Which is incredibly charitable! Opponents to UBI only oppose the income source being tax; which is a forced wealth transfer (opposite of my money my choice).
Namely, if everyone got $x,xxx a month, how do we ensure that rents don't just go up by that amount or wages don't go down by that amount? I worry that without a well thought out plan, UBI just ends up funneling money directly back to the wealthy (eg, landlords and business owners).
I'm not convinced yet that Yang has a thorough enough plan here.
Two ways to answer this:
1) If you're printing money, then yes, prices will rise, and if price controls are implemented it will lead to shortages (e.g. Venezuela)
2) If you're not printing money, then competition will simply lower the cost. It's the same as today - outside of terrible policies like rent-control, why don't landlords just raise rents by $5000? Because the renters will leave and rent from a landlord that undercuts the crazy landlord. In the market, profits tend to 0 and if profits are too high more supply will come in to get a cut of the profits. It's not magic.
>BI just ends up funneling money directly back to the wealthy (eg, landlords and business owners).
Your view on reality is skewed. I mean, yes, people will buy products and services from landlords and business owners. That's not 'funnelling money' anywhere, that's just buying products and services. What do you think people will do with that money, if not to buy things they want and/or need.
>I'm not convinced yet that Yang has a thorough enough plan here.
For sure. UBI does not solve anything and is unworkable, but not for the reasons you stated.
I think we fundamentally disagree, though, which is ok. I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of). I'm not sure we're going to find much common ground via internet forum.
Curious where you live because in Seattle this has definitely kept the rent prices from growing as fast as in the SFBA.
Admittedly these are apartments on the expensive side though, affordable housing is not a priority for developers because it's not as profitable per square foot. Blame {wealth inequality | zoning}, depending on your outlook.
It must be that they hate money.
Healthcare is going to be special. We're OK with a person not getting a Lexus if they can't afford one, but we are deeply uncomfortable with treating, say, cancer surgery the same way. So healthcare will always have a social component.
That's not the case for housing. Housing can be managed the markets just fine, you just need to make sure you don't constrain it a level where it cannot react to demand. Where housing fails, it's always the case of local regulations, from property owners who want to limit supply to keep their house prices up to activist and the local council who will restrict high-density housing development for the dumbest reasons (e.g. if the shadow of the new housing development falling on a playground - true story). You mentioned you're from Seattle - are you sure housing isn't constrained due to crazy progressive municipal policies?
>I see rent control as one mechanism to attempt to decommodify housing (which I'm strongly in favor of)
This is very perplexing to me. We know rent control hurts housing supply, and it hurts people that it purports to help because we have data on this from decades of studying this policy. There is no economist that supports it. I don't understand how it keeps coming back.
>It's been demonstrated, again and again, that 'more supply will come in' just isn't working for housing.
Where? Do you mean places like Seattle or San Francisco which make it almost impossible to build new development? Why wouldn't you look at regulatory policies of those areas before wanting to socialize an entire industry?
>You have a lot more faith in markets than I do.
It's not about faith in anything. Because markets are a messy, chaotic and complicated bottom-up structures where the individual transaction is impossible to predict, but where everything optimizes (at some minima) on a large scale - some people tend to be fundamentally uncomfortable with it. So the alternative is to fix the messiness of the markets by imposing a 'clean' top-down policy where the one true answer is dictated. The problem is that nobody at the top fully understands all the variables of the underlying messiness and hence they always get it wrong. If you take that to the extreme, you end up with a Communist disaster.
In universal healthcare, insurance knows the government will foot the bill and can tack on a little more.
In my experience this is the case when dealing with large entities. This is slightly the case with government contracts. They are a cash cow of sorts.
Rent will go up. All you have to do is look what happens in 'hot' markets (SFO/NYC/Bay Area) where there are so many dollars floating around.
[1] Both commercial and residential but not in a hot market a 'normal' market.
[2] Including Yang
Yang's campaign estimated that prices would go up about 12%, so for higher income (like many on HN) this would be net decrease in spending power. For someone in poverty, going from $12k to $24k per year, this could be life changing.
Same as now.
It's not a coincidence that the cost of living is equal to the amount which lots of people struggle with, yet are just about coping with.
However, a key benefit of UBI is that the situation is stable and predictable for people on it. Currently, people who are just about coping are living in constant low-level fear that their circumstances will change for the worse. For people who would have to turn to government support, a legitimate fear is not knowing what claims will be allowed, or being asked difficult questions about lifestyle for which there is no safe, honest answer.
That fear has a lot of consequences. For example measured IQ is lowered in that state. People do not make the best decisions; they can't. They are sicker too. They can't make plans. They can't make investments in their own future.
UBI addresses this uncertainty and fear, even if the markets react so nobody (on average) is better off compared with basic costs of living such as rent and food. And so it makes life better.
I would be interested to see evidence that it's the welfare system itself that causes these stressors, rather than the poverty itself, which is what you seem to be stating here. Why would that be the case?
When people have a different quality of life and certainty about basics, that doesn't just affect those people. It affects other people throughout the rest of the economy too.
People who are poor or very poor often contribute a lot to the economy just like many other people. It just doesn't get the same recognition. Much of the work is invisible to people not actively looking for it. Probably the most clear examples are carers: Caring for their parents, their children, their ill, disabled and elderly friends and relatives. An astonishing amount of labour is performed by people who aren't paid to do it, sacrifice a lot to do it (e.g. many have little time for socialising and friends), and go largely unrecognised (after all they don't get out much, its unpaid, and its anything up to 24x7). A fair amount of cash or cash-equivalent is provided by the poor to the even poorer too, e.g. bringing over food, providing accomodation in a spare room.
I think the quality and level of the overall contribution to the general economy would improve with UBI ensuring some measure of stability and peace to people at the low end, or who are facing being at the low end (e.g. redundancy during COVID-19...). I also think there is a moral imperative to provide the basics for people if it's possible; a "dignity of every person" sort of thing.
I've seen what it's like for people who also have "welfare poverty", that is they can't access welfare reliably either. And I have seen people live on less than one meal a day for months as a result, saving their limited food stocks for good reason, and with no idea when their precarious housing will come to an abrupt end, and no bed to sleep on where they live, in a rich Western country.
I don't think it's welfare per se that causes the stressors mentioned, but rather the complex fear and uncertainties that are rightly associated with the common versions of it.
With regards to whether poverty should be seen as the cause, I think it is, but the degree of stress depends what kind of poverty you mean.
Having a low level of income that is absolutely predictable, in a stable price, food and housing environment, is a completely different experience from having no idea whether you will be able to eat next week or if the money will be suddenly taken away because someone saw you walk a metre in a park near your wheelchair and decided you are "fit for work" as a result, even if you can't walk 2m.
Both are experiences of poverty, but very different kinds of poverty.
Rent rises when: there are high paying jobs around (SF, NYC); there is public investment (subway stations, schools, parks); or, yes, when everyone stumbles across an extra $1k/month (UBI).
All of these mean "the market" (aka tenants) is able to pay a higher price, therefore landlords raise their prices and capture it.
That's a feature of the plan. Rents will go up, and wages will go down, but by that point, people will be committed to UBI, and the only solution will be the gov to step in and control the prices.
Because that will work out so well.
Landlords regularly capture upside from social, economic, or technological improvements. Cue conversation on the actual remedy to rampant wealth inequality, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
you cite this as if it's some commonly accepted moral principle
I don't mind taxes in general (if fair and reasonable, which I don't think the taxes in my country are), but the general principle still applies and coming out against it does sound weird to me. Taxes are a necessary evil to have a society, but I don't think starting from a position of "you should not have control over your body" is going to lead to models of societies that I'd like to live in. And again, you can remove the money part completely, it's just easier to use money than barter for everything.
That's not the part of the syllogism most people take issue with, you're being disingenuous. If fair and reasonable taxes are okay, then it seems like you aren't intrinsically entitled to all wealth that flows from your body, so then it seems like if the reasons for UBI are compelling enough, a taxation system to fund it would be justified.
It also seems unclear why you should be naturally entitled to all your wealth, because you don't produce wealth in a vacuum, but rather as part of a system of social cooperation - that is what determines what you are entitled to. Then, it seems like we should start with what the rules of a reasonable system of social cooperation ought to be, rather than starting from self-ownership. That's a sketch of a potential response to your syllogism.
It seems equally silly to me to structure society so that just because you happened to be born into poverty, your life choices are substantially constrained due to no choice of your own.
You're not getting "all your wealth", the market prices in a difference in what you make and what it's worth for others. But generally in that line of thinking, you could just as easily ask why you should be entitled to any of your wealth, since you're not in a vacuum and you wouldn't have any of it if you weren't part of the system.
I think it's primarily a question of whether you consider the individual as an agent or a cog in the agent that is society. I prefer the idea of individual agency, with all the issues it carries.
> rather than starting from self-ownership
Without being free, you cannot agree to any rules. And you can also not be allowed to leave if you don't want to live in that specific system of social cooperation.
> It seems equally silly to me to structure society so that just because you happened to be born into poverty, your life choices are substantially constrained due to no choice of your own.
Oh, sure, the luck of the draw is a major issue. I don't think making everyone a slave is the answer though. And I do believe there's a good reason to organize society so nobody is born into poverty: it's more efficient. Having millions of people sit around and not contribute is a waste, both of their time, energy and mind, and of the resources they need. I don't think just increasingly overtaxing those that do contribute is the answer though.
Once 51% of people can vote themselves their own pay, what makes you believe they wont vote themselves any type of increase they want.
Mob rule is a step closer to tyranny and this is is.
The tyranny of the 51%