I mean...you're a landlord, and now everyone has $1000 a month more...obviously you are going after some of that...what are people going to do, move? where?
same with Canada's near monopolies on groceries and mobile networks...of course these folks are just going to raise prices to capture the free money, not hard given than there is no real competition to prevent this
> Egger et al. find that there was less than 1% price inflation on average
> Alaska has had a universal basic income via the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, which has provided each resident between $500 and $3,000 per year funded by state oil assets, since 1982. Since implementing that program, Alaska has had lower inflation than the rest of the United States
So let me guess, you just "feel like" it will cause inflation and based your opinion on your feels instead of data?
Alaska payments have been about the same for the last 40 years (1-1.5k/yr). This means that payments are going down in real dollars.
For inflation from Alaskan UBI would have to look at the difference before and after it was started in the 1970.
Alaskan UBI is funded by real tax revenue, not printing currency or debt spending.
Alaskan "UBI" is ~$1000/yr, not ~$1000/month, so you would expect the impact to be quite small on overall inflation, even if inflation used up %100 of the UBI
It is revenue but isnt tax revenue.
My point was that it is payed with dollars already in circulation that come out of the pocket for whoever is paying the interest or dividend.
this is starkly different than money which is printed into existence and expands the currency in circulation
> between $500 and $3,000 per year
Which is quite a bit below the figure mentioned in the article (16k-24k CAD per annum).
Looking more into it the independent author is this person (Joshua Miller)
“Joshua's research focuses on macroeconomic impacts of universal basic income. He also hosts the ThinkCritical Podcast and runs a blog called InTheAggregate. Joshua is a high school senior in New York.”
https://www.ubicenter.org/about/our-team/
Good for him for being a motivated high schooler. However, posting his essay as some kind of authoritative proof with Alaska as a generalizable example is absurd. There’s not enough data for stratification or identifying confounders. Alaska is not a typical American state in any way.
UBI supporters, especially on that website, look like young academics living in wealthy urban areas in England and the US. That’s nice and all but maybe they should get out of their bubble. They’re just a bunch of stereotypes.
I think Canada has laws against a landlord doing this type of thing, maybe up to a percentage. Also, Not all landlords are that shitty.
>same with Canada's near monopolies on groceries and mobile networks...of course these folks are just going to raise prices to capture the free money, not hard given than there is no real competition to prevent this
I wonder what the Competition Bureau of Canada would think of those near monopolies raising prices artificially? Unless there is price fixing going on, why would I raise my prices with the other groceries stores? Everyone would see the higher prices and instead shop at my store with normal pricing.
Doesn’t matter. Prices would still go up over time as demand increases while supply stays the same.
Ontario rent increase for 2024 is 2.5%
You would raise your prices because you see your competitors are raising theirs, and you like money. You can also have more confidence there won't be much blowback if you're not the only one raising prices.
> Everyone would see the higher prices and instead shop at my store with normal pricing.
That kind of logic has demonstrably not kept inflation under control (IIRC, much of the "inflation" over the last few years was businesses raising prices to increase profits, and using "inflation" as an excuse).
It's probably possible to spread out price increases slowly enough that it doesn't tend to hit many people's "switch to competitor" threshold.
While Canada’s population has increased considerably in the last 30 years, housing and zoning has quite literally been constrained to accommodate it. Housing is being built, but not nearly at the pace it needs to accommodate growth, hence higher prices.
In in places like Ontario, where there’s more than enough land, you can quite literally see on the map where dense housing developments literally stop at the 407 in Mississauga. On the other side of the highway is farmland. It’s been like that for 25 years now.
I’m not advocating for suburban sprawl, but you would think one would see more dense neighborhoods on the other side of the highway by now.
Every one is additional in practice.
Just look to this Canadian one for example.
TLDR: there are many, many tests and experiments which show this not to be the case, because UBI is about circulating money, not creating new money. Redistributing money from all tax payers evenly across all citizens does not cause inflation. It just stops poverty.
I think what people are getting at is that in Canada there is an artificial limit enforced by government on house production, when vacancy rates are a 1% adding more money but not more housing will cause the price of houses to rise.
Taxes are a stick and their purpose is to guide behavior. If you want higher wages and reinvestment, you tax profits higher. If you want more luxury cars and yachts, you lower taxes on profits.