landlords primarily trade on their tenants’ inability to borrow money to buy a house.
Yes, and UBI would further increase home prices. If everyone can now afford an extra $1,000 a month for mortgages then they’ll be able to / forced to due to competition get a bigger mortgage and bid up prices for the home.
Same thing for rent, if everyone has an extra $1,000 a month they’ll just bid up rent prices until you’re back to square 1. Say there’s three people in a rental market, me who pays $1,500 for rent, another guy who pays $1,000 for rent and an unhoused person. After UBI he other guy may try to rent my apartment, so I now have to offer a higher rent to out bid him, and the other guy unable to get a better apartment has to now outbid the unhoused person to keep their place. Eventually this reaches an equilibrium where I’m paying $2,500 to outbid the other guy, and there now paying $2,000 to outbid the unhoused person. The housing hierarchy remains the same, and the landlord gets all the extra money.
The problem isn’t lack of money, the problem is a lack of supply and a hierarchical wage system that determines who gets that supply, UBI doesn’t address either of those problems.
Increasing aggregate demand without increasing aggregate supply just leads to inflation. UBI has no mechanism to increase aggregate supply and discourages the government from doing it because they are using all their money for UBI instead of building social housing, providing food etc. and they can turn to UBI and say that’s all you need now, we aren’t going to supply any services.
This is why we need universal basic services backed by a jobs guarantee instead. It still gives a mechanism to raise the floor on wages and benefits, private enterprise now has to compete with the government for labor, without causing inflation because the government is actually using the labor for productive purposes, eg. Building social housing, thus increasing aggregate supply.
The same can be said of your positive claims for UBI. There’s no evidence for anything on the macro scale for UBI since it’s never been done on a societal scale. The best we can do is theorize based off economic principles, which is what I was doing.
If you think my theory or reasoning is wrong show it.
SS is not universal though, it effects a specific group. People on SS tend to be unemployed / underemployed. Yes if you compare home prices of a community with a high percentage of SS to the whole country home prices will be less. But that’s an unfair comparison, you have to compare them to a community with a similar pre-SS income level. So say the SS community average income without SS is $20,000 from pensions, 401k etc. if you compare that community with another with low to no SS with average income of $20,000 then the SS community will have higher home values.
Also people on SS tend to be the only ones in the US not trying to upgrade their housing, if anything they may be trying to downsize. So they aren’t trying to use their money to outbid someone else to go up the housing hierarchy. They also tend not to be renters so they don’t have to outbid someone else to keep their current housing.
Yes, and UBI would further increase home prices. If everyone can now afford an extra $1,000 a month for mortgages then they’ll be able to / forced to due to competition get a bigger mortgage and bid up prices for the home.
Same thing for rent, if everyone has an extra $1,000 a month they’ll just bid up rent prices until you’re back to square 1. Say there’s three people in a rental market, me who pays $1,500 for rent, another guy who pays $1,000 for rent and an unhoused person. After UBI he other guy may try to rent my apartment, so I now have to offer a higher rent to out bid him, and the other guy unable to get a better apartment has to now outbid the unhoused person to keep their place. Eventually this reaches an equilibrium where I’m paying $2,500 to outbid the other guy, and there now paying $2,000 to outbid the unhoused person. The housing hierarchy remains the same, and the landlord gets all the extra money.
The problem isn’t lack of money, the problem is a lack of supply and a hierarchical wage system that determines who gets that supply, UBI doesn’t address either of those problems.
Increasing aggregate demand without increasing aggregate supply just leads to inflation. UBI has no mechanism to increase aggregate supply and discourages the government from doing it because they are using all their money for UBI instead of building social housing, providing food etc. and they can turn to UBI and say that’s all you need now, we aren’t going to supply any services.
This is why we need universal basic services backed by a jobs guarantee instead. It still gives a mechanism to raise the floor on wages and benefits, private enterprise now has to compete with the government for labor, without causing inflation because the government is actually using the labor for productive purposes, eg. Building social housing, thus increasing aggregate supply.
There is no evidence of this
The same can be said of your positive claims for UBI. There’s no evidence for anything on the macro scale for UBI since it’s never been done on a societal scale. The best we can do is theorize based off economic principles, which is what I was doing.
If you think my theory or reasoning is wrong show it.
Social Security is UBI on a societal scale. And there is, if anything, a negative correlation between resident on SS and home resale value.
SS is not universal though, it effects a specific group. People on SS tend to be unemployed / underemployed. Yes if you compare home prices of a community with a high percentage of SS to the whole country home prices will be less. But that’s an unfair comparison, you have to compare them to a community with a similar pre-SS income level. So say the SS community average income without SS is $20,000 from pensions, 401k etc. if you compare that community with another with low to no SS with average income of $20,000 then the SS community will have higher home values.
Also people on SS tend to be the only ones in the US not trying to upgrade their housing, if anything they may be trying to downsize. So they aren’t trying to use their money to outbid someone else to go up the housing hierarchy. They also tend not to be renters so they don’t have to outbid someone else to keep their current housing.