If landlords raise prices, increasing profit, more people will rent or buy or build houses. Ubi will certainly cause inflation, at least initially, but Ubi can be raised in line with inflation. What’s likely to work best to prevent inflation is gradual introduction and ramp up.
The poorest could go on to full amount to live, the richest, get nothing and change it every 3 months until all are in ubi. The transition could be over 5 years. It would still allow people to make choices and plan on that time. However, jacking up rents across the board wouldn’t work as not everyone would have the same capacity to pay more.
Yes, as trying to have enough money for rent and to save a deposit and have food was nigh on impossible. Guaranteed income changes that.
Add to that a phasing in and it becomes difficult for landlords to raise prices.
There is a housing crisis as we, collectively, decoded that housing was a commodity, not a human right. Giving everyone enough money to afford necessities reduces a lot of problems for society in general and people on an individual basis.
Giving people more money to buy a commodity doesn’t magically create more of the commodity. You said your UBI assumes the free market would provide more housing. But if the free market worked we wouldn’t need UBI for housing. Housing supply would have already matched inflation.
The free market is providing housing, though. It is just a problem that most people now rent, so the houses are not owned by those living in the,. Homelessness is up, but nowhere near as much as the rise in populations. This is an almost worldwide phenomenon.
I already noted we need more housing. More money in people’s pocket can be inflationary, so we need to reduce inflation, bit abandon the idea, not abandon the housing problem.
I don’t think ubi can solve anything because landlords will raise prices taking all UBI as profit.
Fix housing and safety nets and ubi isn’t needed. Add ubi without fixing housing and safety nets is a hand out for the owners.
If landlords raise prices, increasing profit, more people will rent or buy or build houses. Ubi will certainly cause inflation, at least initially, but Ubi can be raised in line with inflation. What’s likely to work best to prevent inflation is gradual introduction and ramp up.
The poorest could go on to full amount to live, the richest, get nothing and change it every 3 months until all are in ubi. The transition could be over 5 years. It would still allow people to make choices and plan on that time. However, jacking up rents across the board wouldn’t work as not everyone would have the same capacity to pay more.
If that worked there wouldn’t be a housing crisis. Pricing has increased but that hasn’t enough housing. It’s been this way for decades.
Yes, as trying to have enough money for rent and to save a deposit and have food was nigh on impossible. Guaranteed income changes that.
Add to that a phasing in and it becomes difficult for landlords to raise prices.
There is a housing crisis as we, collectively, decoded that housing was a commodity, not a human right. Giving everyone enough money to afford necessities reduces a lot of problems for society in general and people on an individual basis.
Giving people more money to buy a commodity doesn’t magically create more of the commodity. You said your UBI assumes the free market would provide more housing. But if the free market worked we wouldn’t need UBI for housing. Housing supply would have already matched inflation.
The free market is providing housing, though. It is just a problem that most people now rent, so the houses are not owned by those living in the,. Homelessness is up, but nowhere near as much as the rise in populations. This is an almost worldwide phenomenon.
I already noted we need more housing. More money in people’s pocket can be inflationary, so we need to reduce inflation, bit abandon the idea, not abandon the housing problem.