of any kind would be to redistribute the output of those machines significantly, or we would end up with a concentration of power around capital that utterly eliminates the economy as we presently understand it.
As for moot, I mean that in this case, you aren’t taking anyone’s work to benefit others, so the usual arguments of socialism or wealth redistribution don’t have the same basis in injustice. Ultimately, the production of pure automation springs directly from the resources of the earth, and the earth is everyones, so it makes sense to redistribute the production to a significant extent.
As for false, I mean that the “no one will do anything” and other claims about UBI destroying productivity have all been refuted in study after study, and in the societies that already practice UBI. In this way, UBI is very distinct from needs based welfare, which is often imagined to incentivize low production, since low productivity is actually a requirement to qualify.
Ubi causing runaway inflation is another example of a thoroughly refuted claim that is easily given the lie by looking at extant UBI systems.
UBI seems to work best when it significantly removes or even eliminates stressors of survival (basic housing and food, medical care) while leaving lots of room to aspire to greater success. Throw away the stick, but leave the carrot.
It’s basically mirroring what behaviorists find time after time, that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement. Also, it makes people more willing to take risks like starting a business, getting an education, or having a family. All of which are positives for developed nations.