Seems like a pretty obtuse way of obtaining a Midwestern house. You could also just mortgage one, like everyone else does, while working any white-collar Midwestern job.
"Relatively affordable" to people coming from the Bay Area translates to "completely out of the question" for people who are from the areas affected.
A similar argument could be made about public spending on education, that it only creates inflation. But of course education is a great way to increase productivity. Similar effects would probably follow from universal healthcare and a UBI: namely healthy, financially secure people can do things that have short-term costs but long-term benefits, like starting a new business, or doing a low-paid internship, learning new skills, and so on. Also, fewer sick-hours leads directly to increased productivity.
Uh yeah, but that doesn't make it a good thing. If the expense of education puts you into a debt hole that is so deep that it's impossible to make up for it with increased productivity, that is a net negative.
And what does this have to do with housing? Increased housing costs is like the exact opposite of increased productivity. Limiting supply of housing is a rent-seeking behavior.
Seeking to limit supply is not necessarily rent-seeking (which is a motivational state), but sure.
The comment was directed toward the issue of whether UBI is inflationary, not whether housing supply should be increased.
This isn't proof or anything, I just don't think the bay area disproves anything.
Perhaps UBI should be packaged with a free/constant price flat/cheap house depending on area.
Now if I wanted to buy a house... yeah, the valley sucks. But so does owning a house and I have no interest in that anymore.
Normal people are looking at less than $1k in total rent.
Precisely. And companies don't do this. Price differences are decided by negotiation. It happens in the labor markets.