Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My issue with it is that you haven’t run trials with people min-maxing how to squeeze people for their UBI checks. As a start, just raising rent until it eats all the UBI

    • Landmammals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with that argument is that UBI frees up people to move to lower cost of living areas.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also means there’s more money in the pool of demand for housing, so as long as it’s a free market there will be more effort applied to fulfilling housing needs.

        • Landmammals@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I grew up in a small coal town in Southern Illinois. The last time I was there was for my grandfather’s funeral. The town was abandoned and empty, even compared to when I was growing up which certainly wasn’t it’s booming time. Most of the stores on main Street were closed except the bar and the legion which is also a bar.

          I’d move back in a heartbeat, but there’s no jobs there. The house that five generations of my family lived in sold for $30,000.

          If we had Ubi, my family and I would definitely live there. A few thousand dollars a month to make sure we survive and money actually coming into the town? It would seem like a miracle and I know there’s so many little towns like that all across America that are just completely forgotten about.

          People like to say that the rent will just go up to match ubi, but underestimate the number of people who live in cities solely because that’s where the work is.