> Isn't this an intended feature of UBI? The idea of UBI is that some level of material support should be guaranteed. It's about bringing "up" the floor, not really re-arranging relative equal and unequal positions. Plenty of people dislike that about it, but it's an intended feature.
Absolutely, but I guess I don't see how just giving everyone money brings that floor up. Maybe I'm looking at this naively, but I don't see what's preventing things from just costing more after UBI. If the government gives everyone $1000/mo so landlords raise rent by $1000/mo then the floor is unchanged. I realize it's not that simple and that type of inflation wouldn't happen over night, but it seems like that's the direction it would head. Just looking at the housing aspect of it, it actually seems like the people who would benefit the most from UBI would be the people at the middle to upper end of the wage scale since they are more likely to own a house which means their housing costs are more fixed than someone renting.
To me it seems like we need some way to control the cost of basic needs otherwise it's just a constant race between the government raising UBI and the market raising prices (although, admittedly, it seems like the same argument could be made about minimum wage).
This is definitely not something I'm super well versed in though, so I might be looking at it wrong and am very open to people showing me what I'm missing.
If A is making $1 and B is making $1000, A has to survive on 0.1% of what the economy produces.
If A is making $1001 and B is making $2000, A has to survive on 33% of what the economy produces.
Even if inflation could be exclusive to basic needs, causing A’s costs and B’s costs to both rise by $1000, the economy now heavily incentivizes more competition around satisfying basic needs. All rent going up equally regardless of unit size means it’s time to start building or converting luxury apartments to multiple low income apartments.
That's super fair and I think you are absolutely right that it's an obvious question. Generally when people get more money for some reason the people who they buy from don't know it - but in this case they would know it! It would be foolish to ignore it.
I don't have a pat answer to your concerns, but I also want you to think about what stops your landlord from raising your rent by $1000 / month right now. Like, why not just go for it? Unless there's rent control it's allowed. The classic "efficient markets" answer is that providing housing does have underlying costs and, though people having more money does tend to lead prices to go up, sellers are still competing for buyers. At least historically, even in boom economic times, housing costs did not 100% stay even with rising incomes (which is just what this is).
That said, us housing has been getting worse for most people for a long time. House costs have outpaced inflation for 60 years[1]. Rents are even worse[2]. Reporting suggests this is now being made worse by highly concentrated rental conglomerates[3]. That is to say that the cost of these services is not tied to how much money people have to pay for them - your scenario where landlords just raise prices to new income levels is actually optimistic. There's also practical evidence that local factors and competition will lead prices to go down under "the right" local conditions[4].
So I think my answer is that your concern is based on an idealized economic model, but the actual trends US in housing haven't really been following the economic ideal for some time. I don't think all gains from UBI would be snapped up by raising prices, but like all inflation we'd lose some! Overall, to me, the weakness here is that the study doesn't show that many benefits for a ~40% (!!) increase in income. Which seems WILD. Just not what you would expect at all.
> I also want you to think about what stops your landlord from raising your rent by $1000 / month right now. Like, why not just go for it?
Answering as a landlord (I have one property I used to live in that I rent out), the reason I don't just keep raising rent is mainly because I like my tenant and want to be fair to them. Having had bad tenants in the past, a good tenant is worth their weight in gold.
More relevant to your question though, the other reason is because I know there's a ceiling after a certain point where the number of people who have the money to rent my property starts to shrink and the time it would take to find a new tenant would cost more than the amount of money I would make by raising rent.
If rent is $2000/mo and raising it by $100/mo means it's going to take an extra month to find a tenant, then I need to believe that that tenant is going to stay for at least 20 months to break even.
If everyone all of a sudden has an extra $1000/mo I could be fairly certain that my tenant won't be priced out if I were to raise rent a few hundred dollars.
Thanks - I hadn't thought to mention the risk of trying to raise rent but it's a good note. I was mostly getting at how the conditions in the UBI scenario ("everyone could pay $1000 more in rent if I insisted") is often true now and the 1:1 rent raising wouldn't happen under UBI for similar reasons that it doesn't happen now.
I also think people tend to under-rate the softer side of landlord / tenant relationships[1]. It's better to have a tenant who you get along with and who cooperates with how you want to rent a place. It's nice not to fight with your landlord. There's some economic value there too, but it's hard to quantify. I'm kind of interested in housing interventions that ban large companies from holding too many units of housing. It mostly "puts a ceiling" on how much profit one company can derive from many rental units, but actually I'm not sure I care - and trying to maximize the human connection between the person who owns the building and the people who live in it seems sensible.
[1] To be fair, when push does come to shove, a reason to under-rate them is the landlord looses some months of rent while the tenant becomes homeless. It pushes people towards strategic thinking.
>Maybe I'm looking at this naively, but I don't see what's preventing things from just costing more after UBI. If the government gives everyone $1000/mo so landlords raise rent by $1000/mo then the floor is unchanged.
Natural competition is supposed to keep that in check: Supply and demand dictates that in a free market (which UBI does not implicitly change), a landlord with a vacancy will try to offer a better deal than their peers who also have vacancies, with the direct incentive of getting units filled.
The idea is that some money (a rented unit provides more income than a vacant unit does) is better than no money, which incentivizes landlords to get units filled and making money instead of not making money -- in large part by competing on price. That's how supply and demand works.
In a free market, landlords can't really say in unison "Hey, I heard everyone has an extra $1k every month! So guess what: Your rent just went up by $1k! Suckers!"
I mean sure, some might say that -- or at least try to do that.
But the way it is supposed to work is that one of their peers goes "Yeah? Well, rent with me! I only raised rent by $700!" and another goes "Hey, I've got lots of vacancies! My rent only went up by $400!" and this rinses and repeats until the ultimate lowball of "Rents are up? Not here! Save $50 compared to last year!"
That's not to say that the concept is without flaws: Collusion can happen[0], and collusion fucks up pricing in an otherwise-free market.
But this kind of collusion is already criminalized, and criminals will both exist and collude with or without UBI.
(In an ideal reality free of criminal acts, rents must increase a bit if for no other reason than a properly-profitable landlord's expenses must also increase a bit: UBI isn't free to fund, and the haves must fund it more than the have-nots do. That's unavoidable. But it also can't be an increase of precisely $1k/month or whatever a UBI might hypothetically be: That's hyperbolic nonsense even with criminal landlords colluding to victimize tenants.
Fortunately for the concept of UBI in this context, landlords are kind of small potatoes here in a sea of others who also need to extract their pound of flesh to pay for it.
This kind of broad-scale wealth redistribution can be good, I think, but it does not happen for free.)
Absolutely, but I guess I don't see how just giving everyone money brings that floor up. Maybe I'm looking at this naively, but I don't see what's preventing things from just costing more after UBI. If the government gives everyone $1000/mo so landlords raise rent by $1000/mo then the floor is unchanged. I realize it's not that simple and that type of inflation wouldn't happen over night, but it seems like that's the direction it would head. Just looking at the housing aspect of it, it actually seems like the people who would benefit the most from UBI would be the people at the middle to upper end of the wage scale since they are more likely to own a house which means their housing costs are more fixed than someone renting.
To me it seems like we need some way to control the cost of basic needs otherwise it's just a constant race between the government raising UBI and the market raising prices (although, admittedly, it seems like the same argument could be made about minimum wage).
This is definitely not something I'm super well versed in though, so I might be looking at it wrong and am very open to people showing me what I'm missing.