But there's a big gulf between "sticky" and "laws of supply and demand don't apply".
People on UBI will be much more price sensitive than those supplementing with wage income since the UBI dependent will be time rich and money poor. Landlords will have less power over them. They'll still have some power because of the stickiness.
That can happen because of a new subway station, a hot new employer nearby, or simply because money appeared in their pockets.
If money were no object, more people would live in high COL areas, not fewer. You know this is true because you see it in the prices.
To prevent rent increases you’d need people all to have $n appeared in their pockets and to have a pact not to then spend $n to upgrade their living arrangements. The cruel irony of course being if everyone attempts to upgrade, then no one achieves an upgrade but they do achieve spending their new money!
UBI, which any realistic method of implementing makes a shift in income from somewhere higher on the income spectrum to somewhere lower (the exact shift being defined by the UBI level and financing mechanism), most likely (if it replaces existing means tested welfare programs) most favoring a level somewhere above where current welfare programs start tapering off, does have some predictable price effects, but they aren't “all rents go up by an amount equal to the UBI amount times the number of recipients typically living in similar units”.
First order, they are some price increases across goods and services disproportionately demanded by the group benefitting in net, with some price decreases across those disproportionately demanded by the group paying in net. These will vary by elasticity, but in total should effect some (but less than total) compression of the time money shift, reducing somewhat the real cost to those paying and the real benefit to those receiving, but with less effect on those paying because of lower marginal propensity to spend with higher income.
Beyond first order is more complicated because you have to work through demand changes,and supply chnages caused by labor market changes from reduced economic coercion, increased labor market mobility and ability to retrain for more-preferred jobs, which are going to decreased supply for some jobs, increase supply for others (though on different schedules), etc.
The only landlords who can afford to operate this way own many, many units. A long term tenant who pays in a predictable manner and isn't actively damaging property is worth their weight in gold, and you can't afford to roll the dice on the next tenant unless you're able to spread the risk and cost of the churn around.
The assumption that all rents, everywhere, would go up by the amount of UBI is the definition of "arbitrary."
the prices are going up because the landlords have entered a web2.0 mediated cartel.
The UBI in my mind is not $$$ but merchandises and services coupons.
That is assuming UBI is funded through government borrowing as we saw with COVID stimulus. If funded through new taxes the inflationary impact should be much less.
(I don’t have enough economic training to determine how much less.)
Wages have increased far more than the price of food over the last 200 years, wage rises aren’t inflationary on their own.
And then the other portion of rent (the building itself) is also pretty darn supply-inelastic as well, though not entirely.
aside, while i'm at it, let's take another swipe at free market and housing: the YIMBY line has truth about regulations preventing building, but if you look at build starts for like the 10 years after the 2008 crisis, you'll see a lack of buildings that happened during that time. they had record housing starts leading up to the crisis, and you know what also existed then? the same regulatory regime that we are now tearing down to help us build what we need. but after the crisis, the builders stopped building because they were fearful about the market. this suggests to me that "regulations prevent building, just let the free market take care of it," is too simplistic and ignores very real data. the market took care of it by not building.
Which is why universal basic services[1] provide a much better solution, because they make it the government's problem to handle the logistics of creating or procuring the resources people will need.
But after decades of red scare, I don't have much faith the U.S. government will move in this direction, and even the working class may protest it due to how conditioned they are to reject anything they might associate with communism.
You seem to be assuming housing rental is an perfectly monopolistic market, which it isn't, and any place where it even loosely approximates that needs to correct that whether or not UBI is adopted.
I have absolutely zero doubt that if the government had paid me the difference they were trying to charge (as UBI or any other stipend), they would've raised the rate again by the same amount very quickly. In fact, going by the idea that supply & demand are what caused that (rather than simple landlord greed that I generally see it as), UBI definitely can't fix it, since UBI will not increase supply or decrease demand-- they'll still need to charge just enough that some people can't afford it in order for there to be "enough."
You're somewhat correct in that the solution (building more housing, I guess) is not really related to UBI.
(It’s not clear why this only applies to rent and not other things people spend money on.)
Actually, I contend that it can increase supply of "housing sufficiently near sufficient income" by improving some marginal (existing or potential) housing.
Many devils in the details, of course.
My guess is that if UBI added $1,000/mo to everyone's income, landlords would respond by raising rent by about $400-$500 or so, grocery stores would raise their prices by a percentage of that new income, and so on for all businesses, until all $1,000 was soaked up and the public is no better off than they were before.
Aside from whether the prediction is realistic under this assumption, UBI under any realistic financing scheme doesn't do that. It replaces (and potentially increases the net benefit of) means-tested welfare at the bottom end of the income distribution and spreads the clawback from a set of relatively sharp cliffs that occur between working poor and middle income levels to a much more gradual effective trail-off over nearly the whole income distribution as part of progressive income taxation.
- If they don't have employment, and incomes are $0, then in the absence of UBI, would rent also drop to $0? If not, then I think we're better off with UBI.
- These higher prices for rent and groceries seem like strong incentives for competition. Maybe we can't expect that in NIMBY San Francisco, but without a jobs market, the only attraction to live there is the weather. Why not move somewhere cheaper?
Access to cheap loans has lead to an explosion in costs.
If cost of housing goes up, building and moving become more attractive by comparison. Instead of saving 500/mo by commuting, now you might save $1000 by relocating.
Rate limit edit: I said commuting, not going going to live in some random place.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
