Hacker News Reader

Comment by kurthr | Hacker News Reader

Which is why without tight controls on lending/debt Universal Basic Income will just lead to similarly desperate outcomes subsidized by the state.

View on HN

I think you misunderstand the "Basic" term in UBI. But if you truly think markets can't provide affordable basic living accommodations to everyone, then we should we not be discussing some non-market solutions for distribution of resources?

It's not that there isn't a way to provide housing to homeless and working poor, it's just that it requires regulation. When a parking space costs more than a person can afford in rent... it's unlikely that housing will either.. they'll have to find another location.

The market based solution is already present in city streets today with mentally ill, drug addicted, and others (under employed) living in tents and cardboard (or their illegally parked vehicles).

Once their UBI payday loans are properly directly deposited to a bank to repay last week's debt, they can once again return there. The idea that the most downtrodden will be better with their finances than 80% of the rest of the population is laughable.

I think the bigger issue than lending is that if it's not funded with a land value tax then all the increase in income will be eaten up in rent.

The opposite is the case. High rent is a localized problem (mostly found in relatively dense cities) and UBI would go a lot farther in a low-cost-of-living area where rents are low as well. So, people who have no use for living in the city (not hyper-productive or anything) would gradually opt to spread out and rents would fall.

Yes, but then you have to regulate the spending of UBI on basic needs rather than debt service for payday cash.

High rent is localised? The whole of the UK has high rent AFAICT, our very poor city has high rent.

Rental means paying the costs of property plus paying profit to someone who is already well off enough to front some capital (or at least to get a mortgage) plus paying profits for the bank ... how could renting ever be reasonable priced in a system that requires those without capital to pay those with capital just because those with money already have enough money.

> how could renting ever be reasonable priced in a system that requires those without capital to pay those with capital just because those with money already have enough money.

landlords aren't guaranteed to make money. it's true that monthly rent is almost always higher than the monthly mortgage payment on that property, but the landlord can only profit if, in the long run, the difference between the rent and the mortgage is greater than the overall cost of maintenance and possible devaluation of the property.

personally, I could afford to put a down payment on a mortgage if I really wanted a house where I live, but for now I am happy to pay extra for the ability to relocate at the end of the lease and to avoid the risk of actually owning a house.

Economically, the "cost of property" is a kind of rent (okay, mostly rent - you can subtract the actual cost of physically building the structure. But most of what you're paying is the pure rent of land.) It is this rent that decreases when the demand for being in a particular place falls.

After the price crash in 2008 we lost 40% on our 1 bed flat. Couldn’t afford to sell after a relocation (£60k negative equity after 1 year) so had to rent it out while we rented in a different city.

We just about made a profit on the flat - about £10 a week, but we didn’t have any times of no tenant, or any unexpected major bills.

Eventually price recovered enough that we could afford to sell (below what we paid, even ignoring inflation).

Not all landlords are raking it in.

That's exactly the problem. It would encourage unsustainable sprawl to a massive degree.

Unsustainable sprawl is a side-effect of high rents. When rent is low, people tend to cluster naturally in order to minimize their costs (and hence, the burden they exert on the surrounding environment) because they can afford to - you see this happening even (perhaps especially) in tiny rural villages and towns, not just in the wealthiest cities.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. UBI would raise rents and therefore encourage sprawl.

UBI was only a small-ish step to a moneyless post-scarcity economy.

When rent is taken care of (cause there isn't rent), along with food, water, electricity, communication and more, what is there to 'buy'?

I wager that a limitless supply of "other things to buy" will spring up, just as it already has today.

Clothes, cars, boats, planes, watches, electronics, vacations, fancy meals, you name it...

There definitely are a huge number of things that will arise to be on the top 50 desired list. However, if everybody has a respectable existence -- rent/mortgage, food, utilities being covered -- then these other things will be truly and for the first time optional and non-crucial. Which I think will be a big win for the mental health of the population.

There are people who spend thousands of dollars on Candy Crush. There will always be something more.

Also, I have to point out, if you had made that list a hundred years ago, electricity wouldn't have been on it. Luxuries have a way of becoming necessities.

If there wasn't a need to buy rent, food, transportation, electrity, and communication I wonder if Candy Crush would have micro transactions.

I would say yes, because the developers would find something equally inane to spend money on.

Perhaps a more relevant example: Look at the bottled water industry. Even if all our creature comforts are provided for free, someone will pay for a "premium" version.

UBI is an attempt to save capitalism from itself. That's why you see 1%ers like Elon musk advocate for it.

Capitalism has always needed protection from eating itself, market economies suck, but there are few better workable options. UBI is just the next logical extension of the welfare state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com