8 ms·

Most of the poor are renters. If you gave everyone $12k more a year, why wouldn't everyone's rent (and other expenses) simply rise by $12K?

by codex 13y ago

VLM 13y ago
And if you pull up a graph of the velocity of money, boosting that a big might not be the worst possible outcome given the past couple decades trends (straight down)
11thEarlOfMar 13y ago
I think the poor who felt trapped would be more likely to move than stay put. The incumbent landlords in poor neighborhoods would see a % of their renters move out, and a % of new renters move in, perhaps off the streets. We'd want to study the net effect of that. Those who moved out would then be moving into areas with higher rents and mixing with those renters. So a dollar-for-dollar rent increase seems unlikely. Some renters would find they now have enough income to buy a home and some would, vacating apartments for renters from poorer areaa. Some home owners would find they have enough to afford a larger home and would move up. But others would invest the new income, or pay for the kids college, or take more vacations, or buy new cars more often. The economic impact is complex and unknown and needs to be studied. I happen to believe it is a worth an in-depth study and worth spending some of my paid-in taxes on.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Most of the poor are renters. If you gave everyone $12k more a year, why wouldn't everyone's rent (and other expenses) simply rise by $12K? If they did, that would be a sure sign of an unregulated supply monopoly which most developed nations have tools designed to address. In a competitive market, increased demand resulting from consumers having more money is expected to result in market clearing unit price, but also in quantity traded. You see some price increases, particularly in goods disproportionately purchased by the poor, but the increases in average prices would generally be less, proportionately, than the increase in incomes of the groups purchasing them. The exception would be goods where there is an unregulated (or poorly-regulated) supply monopoly.

Most of the poor are renters. If you gave everyone $12k more a year, why wouldn't everyone's rent (and other expenses) simply rise by $12K?

by codex 13y ago

Most of the poor are renters. If you gave everyone $12k more a year, why wouldn't everyone's rent (and other expenses) simply rise by $12K?

VLM 13y ago

And if you pull up a graph of the velocity of money, boosting that a big might not be the worst possible outcome given the past couple decades trends (straight down)

11thEarlOfMar 13y ago

I think the poor who felt trapped would be more likely to move than stay put. The incumbent landlords in poor neighborhoods would see a % of their renters move out, and a % of new renters move in, perhaps off the streets. We'd want to study the net effect of that. Those who moved out would then be moving into areas with higher rents and mixing with those renters. So a dollar-for-dollar rent increase seems unlikely. Some renters would find they now have enough income to buy a home and some would, vacating apartments for renters from poorer areaa. Some home owners would find they have enough to afford a larger home and would move up. But others would invest the new income, or pay for the kids college, or take more vacations, or buy new cars more often. The economic impact is complex and unknown and needs to be studied. I happen to believe it is a worth an in-depth study and worth spending some of my paid-in taxes on.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Most of the poor are renters. If you gave everyone $12k more a year, why wouldn't everyone's rent (and other expenses) simply rise by $12K? If they did, that would be a sure sign of an unregulated supply monopoly which most developed nations have tools designed to address. In a competitive market, increased demand resulting from consumers having more money is expected to result in market clearing unit price, but also in quantity traded. You see some price increases, particularly in goods disproportionately purchased by the poor, but the increases in average prices would generally be less, proportionately, than the increase in incomes of the groups purchasing them. The exception would be goods where there is an unregulated (or poorly-regulated) supply monopoly.