Comment by KaiserPro 21 hours ago
> why wouldn't rent increase by close to 1000$.
prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have.
It might increase rental prices, but the people that are reliant on UBI tend to be on some sort of rent control mechanism.
The biggest hurdle though is that people getting jealous of "money for nothing" despite interest being literally that.
Housing supply and demand isn't static. With UBI the need to live close to employment opportunities decreases, opening up more supply in areas that are currently less attractive and decreasing demand in other areas.
Furthermore we still don't know how people will react to UBI once they feel it is universal and permanent. If you're busting your ass to take home $1500 a month today, and then you get $1500 a month UBI, will you keep working just as much and take home $3000 a month, will you cut down on work and aim for $2200 a month, or will you keep living on $1500 a month and just chill all day. Depending on what choices people make, most people might not end up with that much more money.
> prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have ... [UBI] might increase rental prices
Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The right answer is that if you print new money prices go up. If UBI is funded by taxes it's not a UBI (some people will end up giving back more in taxes than they "receive" in UBI, so it's net negative for them). If it's funded by borrowing it's not sustainable. If it's funded by money printing then prices will rise and the effect is eliminated.
> the people that are reliant on UBI tend to be on some sort of rent control mechanism
The argument for UBI is it lets you get rid of other means tested welfare systems. If you're going to introduce a category of people who really need UBI vs other people who don't really need it, and have special rules for the former, it's just a rebranded welfare system and those already exist.
I guess the theory, really, is that it's funded by corporate taxes. The triad of key taxes is income, sales/VAT and corporate. Income, as you say, is out, so is sales (since it's paid by end consumers) so you're left with corporate. And I guess that's kind of what would happen if one day AI takes over. There will be masses of unemployable people, farms and mines and factories ran by computers, and we will all be funded by this.
Until that utopia comes around, I don't see any way to fund UBI, as you say.
Taxes are all paid by people, ultimately, because it's people whose labor creates wealth. Corporate tax isn't some pool of money that would otherwise sit around not doing anything if not levied, as all profits eventually get paid out to individuals in one form or another. Corporate taxes are popular partly because people don't realize that (same reason governments love printing money), and partly because they're nice big static objects that find it harder to evade the tax man or move around.
AI doesn't change anything, no more than the internal combustion engine or computers did. There will still be plenty of jobs. AI has been around a few years now and hardly even impacted the job market! The effect will be like computers themselves, an uplift in the general welfare but give it 50 years and economists will be asking "where was the AI productivity boost?" just like they do with computers today.
What you find with UBI discussions is that the rationale for why it's going to be necessary constantly changes, and is always based on very dubious suppositions and extrapolations. UBI seems to be just a more respectable sounding version of /r/antiwork, when you boil it down.
> If UBI is funded by taxes it's not a UBI (some people will end up giving back more in taxes than they "receive" in UBI, so it's net negative for them)
This is plainly nonsense. UBI means only one thing: you get a check for a certain guaranteed amount no matter what. It doesn't mean that the amount on this check is necessarily smaller than other taxes due. And yes, it does mean that, in effect, some people will end up paying into the system while others will receive money from it. That is precisely the intent - to provide a baseline for the lower end of the income spectrum such that nobody is ever below it.
This applies less for basic human needs like a roof over the head, especially in a supply constrained market like we've been in for quite some time in many places around the world
Rental supply is fixed in the short to medium term. Rental prices are wholly decided by demand on that timescale. Giving everyone money would obviously increase demand
> prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have.
That's not the full story of how the economics of demand work.
Demand increases as the money supply increases, but supply remains constant. This is inflation. More dollars chasing the same basket of goods.
Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases. This leads to an increased desire to spend. It's an aggregate demand increase across businesses and consumers.
We recently saw the impact of this when the money supply was increased during Covid. It led to one of the largest jumps in inflation in our lifetimes.
> Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases.
I'm going to say something radical here, so do hear me out. any bank that loans money, is increasing the money supply. the more banks lend, the more money is printed. There is no fixed supply of virtual money. We don't really know how much actual dollars there are out there. (ignoring eurodollars)
Banks profits are literally because they are printing money. The very act of loaning out means that the 1 dollar bill you deposited with become 1.8, as its loaned out again to someone else, who then repays it, with interest.
<<end radicalism>>
Sure we had QE, we had covid cash, but the problem with using covid as an example of "giving money to everyone causes inflation" is that its difficult to distinguish from supply chain, tariffs, stimulus and $other.
the other problem is that stimulus was given to companies as well.
but the argument about not increasing the money supply is difficult to argue unless you are a bank, because that's their job, not the government's.
so, the point is, the economics of demand is an approximate model, rather than a formula. Its based on the collective perceived value of a good or service, rather than a strict supply/demand. sure its a close approximation, but not an accurate one.
Housing follows supply/demand curves more than most other goods do. Most other goods have elastic supply -- when demand for widgets goes up factories start producing more widgets so the price follows the commodity rule "price = marginal cost" rather than classical supply and demand.
That doesn't seem like a full explanation. Sure, prices are tied to supply and demand. But demand is tied to how much money people have, so that just brings you right back to the original question.