6 ms·

What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money?

33 points by bkurtz13 10y ago

exacube 10y ago
How do the economics of providing Basic Income work? I guess you would have increase taxes or provide lesser services? e.g., expect that basic income will cover some parts of the medical costs and provide a lesser health care for the average person. I'm guessing an implementation will be somewhere in between. Money has gotta come from somewhere.
- larubbio 10y ago
  The article discusses this. Basically you take the current set of services, and by removing the means testing and eliminating all the separate departments that facilitate them you save money and repurpose it towards this single program.
  - Sir_Substance 10y ago
    In addition, most western countries are sitting on a sea of wasted talent. About 40% of graduates in the USA never get jobs in their field[1], and it's similar world-wide. It's lower in the engineering fields, but that still leaves a lot of smart people with formal education experience doing things like staffing the reception counter at the local gym. Graduates take these jobs because the alternative is the hell that is student debt collection, but these are jobs that could easily be done by less educated people. The more educated people have the capacity to explore the kind of home-grown science, arts and social projects that brought us to discover electricity, progress to giving women the vote. We're sitting on top of a new renaissance because of short sightedness, but the potential boon of having that much home grown R&D could dramatically increase global wealth. [1] http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/05/40_percent_of_college_grads_end_up_settl.html http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/05/40_percent_of_co... or just google that phrase, it makes for depressing reading
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  > Money has gotta come from somewhere. Well yes and no. The issues are complex and my economic schooling is woefully limited (merely Bachelor's level), but I recall the idea of a money multiplier [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier] derived by MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume) and MPS (Marginal Propensity to Save). Take the following relatively contrived example. You insert a $1 into a vending machine and get a soda. The vending machine company takes that dollar and uses some to pay the soda company to replace the soda. The soda company uses the money to pay it's factory workers to make more soda. The factory workers use that money to buy other goods. So you can see that on a whole, the $1 dollar you chose to spend actually had an impact on the economy of more than a dollar. You can also see that depending on each what the "leakage" is at every level (or how much each entity, vending company, soda company, etc. choose to save instead of pass on) can drastically reduce the money multiplier effect leading to undesirable market outcomes (such as stagflation). Perhaps this professor does a better job illustrating: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_z/Z108.pdf http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_z/Z108.pdf Bottom line (I think is), empowering the impoverished to be able to consume should drive market growth. So the initial investment of a basic income should pay for itself many times over. Anyway there is more to this obviously, and this same interaction has implications regarding income-inequality, but I'll just leave this here as FFT.
bko 10y ago
I was thinking about this issue when I attended a meet up for independent game developers. I was shocked at the number of people I had met that just develop games full time. I met an entire team of 4 people that have been working full time over the last year designing and developing a mobile game. They have a playable prototype and it's fairly entertaining but nothing ground-breaking in my opinion. Running the numbers in my head, I thought that this game would have to clear over a million dollars for it to even be considered a break-even for 4 well educated, hard working young people working over a year on the venture. I didn't know their personal financial situations, but I couldn't help but be both envious and terrified. I met another person who worked on indie game development for two years and now works for a company designs games for others for money up front. He told me he hadn't made any money in the years working for himself. It's incredible how many young people devote their time to passion projects with the very limited social safety net of the US. Surely a basic income will increase the allure. The question is, does the world need more indie mobile game developers?
- ksenzee 10y ago
  Young people who are middle- and upper-class have the mom and dad safety net. That's often why they can afford the kind of passion project you're talking about. It would be very interesting to see what people of other ages and classes could come up with, given the chance. I bet it wouldn't all be indie games.
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  >The question is, does the world need more indie mobile game developers? What's wrong with having more artists, be it indie developers or semi-pro bands or hobbyist sculptors, if we can, as a society, afford it?
- jjn2009 10y ago
  These people are the exception not the rule, for every person like this there are many times more of those who would take the dole and do nothing with themselves. Basic income might increase the allure of risky proposition, I think in most cases these groups of people estimated some risk/reward function of their endeavours, considering the reward more so than the risk, but there is a healthy combination of the carrot and the stick. Basic income is to do away with the stick, most people need the stick to get out of bed in the morning, admittedly myself included, at least to some extent.
jakeogh 10y ago
I bet China does it first. The opportunity to control the population by putting everyone on the take is very attractive to power structures. Also it furthers the long-term social engineering regarding "if the gov does it (theft in this case) then it's OK".
TerryADavis 10y ago
The nigger's like, "Suck CIA cock while we buttfuck you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRoj3jK37Vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRoj3jK37Vc I'm like say hi to God, nigger. -------------------- The Jewish Temples: The First Temple - Solomon's Temple Jewish Temple: Table of Contents | Second Temple | Jerusalem During First Temple Print Friendly and PDF Tweet The crowning achievement of King Solomon's reign was the erection of the magnificent Temple (Hebrew- Beit haMikdash) in the capital city of ancient Israel - Jerusalem. His father, King David, had wanted to build the great Temple a generation earlier, as a permanent resting place for the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Ten Commandments. A divine edict, however, had forbidden him from doing so: "You will not build a house for My name," God said to David, "for you are a man of battles and have shed blood" (I Chronicles 28:3). Artists rendering of Solomon's Temple The Bible's description of Solomon's Temple (also called The First Temple) suggests that the inside ceiling was was 180 feet long, 90 feet wide, and 50 feet high. The highest point on the Temple that King Solomon built was actually 120 cubits tall (about 20 stories or about 207 feet). According to the Tanach (II Chronicles): 3:3- "The length by cubits after the ancient measure was threescore cubits, and the breadth twenty cubits". 3:4- "And the porch that was before the house, the length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height a hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold." Solomon spared no expense for the building's creation. He ordered vast quantities of cedar wood from King Hiram of Tyre (I Kings 5:2025), had huge blocks of the choicest stone quarried, and commanded that the building's foundation be laid with hewn stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his subjects, drafting people for work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple's erection (5:2730). Solomon assumed such heavy debts in building the Temple that he is forced to pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee (I Kings 9:11). When the Temple was completed, Solomon inaugurated it with prayer and sacrifice, and even invited nonJews to come and pray there. He urged God to pay particular heed to their prayers: "Thus all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You, as does Your people Israel; and they will recognize that Your name is attached to this House that I have built" (I Kings 8:43). Sacrifice was the predominant mode of divine service in the Temple until it was destroyed by the Babylonians some four hundred years later, in 586 BCE. Seventy years later, after the story of Purim, a number of Jews returned to Israel - led by the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah - and the Second Temple was built on the same site. Sacrifices to God were once again resumed. During the first century B.C.E., Herod, the Roman appointed head of Judea, made substantial modifications to the Temple and the surrounding mountain, enlargening and expanding the Temple. The Second Temple, however, met the same fate as the first and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E., following the failure of the Great Revolt. As glorious and elaborate as the Temple was, its most important room contained almost no furniture at all. Known as the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Kodashim), it housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments inside the Ark of Covenant. Unfortunately, the tablets disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and, therefore, during the Second Temple era the Holy of Holies was reduced to small, entirely bare room. Only once a year, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would enter this room and pray to God on behalf of the Israelite nation. A remarkable monologue by a Hasidic rabbi in the Yiddish play The Dybbuk conveys a sense of what the Jewish throngs worshiping at the Temple must have experienced during this ceremony: God's world is great and holy. The holiest land in the world is the land of Israel. In the land of Israel the holiest city is Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies.... There are seventy peoples in the world. The holiest among these is the people of Israel. The holiest of the people of Israel is the tribe of Levi. In the tribe of Levi the holiest are the priests. Among the priests, the holiest was the High Priest.... There are 354 days in the [lunar] year. Among these, the holidays are holy. Higher than these is the holiness of the Sabbath. Among Sabbaths, the holiest is the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths.... There are seventy languages in the world. The holiest is Hebrew. Holier than all else in this language is the holy Torah, and in the Torah the holiest part is the Ten Commandments. In the Ten Commandments the holiest of all words is the name of God.... And once during the year, at a certain hour, these four supreme sanctities of the world were joined with one another. That was on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and there utter the name of God. And because this hour was beyond measure holy and awesome, it was the time of utmost peril not only for the High Priest but for the whole of Israel. For if in this hour there had, God forbid, entered the mind of the High Priest a false or sinful thought, the entire world would have been destroyed. To this day, traditional Jews pray three times a day for the Temple's restoration. Over the centuries, the Muslims who eventually took control of Jerusalem built two mosques on the Temple Mount, the site of the two Jewish Temples. (This was no coincidence; it is a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other people's holy places.) Since any attempt to level these mosques would lead to an international Muslim holy war (jihad) against Israel, the Temple cannot be rebuilt in the foreseeable future.
glasz 10y ago
it would loosen the chains of capitalism for the 90% who haven't, aren't and won't get lucky. that's even most of us around here. "we" can afford it. wall street is creating money every second. with a proper tax structure there'll be no problem. but that's politics-land and shit will happen until sheep are casting apt votes. long story short: things will stay the way they are.
flashman 10y ago
I'm less worried about the economic aspects (western countries can afford this) than the social ones, namely the new forms of resentment this will encourage when taxpayers see all the things 'their' money is buying people.
- notduncansmith 10y ago
  The key is to culturally shift from a scarcity-rooted value system to an abundance-roots one. Call it "The New American Dream".
  - caseywoolley 10y ago
    As long as there are greedy people and a limited supply of earth and its resources there will always need to be an accounting system for it. But that's not to say the system can't be improved. A full land-value tax would give the inherent value of land and natural resources back to the public and compensate those who use less of our limited resources from those who use too much.
boznz 10y ago
A great idea, however I doubt in practice it would work as well as everyone thinks. What may work for a school leaver may not work for a guy with a family of 6/debts/drug or alcohol problems/medical needs/etc. that person may be much better off with housing benefits/family benefits/medicare etc than an equal slice of the pie. Anyway I dont know but I am in favour of doing the experiment and hope it works, but I seriously doubt it will be as cut and dried as people think.
jmh42 10y ago
I've spent some time thinking about basic income. At times arguing for it, other times arguing against it. Unfortunately we cannot resolve the scarcity problem, particularly when it comes to real estate, i.e. the location one chooses to reside. There is a simple physical constraint: only one thing can occupy a specific space at a time. Cities in general are popular places to live because of their proximity to "things", the Arts and that interesting stuff happens where more people can collaborate in the real world. (Consider the demand to be close to your child's school or near a dog park.) Given this (assumption if you will), let's consider a few rounds of economic cause/effect. Round 1: if everyone were given a basic income, many more people will be able to afford to live in a city. Round 2: not all people, but some, will seek housing (rent or buy) in this city. Round 3: owners will need to choose between [1] renting/selling at current price for which there is suddenly higher demand or [2] increasing their price until there is less demand. Round 4: most owners choose option [2] and excess income begins to be sucked up by higher and higher prices. The issue is basic income increases the demand (perhaps good for today's global economic ailments) while supply of goods/housing will take time to adjust. Of course, given the opportunity to sell apartments in a city at higher margins will cause developers to build new supply, but this takes years. One way to deal with the supply/demand issue is having a basic income that starts low ($100 a month?) and increases to a basic living wage over the course of 5 years. This way, investments can be planned ahead of time so supply increases with demand.
- caseywoolley 10y ago
  This is the basic flaw that everyone seems to be missing. Cost of living will just rise to meet the increase in demand resulting in no one except private landowners being any better off. Henry George identified the solution over 100 years ago. Basic income requires something like the Henry George land-value tax to be successful. At the same time, a land-value tax would also be the best way to raise funds for a universal basic income.
  - jmh42 10y ago
    I had not heard of Henry James and his book "Progress & Poverty" (1879). More info for anyone interested [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

33 points by bkurtz13 10y ago

How do the economics of providing Basic Income work? I guess you would have increase taxes or provide lesser services? e.g., expect that basic income will cover some parts of the medical costs and provide a lesser health care for the average person. I'm guessing an implementation will be somewhere in between. Money has gotta come from somewhere.

larubbio 10y ago
The article discusses this. Basically you take the current set of services, and by removing the means testing and eliminating all the separate departments that facilitate them you save money and repurpose it towards this single program.
- Sir_Substance 10y ago
  In addition, most western countries are sitting on a sea of wasted talent. About 40% of graduates in the USA never get jobs in their field[1], and it's similar world-wide. It's lower in the engineering fields, but that still leaves a lot of smart people with formal education experience doing things like staffing the reception counter at the local gym. Graduates take these jobs because the alternative is the hell that is student debt collection, but these are jobs that could easily be done by less educated people. The more educated people have the capacity to explore the kind of home-grown science, arts and social projects that brought us to discover electricity, progress to giving women the vote. We're sitting on top of a new renaissance because of short sightedness, but the potential boon of having that much home grown R&D could dramatically increase global wealth. [1] http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/05/40_percent_of_college_grads_end_up_settl.html http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2011/05/40_percent_of_co... or just google that phrase, it makes for depressing reading
gshulegaard 10y ago
> Money has gotta come from somewhere. Well yes and no. The issues are complex and my economic schooling is woefully limited (merely Bachelor's level), but I recall the idea of a money multiplier [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier] derived by MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume) and MPS (Marginal Propensity to Save). Take the following relatively contrived example. You insert a $1 into a vending machine and get a soda. The vending machine company takes that dollar and uses some to pay the soda company to replace the soda. The soda company uses the money to pay it's factory workers to make more soda. The factory workers use that money to buy other goods. So you can see that on a whole, the $1 dollar you chose to spend actually had an impact on the economy of more than a dollar. You can also see that depending on each what the "leakage" is at every level (or how much each entity, vending company, soda company, etc. choose to save instead of pass on) can drastically reduce the money multiplier effect leading to undesirable market outcomes (such as stagflation). Perhaps this professor does a better job illustrating: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_z/Z108.pdf http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_z/Z108.pdf Bottom line (I think is), empowering the impoverished to be able to consume should drive market growth. So the initial investment of a basic income should pay for itself many times over. Anyway there is more to this obviously, and this same interaction has implications regarding income-inequality, but I'll just leave this here as FFT.

bko 10y ago

I was thinking about this issue when I attended a meet up for independent game developers. I was shocked at the number of people I had met that just develop games full time. I met an entire team of 4 people that have been working full time over the last year designing and developing a mobile game. They have a playable prototype and it's fairly entertaining but nothing ground-breaking in my opinion. Running the numbers in my head, I thought that this game would have to clear over a million dollars for it to even be considered a break-even for 4 well educated, hard working young people working over a year on the venture. I didn't know their personal financial situations, but I couldn't help but be both envious and terrified. I met another person who worked on indie game development for two years and now works for a company designs games for others for money up front. He told me he hadn't made any money in the years working for himself. It's incredible how many young people devote their time to passion projects with the very limited social safety net of the US. Surely a basic income will increase the allure. The question is, does the world need more indie mobile game developers?

ksenzee 10y ago
Young people who are middle- and upper-class have the mom and dad safety net. That's often why they can afford the kind of passion project you're talking about. It would be very interesting to see what people of other ages and classes could come up with, given the chance. I bet it wouldn't all be indie games.
Sir_Substance 10y ago
>The question is, does the world need more indie mobile game developers? What's wrong with having more artists, be it indie developers or semi-pro bands or hobbyist sculptors, if we can, as a society, afford it?
jjn2009 10y ago
These people are the exception not the rule, for every person like this there are many times more of those who would take the dole and do nothing with themselves. Basic income might increase the allure of risky proposition, I think in most cases these groups of people estimated some risk/reward function of their endeavours, considering the reward more so than the risk, but there is a healthy combination of the carrot and the stick. Basic income is to do away with the stick, most people need the stick to get out of bed in the morning, admittedly myself included, at least to some extent.

jakeogh 10y ago

I bet China does it first. The opportunity to control the population by putting everyone on the take is very attractive to power structures. Also it furthers the long-term social engineering regarding "if the gov does it (theft in this case) then it's OK".

TerryADavis 10y ago

The nigger's like, "Suck CIA cock while we buttfuck you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRoj3jK37Vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRoj3jK37Vc I'm like say hi to God, nigger. -------------------- The Jewish Temples: The First Temple - Solomon's Temple Jewish Temple: Table of Contents | Second Temple | Jerusalem During First Temple Print Friendly and PDF Tweet The crowning achievement of King Solomon's reign was the erection of the magnificent Temple (Hebrew- Beit haMikdash) in the capital city of ancient Israel - Jerusalem. His father, King David, had wanted to build the great Temple a generation earlier, as a permanent resting place for the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Ten Commandments. A divine edict, however, had forbidden him from doing so: "You will not build a house for My name," God said to David, "for you are a man of battles and have shed blood" (I Chronicles 28:3). Artists rendering of Solomon's Temple The Bible's description of Solomon's Temple (also called The First Temple) suggests that the inside ceiling was was 180 feet long, 90 feet wide, and 50 feet high. The highest point on the Temple that King Solomon built was actually 120 cubits tall (about 20 stories or about 207 feet). According to the Tanach (II Chronicles): 3:3- "The length by cubits after the ancient measure was threescore cubits, and the breadth twenty cubits". 3:4- "And the porch that was before the house, the length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height a hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold." Solomon spared no expense for the building's creation. He ordered vast quantities of cedar wood from King Hiram of Tyre (I Kings 5:2025), had huge blocks of the choicest stone quarried, and commanded that the building's foundation be laid with hewn stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his subjects, drafting people for work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple's erection (5:2730). Solomon assumed such heavy debts in building the Temple that he is forced to pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee (I Kings 9:11). When the Temple was completed, Solomon inaugurated it with prayer and sacrifice, and even invited nonJews to come and pray there. He urged God to pay particular heed to their prayers: "Thus all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You, as does Your people Israel; and they will recognize that Your name is attached to this House that I have built" (I Kings 8:43). Sacrifice was the predominant mode of divine service in the Temple until it was destroyed by the Babylonians some four hundred years later, in 586 BCE. Seventy years later, after the story of Purim, a number of Jews returned to Israel - led by the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah - and the Second Temple was built on the same site. Sacrifices to God were once again resumed. During the first century B.C.E., Herod, the Roman appointed head of Judea, made substantial modifications to the Temple and the surrounding mountain, enlargening and expanding the Temple. The Second Temple, however, met the same fate as the first and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E., following the failure of the Great Revolt. As glorious and elaborate as the Temple was, its most important room contained almost no furniture at all. Known as the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Kodashim), it housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments inside the Ark of Covenant. Unfortunately, the tablets disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and, therefore, during the Second Temple era the Holy of Holies was reduced to small, entirely bare room. Only once a year, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would enter this room and pray to God on behalf of the Israelite nation. A remarkable monologue by a Hasidic rabbi in the Yiddish play The Dybbuk conveys a sense of what the Jewish throngs worshiping at the Temple must have experienced during this ceremony: God's world is great and holy. The holiest land in the world is the land of Israel. In the land of Israel the holiest city is Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies.... There are seventy peoples in the world. The holiest among these is the people of Israel. The holiest of the people of Israel is the tribe of Levi. In the tribe of Levi the holiest are the priests. Among the priests, the holiest was the High Priest.... There are 354 days in the [lunar] year. Among these, the holidays are holy. Higher than these is the holiness of the Sabbath. Among Sabbaths, the holiest is the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths.... There are seventy languages in the world. The holiest is Hebrew. Holier than all else in this language is the holy Torah, and in the Torah the holiest part is the Ten Commandments. In the Ten Commandments the holiest of all words is the name of God.... And once during the year, at a certain hour, these four supreme sanctities of the world were joined with one another. That was on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and there utter the name of God. And because this hour was beyond measure holy and awesome, it was the time of utmost peril not only for the High Priest but for the whole of Israel. For if in this hour there had, God forbid, entered the mind of the High Priest a false or sinful thought, the entire world would have been destroyed. To this day, traditional Jews pray three times a day for the Temple's restoration. Over the centuries, the Muslims who eventually took control of Jerusalem built two mosques on the Temple Mount, the site of the two Jewish Temples. (This was no coincidence; it is a common Islamic custom to build mosques on the sites of other people's holy places.) Since any attempt to level these mosques would lead to an international Muslim holy war (jihad) against Israel, the Temple cannot be rebuilt in the foreseeable future.

glasz 10y ago

it would loosen the chains of capitalism for the 90% who haven't, aren't and won't get lucky. that's even most of us around here. "we" can afford it. wall street is creating money every second. with a proper tax structure there'll be no problem. but that's politics-land and shit will happen until sheep are casting apt votes. long story short: things will stay the way they are.

flashman 10y ago

I'm less worried about the economic aspects (western countries can afford this) than the social ones, namely the new forms of resentment this will encourage when taxpayers see all the things 'their' money is buying people.

notduncansmith 10y ago
The key is to culturally shift from a scarcity-rooted value system to an abundance-roots one. Call it "The New American Dream".
- caseywoolley 10y ago
  As long as there are greedy people and a limited supply of earth and its resources there will always need to be an accounting system for it. But that's not to say the system can't be improved. A full land-value tax would give the inherent value of land and natural resources back to the public and compensate those who use less of our limited resources from those who use too much.

boznz 10y ago

A great idea, however I doubt in practice it would work as well as everyone thinks. What may work for a school leaver may not work for a guy with a family of 6/debts/drug or alcohol problems/medical needs/etc. that person may be much better off with housing benefits/family benefits/medicare etc than an equal slice of the pie. Anyway I dont know but I am in favour of doing the experiment and hope it works, but I seriously doubt it will be as cut and dried as people think.

jmh42 10y ago

I've spent some time thinking about basic income. At times arguing for it, other times arguing against it. Unfortunately we cannot resolve the scarcity problem, particularly when it comes to real estate, i.e. the location one chooses to reside. There is a simple physical constraint: only one thing can occupy a specific space at a time. Cities in general are popular places to live because of their proximity to "things", the Arts and that interesting stuff happens where more people can collaborate in the real world. (Consider the demand to be close to your child's school or near a dog park.) Given this (assumption if you will), let's consider a few rounds of economic cause/effect. Round 1: if everyone were given a basic income, many more people will be able to afford to live in a city. Round 2: not all people, but some, will seek housing (rent or buy) in this city. Round 3: owners will need to choose between [1] renting/selling at current price for which there is suddenly higher demand or [2] increasing their price until there is less demand. Round 4: most owners choose option [2] and excess income begins to be sucked up by higher and higher prices. The issue is basic income increases the demand (perhaps good for today's global economic ailments) while supply of goods/housing will take time to adjust. Of course, given the opportunity to sell apartments in a city at higher margins will cause developers to build new supply, but this takes years. One way to deal with the supply/demand issue is having a basic income that starts low ($100 a month?) and increases to a basic living wage over the course of 5 years. This way, investments can be planned ahead of time so supply increases with demand.

caseywoolley 10y ago
This is the basic flaw that everyone seems to be missing. Cost of living will just rise to meet the increase in demand resulting in no one except private landowners being any better off. Henry George identified the solution over 100 years ago. Basic income requires something like the Henry George land-value tax to be successful. At the same time, a land-value tax would also be the best way to raise funds for a universal basic income.
- jmh42 10y ago
  I had not heard of Henry James and his book "Progress & Poverty" (1879). More info for anyone interested [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty