34 ms·

I'm sorry if this has been answered many times in the past. I didn't find the answer anywhere else. If everyone gets 1000$ extra, why wouldn't rent increase by

I'm sorry if this has been answered many times in the past. I didn't find the answer anywhere else. If everyone gets 1000$ extra, why wouldn't rent increase by close to 1000$. If you're not willing to pay it, someone will. I don't understand how giving all of us X amount of dollars would help. The number of goods are the same, they would become more expensive through inflation.

cscheid 1y ago
Presumably because one of the two things are true: - there's competition, and so if it's possible to rent for less than 1000-eps and still profit, someone will - there's no competition, which is a cartel, the kind of thing that civilized societies ought to frown upon
- vasco 1y ago
  Do you know the adage location location location? The competition for good locations is among renters, not landlords. Seller's market vs buyer's market. Doesn't have to mean there's a cartel, it also doesn't mean there isn't one but it's not a guarantee.
  - svnt 1y ago
    I am trying to understand your perspective. How do people buying and selling real estate, the origin of the adage “location, location, location,” not compete on locations?
    - vasco 1y ago
      I didn't say that people didn't compete on locations, I said the opposite.
      - svnt 1y ago
        You said “the competition for good locations is among renters, not landlords.”
        vasco 1y ago
        There's orders of magnitude more renters looking for a place than landlords willing to rent in the best locations.
gruez 1y ago
Rent is expensive because all the jobs are in expensive metros, so people are forced to move there. With UBI the idea is that some fraction of people won't have to work (or can do part time remote work), and therefore can move to a random town in North Dakota with cheap rent.
- vasco 1y ago
  Other cool things cities have is police stations and hospitals, but I guess since there's no jobs you just get treated by a robot in the woods? But then if people are creating art or working on their theater play or whatever, they'll want other people to show it too. I don't see cities existing only because of jobs.
  - danaris 1y ago
    This is an unhelpfully binary view of cities vs small towns. I live in a village of roughly 5k people. The nearest city is 45 minutes' drive away. We have both a police station and a hospital.
- bradlys 1y ago
  Ah, yes. Famously people only like cities cause there’s jobs there. They’d otherwise live in a place where the population density is 5/mi.
  - gruez 1y ago
    It's not a pleasant place to live, but beggars can't be choosers.
squeegee_scream 1y ago
I don’t think _everyone_ gets an extra $1,000, just those at the bottom. I’m pretty sure there are different ways of implementing UBI, and some of them only provide a certain amount to the lower income folks. So if you are making plenty of money, whatever plenty means in your location and context, you would not receive any additional income.
- kajumix 1y ago
  If it's not for _everyone_ it's not _universal_ basic income. It's just welfare for poor in that case, and that's already very common
- purerandomness 1y ago
  That's not UBI (the universal part), that's state subsidies, which already exist today all over the world.
- hn8726 1y ago
  UBI by definition is paid to everyone, regardless of their income. That's contrasted with GMI, guaranteed minimal income, which supplements your current income to some minimal level, which would work as you described
- jghn 1y ago
  The "U" in "UBI" is "Universal"
- RedNifre 1y ago
  The point of it being universal is that you still have a good incentive to work, since every dollar earned is a dollar more in your pocket (initially, before you reach the income level where you need to pay taxes). Compare that to non-universal social help, where every dollar earned gets subtracted from your social pay, so the first $1000 you earn are effectively taxed 100%, creating an incentive to not start working.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> why wouldn't rent increase by close to 1000$. prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have. It might increase rental prices, but the people that are reliant on UBI tend to be on some sort of rent control mechanism. The biggest hurdle though is that people getting jealous of "money for nothing" despite interest being literally that.
- schmorptron 1y ago
  This applies less for basic human needs like a roof over the head, especially in a supply constrained market like we've been in for quite some time in many places around the world
- echelon 1y ago
  > prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have. That's not the full story of how the economics of demand work. Demand increases as the money supply increases, but supply remains constant. This is inflation. More dollars chasing the same basket of goods. Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases. This leads to an increased desire to spend. It's an aggregate demand increase across businesses and consumers. We recently saw the impact of this when the money supply was increased during Covid. It led to one of the largest jumps in inflation in our lifetimes.
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    > Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases. I'm going to say something radical here, so do hear me out. any bank that loans money, is increasing the money supply. the more banks lend, the more money is printed. There is no fixed supply of virtual money. We don't really know how much actual dollars there are out there. (ignoring eurodollars) Banks profits are literally because they are printing money. The very act of loaning out means that the 1 dollar bill you deposited with become 1.8, as its loaned out again to someone else, who then repays it, with interest. <<end radicalism>> Sure we had QE, we had covid cash, but the problem with using covid as an example of "giving money to everyone causes inflation" is that its difficult to distinguish from supply chain, tariffs, stimulus and $other. the other problem is that stimulus was given to companies as well. but the argument about not increasing the money supply is difficult to argue unless you are a bank, because that's their job, not the government's. so, the point is, the economics of demand is an approximate model, rather than a formula. Its based on the collective perceived value of a good or service, rather than a strict supply/demand. sure its a close approximation, but not an accurate one.
RiverCrochet 1y ago
- If more money is available for rents (increase demand), more people will build apartments to get that money (increase supply). This will introduce competition and keep rents reasonable. This won't work where housing supply is artificially limited. - I might live with a relative instead of paying $1000 extra, and can now afford the car to get to and from my job instead of living with them without a job or deepending on them for a ride. - I might put that into a mortgage payment instead of rent. UBI if done correctly is always there so it's something a bank could count on as a reliable asset. - "The number of goods are the same, they would become more expensive through inflation" - If there is more money to buy goods, people will find a way to produce more goods, if allowed. If people aren't producing more goods then your problem is there - transportation to markets could be an issue.
radpanda 1y ago
I’ve always seen UBI as part of a post-scarcity sci-fi future. Once the robots run the farms and deliver the food and build the buildings and so on, and there just isn’t enough work to go around for humans, of course the fruits of this productivity should be shared with the wider population (both morally and to prevent uprisings). Sure, in this sci-fi future you can live in your basic pod and eat basic food for free or you can work a little or a lot to try to upgrade your situation. But I don’t think we’re there yet. We do have a lot of industries that rely on shit jobs that people would rather not do. If we, IMHO prematurely, try to institute a UBI now we’d be in for a world of pain along the way as the prices of basic services skyrocket without robots being ready to step in.
- K0balt 1y ago
  “Of course” But, that’s not where we are headed. Instead, automation will make money irrelevant in the “we don’t need to make money because money ultimately only can be used to pay wages, and nothing else” way. Since automation means you don’t pay wages anymore, you only need natural resources and energy. When corporations no longer see (external) money as useful, but only as a way to apportion resources internally to stakeholders, that makes everyone outside of that system into ants. It’s grey goo, just on a macroscopic scale.
- yorwba 1y ago
  If you make the "basic pod" a tent, wealthy countries could probably afford this sci-fi future today. But "enough money to live like a homeless person without having to beg or steal" doesn't sound so great as an aspirational goal, does it? If the "basic pod" is supposed to be something more durable, probably the first step would have to be building enough homeless shelters for all the UBI recipients without another source of income.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >If you make the "basic pod" a tent, wealthy countries could probably afford this sci-fi future today. Don't you also need food?
hedora 1y ago
With UBI and a flat tax, you end up paying: tax_rate * income - ubi to the government. Tax rate has to go up for UBI to be revenue neutral. So, it is not inflationary. It just provides safety net for low income people. Note that this formula would greatly simplify the tax code (especially if income included capital gains and maybe excluded donations), and is also actually progressive (your effective tax rate increases monotonically with income), unlike the current US system.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dgfitz 1y ago
  So, when hundreds of millions of people got checks because covid, that wasn't inflationary? Sure feels like it was. UBI is the same thing.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    You're not listening. During Covid, we did not do what the GP said. So no, UBI (implemented the way the GP said) is not the same thing.
    - dgfitz 1y ago
      You're also not listening. It won't work. There is no reality where it works. We all know this and pretend otherwise. Everyone on this forum with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in the bank will just stop working. Who pays for the UBI? It just will not work, there is no path forward where it can.
      - FpUser 1y ago
        >"Everyone on this forum with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in the bank will just stop working." Why would UBI stop the category from working? From my personal perspective - I am an independent, make good money, have savings and work on my own terms and schedule. I just can't imagine stopping doing what I do and loose the income and freedom it gives me for some meager $1000 or so a month.
splix 1y ago
I think you're referring to the Winston Churchill's "on Land Monopoly". I don't remember exact details and may miss something, but the work is very short so please check it. In short, he described, I believe, a real situation when a major of people in a town got extra extra money because a toll on the bridge to the fabric was eliminated. But in a short time the town's rental cost grew up by exactly this amount.
K0balt 1y ago
Because presumably the money doesn’t come from increasing the money supply but rather by the redirection of tax revenue. FWIW we have had a form of UBI in the USA for decades: the earned income tax credit, which for many people amounts to a significant subsidy over and above their tax burden. Nobody stopped working, and prices didn’t go up.
- gruez 1y ago
  >FWIW we have had a form of UBI in the USA for decades: the earned income tax credit, which for many people amounts to a significant subsidy over and above their tax burden How is a tax credit that you only get if you're working, and scales up depending on how much you earn (to an extent) an "universal" basic income? >Nobody stopped working, and prices didn’t go up. Nobody stopped working because you had to work to get the tax credit.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    There are some significant differences. But the logic that having your basic needs covered makes you lazy is just ridiculous on its face. People don’t just keep working in the first thing that covers their basic expenses. They strive to advance, especially when they feel that they are not under duress. They seek better jobs, better lives…. And a solid foundation empowers them to take the risks inherent in seeking those advancements. How is this different from inheriting a house, or something similar? We all know that results in improved outcomes. Why would ubi be any different? I suspect the resistance to ubi comes from the idea that “they” don’t deserve it. I would suggest to the people that think this way to ask themselves instead whether their own children deserve to grow up in a more egalitarian society where people are more free to be kind and humane, or is it better to inherit a world where half the population is scratching in the dirt and throwing elbows just to feed their kids?
bryanlarsen 1y ago
UBI will lower rent. The most common criticism of UBI is that landlords will raise their prices to capture all of the gains. I disagree, I believe that a properly implemented UBI will lower rent prices. Rent rises quickly because both supply and demand are inelastic and renters are relatively price-insensitive. Any market with relatively fixed supply and demand experiences large and quick price changes. The most prominent example is oil -- a small change in supply causes a large change in price because demand is inelastic; people don't stop buying gas just because the price went up. But oil experiences quick price changes in both directions. Rent only seems to increase. Housing is a necessity. If there are more families needing housing than there are houses, families will pay as much as they are able to ensure they're not the ones without housing. So when supply exceeds demand, price rises rapidly. The converse is not true. Most landlords are not as desparate to rent their dwellings. When supply exceeds demand they have the ability to say no, they can and do choose to leave the dwelling empty rather than accept a lower price. But prices do eventually come down when supply exceeds demand. For example, the rent for 1 bedroom apartments in Toronto is down 10% in the last 12 months. If implemented poorly UBI could definitely be inflationary. If UBI is paid for by money printing rather than through taxes it will be inflationary. But if it doesn't increase the money supply and is constant across the country UBI will lower rents rather than raising them. Why? Becuase it makes demand elastic. Right now people are moving to the expensive cities because that's where the jobs are. They don't really have a choice. UBI gives them a choice. You can move to San Francisco and work 2 jobs to be able to afford rent, or you can move to West Virginia and pay your rent out of UBI and not need a job. Some people are going to do that. Not many, but likely enough. There's a saying. "100 supply, 101 demand; price goes up. 100 supply, 99 demand, price goes down". Small changes on the margin can have a large impact on prices. Keep in mind that any UBI that is fully tax supported is going to necessarily be very miserly. US average income if $40K. So if you set tax rates at 100% and spent every penny on UBI then UBI could be $40K. Obviously neither assumption is going to be true. Tax rates will have to be significantly less than 100%, and we'll spend money on our military, etc. A UBI of more than $1000/month seems highly unlikely without money printing. And there are basically only three ways you can live on $1000/month: Move to a low cost of living region like West Virgina, live on the street or live in highly shared accomodation. All three of these scenarios reduce housing demand in expensive cities rather than lower it.
PleasureBot 1y ago
Because you can buy anything with that $1000. Some people will buy clothes, others a new computer, others will travel etc. The demand for any one specific thing (apples, rent, netflix, etc.) will only increase a tiny fraction.

cscheid 1y ago

Presumably because one of the two things are true: - there's competition, and so if it's possible to rent for less than 1000-eps and still profit, someone will - there's no competition, which is a cartel, the kind of thing that civilized societies ought to frown upon

vasco 1y ago
Do you know the adage location location location? The competition for good locations is among renters, not landlords. Seller's market vs buyer's market. Doesn't have to mean there's a cartel, it also doesn't mean there isn't one but it's not a guarantee.
- svnt 1y ago
  I am trying to understand your perspective. How do people buying and selling real estate, the origin of the adage “location, location, location,” not compete on locations?
  - vasco 1y ago
    I didn't say that people didn't compete on locations, I said the opposite.
    - svnt 1y ago
      You said “the competition for good locations is among renters, not landlords.”
      - vasco 1y ago
        There's orders of magnitude more renters looking for a place than landlords willing to rent in the best locations.

gruez 1y ago

Rent is expensive because all the jobs are in expensive metros, so people are forced to move there. With UBI the idea is that some fraction of people won't have to work (or can do part time remote work), and therefore can move to a random town in North Dakota with cheap rent.

vasco 1y ago
Other cool things cities have is police stations and hospitals, but I guess since there's no jobs you just get treated by a robot in the woods? But then if people are creating art or working on their theater play or whatever, they'll want other people to show it too. I don't see cities existing only because of jobs.
- danaris 1y ago
  This is an unhelpfully binary view of cities vs small towns. I live in a village of roughly 5k people. The nearest city is 45 minutes' drive away. We have both a police station and a hospital.
bradlys 1y ago
Ah, yes. Famously people only like cities cause there’s jobs there. They’d otherwise live in a place where the population density is 5/mi.
- gruez 1y ago
  It's not a pleasant place to live, but beggars can't be choosers.

squeegee_scream 1y ago

I don’t think _everyone_ gets an extra $1,000, just those at the bottom. I’m pretty sure there are different ways of implementing UBI, and some of them only provide a certain amount to the lower income folks. So if you are making plenty of money, whatever plenty means in your location and context, you would not receive any additional income.

kajumix 1y ago
If it's not for _everyone_ it's not _universal_ basic income. It's just welfare for poor in that case, and that's already very common
purerandomness 1y ago
That's not UBI (the universal part), that's state subsidies, which already exist today all over the world.
hn8726 1y ago
UBI by definition is paid to everyone, regardless of their income. That's contrasted with GMI, guaranteed minimal income, which supplements your current income to some minimal level, which would work as you described
jghn 1y ago
The "U" in "UBI" is "Universal"
RedNifre 1y ago
The point of it being universal is that you still have a good incentive to work, since every dollar earned is a dollar more in your pocket (initially, before you reach the income level where you need to pay taxes). Compare that to non-universal social help, where every dollar earned gets subtracted from your social pay, so the first $1000 you earn are effectively taxed 100%, creating an incentive to not start working.

KaiserPro 1y ago

> why wouldn't rent increase by close to 1000$. prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have. It might increase rental prices, but the people that are reliant on UBI tend to be on some sort of rent control mechanism. The biggest hurdle though is that people getting jealous of "money for nothing" despite interest being literally that.

schmorptron 1y ago
This applies less for basic human needs like a roof over the head, especially in a supply constrained market like we've been in for quite some time in many places around the world
echelon 1y ago
> prices are dependent on demand/supply rather than how much money people have. That's not the full story of how the economics of demand work. Demand increases as the money supply increases, but supply remains constant. This is inflation. More dollars chasing the same basket of goods. Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases. This leads to an increased desire to spend. It's an aggregate demand increase across businesses and consumers. We recently saw the impact of this when the money supply was increased during Covid. It led to one of the largest jumps in inflation in our lifetimes.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > Another way to look at it is as the money supply increases, the cost of money and the cost to borrow decreases. I'm going to say something radical here, so do hear me out. any bank that loans money, is increasing the money supply. the more banks lend, the more money is printed. There is no fixed supply of virtual money. We don't really know how much actual dollars there are out there. (ignoring eurodollars) Banks profits are literally because they are printing money. The very act of loaning out means that the 1 dollar bill you deposited with become 1.8, as its loaned out again to someone else, who then repays it, with interest. <<end radicalism>> Sure we had QE, we had covid cash, but the problem with using covid as an example of "giving money to everyone causes inflation" is that its difficult to distinguish from supply chain, tariffs, stimulus and $other. the other problem is that stimulus was given to companies as well. but the argument about not increasing the money supply is difficult to argue unless you are a bank, because that's their job, not the government's. so, the point is, the economics of demand is an approximate model, rather than a formula. Its based on the collective perceived value of a good or service, rather than a strict supply/demand. sure its a close approximation, but not an accurate one.

RiverCrochet 1y ago

- If more money is available for rents (increase demand), more people will build apartments to get that money (increase supply). This will introduce competition and keep rents reasonable. This won't work where housing supply is artificially limited. - I might live with a relative instead of paying $1000 extra, and can now afford the car to get to and from my job instead of living with them without a job or deepending on them for a ride. - I might put that into a mortgage payment instead of rent. UBI if done correctly is always there so it's something a bank could count on as a reliable asset. - "The number of goods are the same, they would become more expensive through inflation" - If there is more money to buy goods, people will find a way to produce more goods, if allowed. If people aren't producing more goods then your problem is there - transportation to markets could be an issue.

radpanda 1y ago

I’ve always seen UBI as part of a post-scarcity sci-fi future. Once the robots run the farms and deliver the food and build the buildings and so on, and there just isn’t enough work to go around for humans, of course the fruits of this productivity should be shared with the wider population (both morally and to prevent uprisings). Sure, in this sci-fi future you can live in your basic pod and eat basic food for free or you can work a little or a lot to try to upgrade your situation. But I don’t think we’re there yet. We do have a lot of industries that rely on shit jobs that people would rather not do. If we, IMHO prematurely, try to institute a UBI now we’d be in for a world of pain along the way as the prices of basic services skyrocket without robots being ready to step in.

K0balt 1y ago
“Of course” But, that’s not where we are headed. Instead, automation will make money irrelevant in the “we don’t need to make money because money ultimately only can be used to pay wages, and nothing else” way. Since automation means you don’t pay wages anymore, you only need natural resources and energy. When corporations no longer see (external) money as useful, but only as a way to apportion resources internally to stakeholders, that makes everyone outside of that system into ants. It’s grey goo, just on a macroscopic scale.
yorwba 1y ago
If you make the "basic pod" a tent, wealthy countries could probably afford this sci-fi future today. But "enough money to live like a homeless person without having to beg or steal" doesn't sound so great as an aspirational goal, does it? If the "basic pod" is supposed to be something more durable, probably the first step would have to be building enough homeless shelters for all the UBI recipients without another source of income.
- gruez 1y ago
  >If you make the "basic pod" a tent, wealthy countries could probably afford this sci-fi future today. Don't you also need food?

hedora 1y ago

With UBI and a flat tax, you end up paying: tax_rate * income - ubi to the government. Tax rate has to go up for UBI to be revenue neutral. So, it is not inflationary. It just provides safety net for low income people. Note that this formula would greatly simplify the tax code (especially if income included capital gains and maybe excluded donations), and is also actually progressive (your effective tax rate increases monotonically with income), unlike the current US system.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dgfitz 1y ago
So, when hundreds of millions of people got checks because covid, that wasn't inflationary? Sure feels like it was. UBI is the same thing.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  You're not listening. During Covid, we did not do what the GP said. So no, UBI (implemented the way the GP said) is not the same thing.
  - dgfitz 1y ago
    You're also not listening. It won't work. There is no reality where it works. We all know this and pretend otherwise. Everyone on this forum with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in the bank will just stop working. Who pays for the UBI? It just will not work, there is no path forward where it can.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      >"Everyone on this forum with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in the bank will just stop working." Why would UBI stop the category from working? From my personal perspective - I am an independent, make good money, have savings and work on my own terms and schedule. I just can't imagine stopping doing what I do and loose the income and freedom it gives me for some meager $1000 or so a month.

splix 1y ago

I think you're referring to the Winston Churchill's "on Land Monopoly". I don't remember exact details and may miss something, but the work is very short so please check it. In short, he described, I believe, a real situation when a major of people in a town got extra extra money because a toll on the bridge to the fabric was eliminated. But in a short time the town's rental cost grew up by exactly this amount.

K0balt 1y ago

Because presumably the money doesn’t come from increasing the money supply but rather by the redirection of tax revenue. FWIW we have had a form of UBI in the USA for decades: the earned income tax credit, which for many people amounts to a significant subsidy over and above their tax burden. Nobody stopped working, and prices didn’t go up.

gruez 1y ago
>FWIW we have had a form of UBI in the USA for decades: the earned income tax credit, which for many people amounts to a significant subsidy over and above their tax burden How is a tax credit that you only get if you're working, and scales up depending on how much you earn (to an extent) an "universal" basic income? >Nobody stopped working, and prices didn’t go up. Nobody stopped working because you had to work to get the tax credit.
- K0balt 1y ago
  There are some significant differences. But the logic that having your basic needs covered makes you lazy is just ridiculous on its face. People don’t just keep working in the first thing that covers their basic expenses. They strive to advance, especially when they feel that they are not under duress. They seek better jobs, better lives…. And a solid foundation empowers them to take the risks inherent in seeking those advancements. How is this different from inheriting a house, or something similar? We all know that results in improved outcomes. Why would ubi be any different? I suspect the resistance to ubi comes from the idea that “they” don’t deserve it. I would suggest to the people that think this way to ask themselves instead whether their own children deserve to grow up in a more egalitarian society where people are more free to be kind and humane, or is it better to inherit a world where half the population is scratching in the dirt and throwing elbows just to feed their kids?

bryanlarsen 1y ago

UBI will lower rent. The most common criticism of UBI is that landlords will raise their prices to capture all of the gains. I disagree, I believe that a properly implemented UBI will lower rent prices. Rent rises quickly because both supply and demand are inelastic and renters are relatively price-insensitive. Any market with relatively fixed supply and demand experiences large and quick price changes. The most prominent example is oil -- a small change in supply causes a large change in price because demand is inelastic; people don't stop buying gas just because the price went up. But oil experiences quick price changes in both directions. Rent only seems to increase. Housing is a necessity. If there are more families needing housing than there are houses, families will pay as much as they are able to ensure they're not the ones without housing. So when supply exceeds demand, price rises rapidly. The converse is not true. Most landlords are not as desparate to rent their dwellings. When supply exceeds demand they have the ability to say no, they can and do choose to leave the dwelling empty rather than accept a lower price. But prices do eventually come down when supply exceeds demand. For example, the rent for 1 bedroom apartments in Toronto is down 10% in the last 12 months. If implemented poorly UBI could definitely be inflationary. If UBI is paid for by money printing rather than through taxes it will be inflationary. But if it doesn't increase the money supply and is constant across the country UBI will lower rents rather than raising them. Why? Becuase it makes demand elastic. Right now people are moving to the expensive cities because that's where the jobs are. They don't really have a choice. UBI gives them a choice. You can move to San Francisco and work 2 jobs to be able to afford rent, or you can move to West Virginia and pay your rent out of UBI and not need a job. Some people are going to do that. Not many, but likely enough. There's a saying. "100 supply, 101 demand; price goes up. 100 supply, 99 demand, price goes down". Small changes on the margin can have a large impact on prices. Keep in mind that any UBI that is fully tax supported is going to necessarily be very miserly. US average income if $40K. So if you set tax rates at 100% and spent every penny on UBI then UBI could be $40K. Obviously neither assumption is going to be true. Tax rates will have to be significantly less than 100%, and we'll spend money on our military, etc. A UBI of more than $1000/month seems highly unlikely without money printing. And there are basically only three ways you can live on $1000/month: Move to a low cost of living region like West Virgina, live on the street or live in highly shared accomodation. All three of these scenarios reduce housing demand in expensive cities rather than lower it.

PleasureBot 1y ago

Because you can buy anything with that $1000. Some people will buy clothes, others a new computer, others will travel etc. The demand for any one specific thing (apples, rent, netflix, etc.) will only increase a tiny fraction.