http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xh...
That might be an argument if it were a UBI, but this is not a UBI, and it is just going to hit the poor in general the hardest.
> Rents on the low end are going to rise by $1000/month
Even if they would with an actual UBI (which is a whole different debate), they won't with this plan [0], which (bizarrely, as its author calls it a UBI) leaves out essentially the entirety of the poor plus the transitionally unemployed (that is, it leaves out anyone receiving benefits under Medi-Cal, CalWORKS, CalFresh, or, weirdly, Unemployment Insurance.)
Medi-Cal alone covers roughly the poorest 1/4 of Californians (10.8 million of 39.6 million in 2018.)
Unemployment Insurance is the weirdest exclusion, because it makes the bite of transitional unemployment deeper by $1,000/mo. Why anyone thinks that's even a remotely sane idea is beyond me. Funded with a VAT (which has essentially the same regressive characteristics as sales tax) this is basically the opposite of a UBI, its an upward redistribution from the poor and unemployed to the comfortable and employed.
The problem is not that it will drive low-end housing prices up, its that both the VAT and the not-all-universal Basic Income pieces will drive up prices on goods across the board (but not, except weakly indirectly, low-income housing.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml...
Only if it’s still in California
If loving to LCOL is beneficial why can’t they do that now?
Generally, a company will charge the highest price they can get away with, irrespective of the cost it took to produce the good or service.
Prices only approach the cost of production when there is strong competition among industry players. Basic tactics like branding, consolidation, and lack of transparency in an industry help subvert competition.
That's not what those "everyday" people think. They think the company can increase the prices beyond the breaking point arbitrarily and always get away with it. That same logic is then used to prevent new competitors from entering because they charge above market rate during their first few years. For some reason they never think about what happens once the suppliers are begging for customers because there is too much competition.
Folks that use supply and demand principles to argue against UBI don't seem to understand themselves.
If everyone is given $1,000/mo, it does not necessarily follow that living costs will also increase by $1000/mo. For that to happen, the additional $1000/mo would need to actually increase everyone's demand for services, which is generally not the case. Having more money generally does not make you want something more, it just makes it easier to afford it. If more people can afford something and start purchasing it in greater numbers, then yes, the price will increase, but they are also getting something the thing of value in return.
Put another way, giving everyone $1000 will likely increase prices, but the increased prices will be less than $1000.