|
|
|
|
|
by machinehermit
2212 days ago
|
|
Not to mention it improves their well being exactly because they are better off relative to the people who are not getting UBI. I forget what the conjecture is called in economics that UBI would essentially all be captured by rent and housing prices. I don't have to think about it very long to see how obvious that is. |
|
But you're right that there exists markets (like SF) where this is simply not the case. What happens there? Take your thought one step further: if everyone received $x per month, and rent and housing prices increased by $x, then in that worst case scenario, the TAM doesn't actually change, I.e. if I was able to afford a house today, I would be able to afford a house tomorrow.
If I was unable to afford rent today, I would not be able to afford rent tomorrow however I would now have cash to be able to afford to move to a more affordable market. This seems like a strict win to me.