Rents in many places have gone up massive amounts in the last few years anyway. Sometimes doubling in a single increase. All without a UBI. Rents increases aren't tied to an tenants income like you sugest.

Also, your inflation would only be short term. Long term, after prices spike with sudden increased demand, the high prices will incentivize more supply, bringing prices back down into balance.

And there's nothing to say the UBI needs to be implemented all at once any way. It could start as small as $50/month, then ramp up over the course of a decade or two. That smother transition would allow the markets to adapt without major waves.

There have been wider, longer studies, and what your describing doesn't actually happen.

[–] Tretiak@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There have been wider, longer studies, and what your describing doesn’t never happen.

And I remember people made similar remarks about gentrification. I remain confident that you'll see it with time.

[–] Steve@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gentrification is extremely local, tied to a specific area. UBI is tied to people. All people. In all locations. No mater where they go. The dynamics are couldn't be more different.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would it be all people in all locations or just people in (parts of) the global north? If the global south is included or excluded, how would UBI impact the current unequal transfer of value from the global south to the north? Can the north afford UBI without super-exploiting the south same will a UBI in the south undermine that super-exploitation?

In other words: will the north allow the south to implement any kind of UBI, given the terms and framework of IMF/WTO/World Bank?

The crux of these questions is: what affect will UBI have on global inequality?

Edit: I don't expect answers to these questions. It would take a book to answer each one. It's just something to think about.