Hacker News Reader

Comment by Simulacra | Hacker News Reader

But we haven’t seen any of that. People who were put on unemployment found they were making more not working, than people who are working, And they were quite happy to stay at home and not work.. They will take the free money that’s handed to them. I own a rental property, and I can guarantee you that if I know my tenant is earning extra money a month free from the government, I’m going to increase his rent. Why not? There’s no law against it.

View on HN

You're getting downvoted, but I don't agree with the reasoning for why people think you're wrong. I'm sure a lot of people will actually choose to do nothing. It doesn't really matter if they're investing in themselves or doing nothing. The point is that fewer people are doing the low tier jobs that we actually NEED people to do, so wages must increase. And so forth as described above.

Unemployment is nuanced because you're incentivized to not even try and probably not really that relevant to UBI fwiw.

I’m getting downvoted because most people here are high earning white guys that think a UBI is the cool thing to do because it will never affect them. I believe there is a lot of fantasy blindness that a UBI will make everything better, that simply doesn’t take into account actual economics.

You can only increase his rent as much as the other landlords do or he'll move. There are a lot of landlords in the UBI jurisdiction so it would be impossible to effectively collude to raise prices together.

I have no doubt that rents and costs would go up but they would go up by less than the full amount of the UBI so the UBI would still be helpful to the recipient.

You can move, but if you want to live in an area with more demand for housing, like a major city, you're going to get shafted. I don't disagree that UBI would probably end up with a little more income net of price increases to the poor, but it comes with a host of problems that don't mesh with other economies. Labor gets more expensive, so outsourcing gets more enticing.

It'll also never be a "basic" income in that the poor will always need to work to survive.

You raise rents until you maximize profit, the person who’s out, well then you lower it and take the next person.

They would go up by less than the full amount of the UBI...? I'm sorry I don't follow your logic. Your UBI is, say, $500 a month. Same for everyone. Why would the landlord not raise your rent by $500 and take that money? This is not a moral question.

Because a different landlord is happy to only take $400 of it, and another landlord is happy with only an additional $300. In aggregate, you will find some equilibrium under $500.

From another perspective, why doesn't food cost 90% of our income anymore? Why didn't food prices go up in perfect lockstep with every productivity improvement and rise in wages since 300BC? Because there are people out there willing and happy to sell it for less, no other reason.

Most of your argument is flawed You should read about real UBI experiments, they provide solid evidence that people invest in their long term prospects.

Planet money has an episode on the subject.

You mean like Finland that actually tries this and failed?? Here’s a business insider article on it.

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-basic-income-experim...

Furstly, the article you linked says in the title that the experiment was flawed.

Listen to the panet money podcast, the experiment is much better conducted and the podcast goes into great depth discussing various effects on the participants.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/22/552850245/epis...

There is a lot more than succeded and failed to dicsuss here, happy to do so if you are interested in doing that rather than just proving your point.

Did you read this article?

Perhaps there will be laws against that behavior soon after UBI! I'm sure you'll fight against them being enacted, of course.

Why not? It’s not like it’s your money being spent.

I rent and I wouldn't be surprised to see my landlord doing the same, so yes, it would be my money being spent.

Nobody is suggesting that UBI should be as much as an existing job + $600.

So what should it be? $500? $100? UBI can only succeed if business and commerce goes along with it. Otherwise, all you’ve done is incentivize business to go after that money that consumers now have.

Someone getting unemployment in NJ right now for a minimum wage job working 40hr/wk would get $864/week on unemployment for a job that that they normally get $440/wk to go to.

You can probably see how this is a very different situation from something like Yang's proposal, where a person would get an extra $230/wk no matter what they did. That would be $670 to go to work or $230 if they don't.

Only if rent, gas, and the price if necessities don’t also raise by that amount. UBI still only makes rational economic sense if nothing else changes.

People are not going to spend the money all in the same way or on the same things. As with all social benefit programs, it's the distribution of wealth that is of primary concern and benefit. I wouldn't spend any of the money on rent, so giving me $1000 wouldn't contribute to any increase in rent.

You have to be careful not to look at a single side of the equation -- there are also savings that would happen as a result of UBI. Maybe you give someone $100 for free and it raises the price of everything by $5, but you don't have to pay $300 to replace a car window that is broken out when someone robs your car. And/or the costs of insurance/taxes goes down. Crime, poverty, poor health, etc have huge costs to everyone in the US, and you have to factor those things into the equation.

UBI only works if everyone goes along with it and doesn't try to make it a pass through. You may not like it, but if everyone is getting a UBI then a business will find a way to take that from you so that your actual benefit is zero. UBI is nothing more than theoretical inflation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com