Corky Romanovsky posted:

Where did the communism touch you?

Corky Romanovsky posted:

The kids would probably get a UBI, too.

quote:

UBI will probably cause population redistribution, as you may not need to live in a city to get a job. Cash flow increase in rural areas would likely boost the local economies and make job opportunities there as well.

There should also be affordable housing initiatives to ensure accessibility to those only earning UBI.

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

pretty much everywhere

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

pretty much everywhere

Corky Romanovsky posted:

Except for the people that value benefits of high population density, like public transportation, more nearby doctors, audience for performance/art, etc.

I don't need to justify you getting salty over someone else's life choices leading to lower per capita household expenditures. What if someone grew their own food?!?!

Barbe Rouge posted:

someone else had the same experience and they ended up creating a new moral philosophy that even luminaries such as the current speaker of the house adhere to in their life

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

you'll end up needing price controls for everything because every non idiot business owner will raise prices to adjust for the ubi implemented

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

you'll end up needing price controls for everything because every non idiot business owner will raise prices to adjust for the ubi implemented

Venom Snake posted:

Do you also think that if we raise the minimum wage that prices will go up too?

Venom Snake posted:

The point of UBI is it makes everyone better off than they were before and nobody worse off.

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

i mean apart from the fact that this is false equivalency bullshit, are we going to pretend itt that it's settled science that they do not? because heres a pretty respected labour affiliated source saying it depends

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

i'm going to assume this is another link to a study that undermines your own point

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

you'll end up needing price controls for everything because every non idiot business owner will raise prices to adjust for the ubi implemented

Hob_Gadling posted:

I've no idea why you think Venezuelan system is UBI

namesake posted:

Barbe Rouge posted:

probably not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Policies_Institute
The Employment Policies Institute is a fiscally conservative non-profit American think tank that conducts research on employment issues such as minimum wage and health care.

call to action posted:

What's not to love about a monthly check that barely allows you to make ends meet, simultaneously allowing the rich to halt giving even lip service to their lessers?

Bringing my government cheese to my bombed out, fracked National Park that's being destroyed by climate change sure sure SOUNDS cool but then again, i dunno

call to action posted:

What's not to love about a monthly check that barely allows you to make ends meet, simultaneously allowing the rich to halt giving even lip service to their lessers?

Bringing my government cheese to my bombed out, fracked National Park that's being destroyed by climate change sure sure SOUNDS cool but then again, i dunno

Not a Step posted:

What's not to love about absolutely nothing that doesn't allow you to make ends meet, simultaneously nothing of the rich who never gave even lip service to their lessers to begin with?

Bringing my absolutely nothing to my bombed out, fracked National Park that's being destroyed by climate change sure sure SOUNDS cool but then again, i dunno.

White Rock posted:

No need for controls mate.

Even if everything goes up by what the UBI covers, poorer people will be better off, the rest won't feel the difference.

mrbradlymrmartin posted:

there were price controls under nixon

if the govt is gonna subsidize capital they should be able to impose limits too

Coolguye posted:

housing's price is so incredibly hosed up by so many different factors that it's not even worth talking about in a social welfare context. even bringing it up shows staggering ignorance of how deep that hosed up legislative rabbit hole goes.

the current tax code mammothly rewards people who own land in dozens of ways, be it as a tax write-off nexus for keeping "fallow farmland" in the middle of a suburb or just owning a large lot with a reasonably sized house. this artificially inflates the cost of housing, because in general the house is a depreciating liability on top of an appreciating asset (the land). zoning laws are rampantly used to keep prices of existing structures from falling, which penalizes everyone who does not currently own property. governments then are forced to fund 'affordable housing projects' to create new bottom-dollar housing in speculative districts or slums to try to hastily get some disenfranchised renters from voting them out of office and causing more chaos and pain in the overall housing system.

if you look at the fundamentals of building a home, there is absolutely no reason for a new construction house to be as expensive as a 30 year old home.

- are building materials more expensive? no; in fact, pretty much every material you can think of is cheaper nowadays, whether due to increased/more efficient production (woods, brick, sheet rock, etc - all good signs) or shoddier substitutes (many kinds of plaster and insulation - bad signs)
- is the actual construction more expensive? no; tooling has continued to improve and fewer workers can put together 10 houses faster than more workers could put together 10 houses in 1980. these inputs are markedly less expensive, not more.
- are the logistics more complicated? no; matter of fact it's a hundred times easier to get what you need to build a house to a site now vs 1980 due to the logistics revolutions that drove the 1990s economic expansions in retail seeping into other disciplines.
- is the land itself more expensive? no; due to the above massive rewarding of existing homeowners, it's very rare for existing lots to be abandoned entirely. consequently, almost all new construction happens in marginal areas that are not developed and connected to services yet. the services follow the homeowners, not the other way around.

literally the only adequate explanation for why housing costs as much or more in real terms vs 1980 is due to existing laws that treat housing as an investment or rent farm rather than a malthusian need for shelter and family rearing. look at any of the other basic needs malthus called out to compare it: food is objectively cheaper than it was in 1980, whether by resisting inflation or outright falling in price. fuel, in terms of heating so you don't die of exposure is also cheaper on average, though price spikes still occur and that's terrifying and bad. clothing (or fiber, as malthus calls it out) is more expensive on the high end to look very stylish, but is substantially less expensive to buy basic shirts, pants, coats, and blankets due to increasing mechanization.

the shelter need is outside of normal market forces and every financial professional out there knows it. this is precisely why the 2008 bullshit was so bad. nobody questioned that housing and land prices would ever fall, because every government from federal to locals in every western country on the planet was treating housing and land so preferably it seemed impossible. morons took that idiot belief to its extreme and whoops, turns out you can't legislate away basic loving math.

trying to indict a UBI scheme based upon the variable and high cost of shelter is basically saying 'the government can't do something good, because they're already doing something bad.' it's not an economic argument, it's not a market argument. it's a circular government vs government argument. you can't even say 'well, let's fix housing laws before worrying about UBI then' because housing laws are insanely complicated and touching their preferred status in any way will have real economic shockwaves. they will need to be handled over the course of decades in order to not cause widespread chaos. in the meantime, you still have people needlessly going underclothed, underfed, and shivering in the cold - and THAT isn't even a bleeding heart liberal appeal to compassion. people who are underfed, underclothed, and overstressed cannot perform in the general labor market, which reduces the available labor, shrinks the size of the market, and damages its overall effectiveness. even libertarian thinking grants that it's in our best interest to make sure our markets are as large and widely-inclusive as possible because that's literally how they work best - and therefore, this hunger and crushing poverty bullshit must be eliminated for the good of the market at large.

oh, and as a matter of fact, a UBI scheme that ensures everyone has some level of purchasing power regardless of housing shockwaves happen is, in fact, one of the better currently proposed ways to handle this potential turmoil.

e: also, the above is part of why it's not even clear that prices of other malthusian needs would fluctuate at all if a half-livable UBI scheme was implemented; between existing welfare schemes and charities, so much food, clothing, and heating material is outright given away that the lost commerce is a market in and of itself. a UBI scheme would bring every a huge chunk of soup kitchen and coat exchange patrons into the regular market, which creates all new incentives for those able to provide the highest quality product at the lowest price - precisely the incentive that has seen milk, eggs, and jackets cost less and less year over year.