UBI would 'inflate' the economy, it wouldn't grow it. Growth (i.e. 'productivity') is more stuff being made. There’s no reasonable argument that the physical quantity of goods/services would increase. In every reasonable scenario, UBI gets inflated away through the supply-side of the production curve.

If your landlord knows you’re getting an extra, say, $5,000 per year in UBI, do you really think your rent isn’t going up? Do you really think AT&T isn’t going to increase the cost of your cell phone bill? Do you really think food is going to magically stay the same price? Gasoline? Clothes? Restaurant prices? And you can continue all the way down the line.

UBI is essentially a transfer mechanism from [insert how it’s funded] to the sector of the economy that produces goods and services to lower income people. In the case of UBI being funded through a VAT, it’s just a closed loop. The people that 'don't' benefit are the lower income people. If you remember Yang's Presidential bid, even he couldn’t address this. When he was asked directly about it, he just handwaved it away, despite the fact that was a glaring hole in the dead center of his keystone policy piece.

Remember your supply and demand curves from Econ 101? Giving everyone $1,000 a month increases demand for just about everything, with a weight towards the people who spend most all of that $1,000. Whether or not prices go up is a function of the ability of supply to respond. Imagine a world where there are only 2 items: potato chips and your apartment. There are a 'ton' of varieties of potato chips, and you can always choose to just not buy potato chips. Your apartment on the other hand, is mandatory and you have to incur a significant cost to move (e.g. it costs money to get a truck, plus you will have to move further from work, and you might have to move to a different apartment, you get the gist).

The potato chip company probably can't really raise prices you'll just switch brands costlessly. or you'll just not buy chips. Your apartment on the other hand is different. I'm not saying your landlord would raise your rent $1,000 instantly, that's not how that works. Instead, he'd bleed you out. Your rent would go up $250, which you'd be pissed about but you'd pay because you still have $750 from UBI. Next year it's going up $300, which you'd be pissed about but you'd pay because you still have $400 from UBI and so on until you get pissed enough to actually move. Now you are going to move to a cheaper apartment, but you have to remember that someone else, before UBI started, was paying a lot less than your 'new' rent post UBI. In other words, the landlord's captured it. Notably, this is exactly what we saw with real estate prices as women entered the workforce. It takes about ~10 years or so, but a huge chunk of the extra income went into real estate. Its hard to imagine how UBI would be any different.

[–] Steve@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (7 replies)