How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

How Universal Basic Income Could Change Real Estate Investing

Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes

The other day I was having a discussion with some associates about the upcoming Presidential Election, and one of them brought up the Democratic Candidate Andrew Young and his Universal Basic Income Plan called "The Freedom Dividend."

From his site: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

"Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘the Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future."

While I must admit that this seems like a ploy to literally buy votes, I do think that Universal Basic Income (UBI) is an important thing to consider with automation on the horizon in the years to come. 

As a Realtor and real estate investor, I couldn't help but think how this extra $1,000/mo might affect the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

The first implication of this extra $1,000/mo is that it would make housing much more affordable in most markets, potentially reducing the monthly costs by 33% or greater for most bread and butter housing markets.

A $250k home with only 5% down and a 4.5% interest rate has a PITI of roughly $1,700/mo. With the full $1,000 going towards the mortgage, this payment would basically be reduced to $700/mo, about the same if they had purchased a home for $100k at the same terms.

This is obviously a complete game changer for the housing market, allowing many people to afford homes that couldn't afford one without this plan, increasing the housing demand particularly at the lower end of the housing market.

INCREASED HOUSING DEMAND, WITHOUT INCREASED SUPPLY

At the bottom end of the market, this UBI of $1,000/month would suddenly allow many people who could not afford a home without it to suddenly purchase one. 

Using a DTI Ratio of 45%, a married couple would have an extra $900/mo (45% of $2,000/mo) to allocated to their housing expenses, allowing them to more than double their pre-approval amount in some cases.

Without UBI: Max Purchase Price = $117k at $800/mo

With UBI: Max Purchase Price = $250k at $1,710/mo (+$900/mo to take new DTI to 45%)

(Note: I'm not a lender, and surely there is more to this calculation than I am sharing here, this is merely just meant for illustrative purposes)

Further, the extra money would allow many people who already have the income and credit but no down payment to suddenly be able to save up for the down payment, creating additional buyers at the lower price ranges.

But without increasing the supply of available homes, the base floor price for housing would certainly be raised. Simple supply and demand.

MORE POTENTIAL MOVE-UP BUYERS

With more income available for housing, some buyers will be tempted to "trade up" and purchase more housing than they could normally afford. 

Suddenly you'd be able to move into that better school district or nicer neighborhood instead of settling for what you could previously afford. Thereby creating more demand in the mid-range markets as well (Under $500k in most areas).

But still, the increased demand would be felt at the bottom end of the price range where it already exists. I recently received 9 offers in the first weekend for a $150,000 home in Phoenix, and could easily see that number doubling to 20+ offers with a UBI plan for an extra $1,000/mo.

EFFECTS ON THE RENTAL MARKET

You'd likely see a similar trend in the rental market, with people moving out of their relative's house and into their own rental who couldn't afford to do so before. 

Also, you'd see renters at the lower end in not-so-nice neighborhoods suddenly move out into nicer neighborhoods that are safer with better schools.

The big question is how many landlords are going to jump ahead of this demand and automatically bump the rents a superficial amount now that everyone has an extra $1,000 every month.

QUESTION: If you were a landlord and had a 10-unit apartment building, and suddenly all your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo, how tempted would you be to raise the rent sharply for no other reason?

If that happens, you might see an even greater increase in demand for purchasing lower level housing, with tenants perceiving they're getting a bad deal in their current rental, motivating them to finally buy a home instead.

EFFECTS ON SHORT TERM RENTALS (STR)

Since short term rentals are associated with travel, which itself is somewhat of a luxury, I don't think UBI would have as much impact on the STR market.

Surely, more people that couldn't afford to travel in the past would suddenly be able to, but they may choose to spend that money elsewhere instead.

And that's the whole rub with UBI. When everyone has a larger supply of money, the demand for ALL things naturally increases. People will spend money they didn't have in the past on new non-essential items (things they only wished they could afford in the past, but suddenly now can).

LOW PRICED MARKETS BUBBLE FROM INVESTORS

With extra income every month, and a resulting increase in local housing costs, real estate investors would swamp lower priced housing market like Ohio where homes are under $100k. 

Investors who may not be able to invest locally because of the increased demand and raising of the lower home prices would look to other states where homes are already more affordable.

This could have a devastating effect on those markets who are already experiencing fierce demand in the lower price ranges from owner occupants, with an additional demand coming from out of state investors, making the housing situation worse than it was previously.

INCREASED PURCHASING POWER FOR MULTI-GENERATIONAL & EXTENDED FAMILIES

Probably the biggest opportunity for aspiring investors would be pooling the UBI funds with fellow family members to drastically increase their purchasing power.

Imagine a family of four adults: A married couple, one of their retired parents, and one child who is an adult teenager getting ready for college. Together, they would have $4,000/mo in UBI to spend every month, or $48k/year.

Which just so happens to be roughly the amount needed to put a 20% down payment on a $250k property, and be able to do this every single year.

Together they could purchase their first $250k home and owner occupy, paying the $1,350/mo PITI with the retiree's social security. The working income from the two parents could pay all other living expenses, and they could still save $4,000/mo from the UBI.

They could easily repeat this process every year, or even buy cheaper homes in other states as investments (see above). Sure, they'll run into a little trouble once they get enough loans, but if they took a break in buying from years 5-10 and focused on increasing the current properties value or accelerated loan pay-down, they could pick this strategy back up and continue to purchase property.

By the time the 18 year old teenager is 40, he'd be absolutely loaded. And this is just with a family of four. Imagine if an extended family of 10-20 people pooled their money together. They'd have $120-240k per year to invest in real estate, stocks, and other businesses.

UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME CAN'T BE UNDONE

Probably the biggest consideration with enacting a UBI program is that it can't be undone. NO ONE will vote to give themselves less money and handouts, even if it's shown that maintaining the program is unfeasible.

For example, just look at social security. Since 2010, Social Security's Cash Expenses have exceeded it's income, with the combined reserves likely to be fully depleted by 2034.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/

We've known this for quite some time, yet we all are still complicit in keeping the system up and running. Millennials pay into a system they'll likely never receive the benefits from, and Boomers would start a revolution if the benefits are suddenly taken away after paying in for their entire lives. Same thing with the coming Gen X getting ready to retire.

More likely, the system will be altered to keep it afloat and kick the can down the road to future generations, by changing the benefit formulas, raising the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income.

BIGGER PROBLEMS AHEAD

But combine this with Artificial Intelligence Experts predicting as much as 45% of all jobs could be replaced by automation by 2035, and we've got a serious problem on our hands.

Serious changes are ahead, and the government only has so much "bread and circuses" (UBI being the bread) before seriously addressing the issues at hand.

For now, UBI is presented as Social Security 2.0, but instead of just the retired population too old for most work it's going to affect everyone because soon there will be very little work at all.

And with humans projected to live 3-8 years longer than previously expected by 2050, and even with just the current US adult population of 250 million over 18 (UBI recipients under Andrew's plan), that's an additional $3 trillion per year UBI would cost us BEYOND the additional $3.2 to $8.3 trillion we hadn't planned to spend with our erroneous calculations.

Further, with an annual inflation of 3%, the buying power of a dollar today will equivalent to $2.50 in 2050, begging the question if $1,000/mo will even be enough by then?

And if Andrew does win the next election and successfully implements the Freedom Dividend of $1,000/mo, what's to stop a later presidential candidate like Elizabeth Warren from running on a platform where the freedom dividend is expanded to $2,000/mo or more?

Interesting times for sure... much to consider with the big changes ahead.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives?

2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market?

3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo?

12Reply
1,371 views

Most Popular Reply

Greg ScottPro Member
Rental Property Investor · SE Michigan · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 6k+ votes
7y

Hugo Chavez did something like this in Venezuela.  That worked out well, didn't it?

If this sort of thing ever passes in this country, it's time to leave.

See this reply in the discussion

197 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Real Estate Professional · Tampa, FL · Member since 2017 · 104 posts · 47 votes
    7y

    @Josh Nigh You jump directly to a being like human , thats a whole new level which will come sci fi movies or not ! .Take for example customer Service reps, you dont need as much when you have chat bots. Maybe you dont consider bots as AI ...Financial advisers and stock traders ,just 15 years ago they were required, not the case any more. Of course these people can adapt and work ,but work as what?,where?...can everyone take a 40k loan and go back to college to learn AI skills? Get into Stem fields? This is the current state of AI , imagine the state of AI and its effects 30 years into the near future,lets talk then.

  • Accountant · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    UBI is one of those things that looks good on paper and gives people warm and fuzzy feelings but always has unintended negative consequences.  Like the saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

    There's two ways you can fund UBI.  First is via taxes, second is the Treasury just prints the money, third way is borrowing the money.

    First way:

    There are roughly 252 million "adults" in the US (those age 18 and up).  To give each adult $12,000 a year and fund it via taxes would require the Treasury to tax Americans an additional $3.024 TRILLION per year.  Even if the VAT tax is put 100% on corporations, the American individual will be the one shoulders the burden.  All costs in a business are passed along to the customer.  Companies that have no bargaining power or elastic demand for their products with economic substitutes readily available will not be able to pass along the increased cost and will fold -- the American consumer will suffer for it via decrease in market options.

    Second way:

    If the Treasury prints an additional $3.024 trillion per year there will be massive inflation in the US -- especially considering the average American doesn't have $500 in savings and will spend 100% of the UBI they get on frivolous things.  Those that advocate this approach don't understand basic macroeconomics.  The savings accounts, CDs, and bonds -- anything that can't appreciate with the dollar -- of American workers and retirees will be next to worthless.

    Third way:

    The US issues debt to pay for UBI.  I'm not even going to comment on this as I don't see how anyone can view this as an acceptable way to provide UBI -- by letting foreign countries become even bigger loan sharks to us.

    The idea that automation is going to kill millions of jobs and we won't be able to replace them I am 100% skeptical on.

    The fact is this is the cornerstone argument upon which UBI is built and I think it's a short-sighted and fallacious argument.

    People have been worried about technology displacing workers for HUNDREDS of years.  The factory replacing the loom.  Tractors displacing a dozen farm workers for each tractor put in service.  Etc

    We have always innovated and found new industries that demand workers.  The fact that we're at historically low unemployment when we're the most technologically advanced we've ever been in 2019 should tell you all you need to know.

    We have a nascent solar and wind industry in this country.  You don't think that will create jobs?  The Permian basin is booming right now in O&G.  They can't get enough workers down there.  We have industries we haven't even thought of yet.  Yet to be created.  Think about that.  What if Elon Musk's &  Jeff Bezo's space companies substantially reduce the cost to get people and goods into space.  Imagine the industries that will create. The future isn't bleak, it's quite bright....as long as politicians don't mess it up.

  • Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Alvin Sylvain:

    I just wanted to make a brief point on this "Artificial Intelligence will Take all our Jobs" scare. And make no mistake, that's all it is -- a scare.

    Every time we have an advance in technology, it costs somebody their job. Sucks for that somebody to be sure. Yet, a few years later, nobody would ever think of going back to not having said advance. And somehow we always find new things that need doing, people are willing to pay to have someone do it, and other people are willing to do it for pay. And generally for overall more pay than what we were all making before. Or, at the very least, what we are paid will buy more than before.

    History has proven this time and time again.

    Imagine the blacksmith who loses his job because nobody rides a horse anymore. So instead we have auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, computer programmers, offshore wind farm engineers, information security analysts -- and hundreds of other things that were not even thought of a hundred years ago.

    This whole mess about "Robots will take your job" is just another scare tactic used by the Socialists and people leaning that way to invoke an ever larger Welfare State, considering every other tactic to convince people has failed as badly as Socialism has.

    So then you ask, "But Alvin, what POSSIBLE jobs could there be after the Robots take over?" Heck, I don't know. Did Henry Ford know we'd invent "information security analyst" when his automobile took over from horses? Did Alexander Bell know that, after his telephone made couriers obsolete, there'd be a market for "communications specialists"? No, they had no way of knowing what future jobs would come into being.


    And today, we still have no way of knowing what future jobs will come into being. But we can rest assured we will come up with something.

     It's funny that you brought up the horse population, as it's a prime example of what happens to a population when there isn't much work left for them due to advances in technology.

    From: http://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/a...

    "The drastic drop in numbers is attributed to the mechanization of America where the widespread use of machinery replaced horses and mules for power."

    From over 20 million down to 3 million in a span of roughly 30 years, all because of the combustible engine. We went from horse dung to car smog. Steam engines replaced the horse for long-distance haulage. Coal-fired electricity made the horse redundant for public transit. And the combustion engine eradicated the horse as a prime mover of individuals and most goods.

    Where are all the horse jobs now? I don't recall any new horse jobs being created from all this new technology we're enjoying. What makes you think it won't happen with humans?

    At the 4:15 mark of the video link below, Jordan Peterson talks about the issue of very few jobs remaining for people with an IQ less than 85, when it's 15% of the population = ~ 40 million US adults. 

    https://youtu.be/fjs2gPa5sD0?t=255

    It's illegal to induct anyone into the military if they have an IQ of less than 83... and they are obviously doing it out of absolute necessity since during times of war the military is going to want anyone they can take. If there's not something for someone with an IQ less than 83 to do in the army, what makes you think there's going to be something for them to do in the general population?

    The cognitive power needed for jobs is increasing, not decreasing. Hell, even lawyers are threatened:

    https://hackernoon.com/20-top-lawyers-were-beaten-...

    "In a landmark study, 20 top US corporate lawyers with decades of experience in corporate law and contract review were pitted against an AI. Their task was to spot issues in five Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), which are a contractual basis for most business deals.

    The study, carried out with leading legal academics and experts, saw the LawGeex AI achieve an average 94% accuracy rate, higher than the lawyers who achieved an average rate of 85%. It took the lawyers an average of 92 minutes to complete the NDA issue spotting, compared to 26 seconds for the LawGeex AI. The longest time taken by a lawyer to complete the test was 156 minutes, and the shortest time was 51 minutes. The study made waves around the world and was covered across global media."

    Despite having an average IQ as an occupation that's more than one standard deviation above the national average (120-130 range), even lawyers with decades of experience are doing jobs less accurately and taking 212 times as long to do it.

    And as we all know, time is money. Here's a quote from one of the lawyers who participated in the study:

    "“Participating in this experiment really opened my eyes to how ridiculous it is for attorneys to spend their time (as well as their clients’ money) creating or reviewing documents like NDAs which are so fundamentally similar to one another. Having a tool that could automate this process would free up skilled attorneys to spend their time on higher-level tasks without having to hire paralegal support (thereby making the services they offer more competitive in the long run).”

    So where are all those replaced paralegals supposed to go? Go compete for the few paralegal jobs left? Increasing the supply for paralegals while the demand is simultaneously lowering due to AI? How is that supposed to keep wages where they are at?

    Automation is defined as "the creation of technology and its application in order to control and monitor the production and delivery of various goods and services that perform tasks that were previously performed by humans."

    When the local university here in Phoenix starts writing blog posts promoting career fields that "out-smart automation" I think it's time to no longer view automation as a meme and think more jobs will just come out of nowhere and finally give it some serious consideration:

    https://asuonline.asu.edu/newsroom/online-learning-tips/these-six-degree-programs-out-smart-job-automation/

  • Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Chance Thurman:

    I wonder if these funds would be protected from being garnished or if people would be able to sale their future rights for a quick lump sum.

    Say someone wants to buy a house for 100k. They go to the lender and the lender buys the next 20 years of payments for 100k. As far as the people are concerned they just got a free paid for house... This would add to the influx of fixer uppers on the market in 10-15 years when we start picking up all these trashed houses for 30K.

     WOW... now that's an interesting idea. Investing in Human UBI "notes" lol.

  • Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Joseph P Defazio IV:

    @Wes Blackwell

    Thinking out loud....

    If goods and services are priced based on spending (available cash & credit) then what would the effect of a “Freedom Dividend” be? Playing it out, if you could increase spending using this policy you’d have to be taxing the successful business men and women to pay for it. It wouldn’t make sense to tax the people this is intended to benefit; although we are talking politics. This is a game where to win is to be elected not serve the populous. Already based on comments, we can reasonably conclude the BiggerPockets community (aka successful business men and women) would raise rents and bid up asset prices to a new equilibrium. I suspect most industries would follow suit. The end result would be higher taxes that look like they are on the wealthy where in reality are passed through to end consumers via price increases. Typically, price increases like this might be considered inflation (more $/Credit for the same amount of goods and services). The $12,000 surplus would be short lived. Within a couple years, the surplus gets absorbed into regular spending. Taken in isolation the intent is great. Unfortunately, the application probably wouldn’t work long term in our economic system and runs counter to social standards (keeping up with the jones’).

    Thoughts?

    I think there is a very good chance you're right, which is why I brought up all the potential changes to the housing market costs (it will affect Target, Costco and Walmart consumer goods too, and probably everything else as well).

    I don't think anyone can accurately predict how it would play out, and I think it would be nuts for the first 6-12 months as people start experiencing this massive rush of free money, and companies start receiving it too from new purchases and calculating how to best get as much of that money from consumers as possible.

    The important thing to consider is that once a policy like this is enacted, or free health care, or just like social security, it can't be undone, no matter the costs. I think it's opening Pandora's box and could potentially be a major nightmare long term.

    But I commend Andrew Yang for running on this platform and at least bringing the subject of automaton up. I think if you give it another 3-5 election cycles it will become the main issue at hand, with everything else being a far second. I think automation and AI will have more social impact on our world than the printing press, electricity, the automobile and the internet combined.

    And yes, I know how bold of a statement that is. I think too many people are too quick to dismiss automation's impact because they're taking an extremely short term view on it, as is human nature. 

    It took us forever to go from horse and carriage to the automobile. But we went from horse and carriage to the moon in just 60 years. And then we went from lighters at concerts to cell phones in a span of 20 years from 1990 to 2010. The speed of tech is increasing, not staying the same, and not enough people imagine how their children are going to fare in the work world 30 years from now, as do I.

  • Real Estate Agent · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2014 · 473 posts · 230 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    To get to your actual points, I don’t think this would make anything more affordable. That 1k/mo is coming from taxpayers, probably the ones who own all of the rentals. So they’ll raise their rent to cover their new expenses, and these tenants will have to fork over that 1k in new increased living expenses. Which ends up with everyone paying more for the same experience.

  • Financial Advisor · CA · Member since 2012 · 128 posts · 76 votes
    7y

    It would raise the prices of everything and recipients would be no better or worse off one way or the other than they are today.  Think about it.

  • Rental Property Investor · San Diego, CA · Member since 2017 · 439 posts · 578 votes
    7y

    Give every person in this country an extra thousand dollars a month to spend.... I see nothing but opportunity.

  • Property Manager · Chattanooga, TN · Member since 2018 · 179 posts · 92 votes
    7y

    Not sure if it's been mentioned here already, I didn't see it mentioned in the replies I read. He's proposing a value added tax (VAT) on huge companies like Amazon, Apple, etc, that (according to him) move most of their money out of our country to avoid paying taxes. I don't remember the numbers he mentions, but the VAT would pay for most, if not all of it. He goes into detail on Joe Rogan's podcast ep1245. I don't remember the numbers myself. His argument is that most developed countries have something like this that helps them pay for infrastructure. 

  • Rental Property Investor · Farmington, UT · Member since 2018 · 171 posts · 148 votes
    7y

    The ultra successful VC guy Naval Ravikant had this to say about UBI and I tend to agree the more I've thought about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP1cgZgTsgA

    I agree it would be a complete game changer for rentals, however my experience with lower income individuals is that when they get more money they spend it on cars, TVs, etc and they still stay in their same neighborhood. I think C and D class apartments wouldn't change nearly as much as you'd guess. A and B may. I do think 1k to everyone would have to be inflationary. Tough to say how much.

  • Member since 2019 · 1 post · 0 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    Read "Fake" by Robery Kiyosaki. It will completely change your perspective on government "influence" and how the money you are talking about will only hurt our society.

  • Developer · Austin TX - San Jose, CA · Member since 2016 · 66 posts · 45 votes
    7y

    communism and socialism work so well in theory because they assume that people are rational and responsible adults. the opposite is true and all of us are just giant children who will try to get away with whatever we can and we only look out for ourselves. 

    If the gov't gives out 1k to everyone then prices will simply get higher, rents will get higher and home prices will get higher to adjust for the greater buying power, the same as what will happen with increased minimum wage. 

    Side Note: The real losers of the fight for $15 are those that have put in the extra effort and worked their way up from $8 to $18 who will have their buying power severely diminished as their lazy co-workers all get participation trophy auto-raises.

    People will use their newfound buying power to compete for limited housing. The only reason a house or anything is "worth" something is because people are willing to pay that price. 

    Why is a house in CA worth 10X what a house in Ohio is worth? Because people are willing to pay that price. If everyone in CA got together and unilaterally decided they refused to pay 4mil for a ****** dump in Palo Alto then prices in Palo Alto would drop significantly and immediately. Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others, this will never happen. People will continue to compete.

    Jobs are going away at an unprecedented rate and this is something humanity has never seen. If nothing is done to make sure people have food and shelter there will be a bloody revolution, the masses will not simply starve in silence. On the other hand, if we give people UBI then a large percentage of the population becomes idle and that spells trouble. UBI will function as nothing more than a temporary extension on the inevitable revolution. Either way we're screwed. 

    TLDR: rents and housing prices will increase if UBI is voted in, that may be good for awhile but will not solve this country's problems because the majority of people are too irresponsible and/or greedy.

  • Accountant · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    Horses aren't humans...  Horses have a very limited skill set and thus value that can be provided to human society.  If all I could do was drag a cart or carry someone on my back, and couldn't read, write, do math, speak or understand language I would have trouble finding work too.

    I'd like to see a third, fourth, and fifth column in that table.  Third = number of individuals in the equine transportation industry.  Fourth = number of automobiles (cars, trucks, vans).  Fifth = number of individuals in the automotive transportation industry (across the vertical spectrum = auto plants, steel workers, mechanics, gas station workers).

    I suspect that average workers' standard of living was immensely higher in 1960 than 1900 and the number of workers in the auto industry FAR surpassed those lost in the equine transportation industry because of a new start-up industry: the automobile.

    I think the biggest problem with UBI is that we're proactively attempting to fix something that hasn't materialized and that some of us suspect will happen when the current data does not point to it (the last 300 years of human history).  We should not be attempting to proactively fix something that isn't broken when there are obvious negative consequences associated with the fix.  Waiting and monitoring the situation is much more rational.

  • Real Estate Professional · Tampa, FL · Member since 2017 · 104 posts · 47 votes
    7y

    Everything appears like a scare tactic until the scare actually manifests. For example prior to 2007 during the rah-rah days of real estate investing when folks warned about a meltdown , people around them were irrationally exuberant, they said it was a "scare tactic" and they said real estate never loses in value. I was lucky I did not have any investments of any kind so  the effect on me as far as investments was nil. But I feared for loss of my job as I worked in tech in company that was in the middle of the storm. In NYC often after work one would be walking towards the subway train stations with people who are multi millionaires... I remember the friday before the fed meeting where they called all the top CEOS of the big banks for a meeting ... as I left work and walked towards the WTC Path station every manager from my company had a look of gloom,like they has seen a ghost.They knew come Monday they might not have a job and one of them even told me so.

    Talking about AI, remember flash crash in 2015, who did that? . DJIA dropped 1000 points in minutes..and people once said it cannot happen because it takes an army of human traders all co-ordinated selling at the same time . But Apparently a dude in a basement with a piece of custom software caused this...so "they " say.

  • Real Estate Investor · Springfield, MO · Member since 2017 · 1k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    7y

    @Eamonn McElroy, you make several excellent points.  Comparing horse labor to human labor is one of the worst apples to oranges comparisons I've seen recently.  Even an 85 IQ human being is scales of magnitude more intelligent, creative, innovative, and useful than a horse.  We find new ways to do things, even those who "suffer" from a low IQ.

    Also, one must consider that standardized IQ tests typically only test between one and three forms of intelligence, and most of those are found in the traditional "Book smarts" person.  But educators have known for decades that there are at least 9 different intelligences, and only a few are measured by IQ tests.

    Here's a fun anecdote: the main handyman I employ for my rentals cannot read or write above a 2nd grade level.  But he makes over $60,000 / year in a town where median household income just under $30,000.  How does he do it?  He's good at painting, installing flooring, plumbing, etc.   He also shows up on time and requires no baby sitting.  None of his skills or work ethic are measured by IQ tests, and none of the jobs he does can be done by robots / AI because each house is unique and requires a thinking person to know what to do and in what order each task must be done based on the houses' unique characteristics.  So he is just one example of the fallacy in the argument that there are no well-paying jobs for people with low standardized test scores.

    Anyone who listens to Mike Rowe of the show "Dirty Jobs" fame knows we have a shortage in skilled trades.  Perhaps addressing that gap would be at least a partial solution to other jobs being automated away, if we can find people who are willing to work with their hands.

  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes
    7y

    At no point in the entirety of human history has the advancement of technology reduced total employment.  Never.   Just one example, since WWII technology has advanced more and faster than any time before.   Entire industries of both blue collar and white collar workers have been eliminated.   But total employment grew.   

    Another example.   The agricultural industry has been almost completely automated.   about 100 years ago it represented 40% of jobs in the US and now it is 2.5%.   So the number 1 industry in the US was eliminated (as far as an employment base)...and total employment grew.  

    It is just a myth, perpetuated each generation, that technology will cause the widespread elimination of jobs (look up the Luddites).   And each generation they argue "this time is different", but it is not.  Technology provides more new jobs than it eliminates.   i.e. it eliminates newspapers, but there is more news, and it is more accessible, than ever.   So the very premise of UBI is easily proven wrong

    Second point, adding money to the system does not change the fact that humanity lies on a bell curve.   There are people who are "good" with money and people who are not.   And giving the "not good" people $1000 a month will only result in the redistribution to the other side of the curve.   Soon enough they will be paying higher rents and taking out loans that cost them their monthly stipend.  It will not eliminate poverty, it will only reinforce the fact that you can't force people to be individually accountable.  

    As far as the housing market, they never take into account how the increased taxes will cause this to be a wash.   If you look at the proposal they are not actually adding money, they are redistributing it from one end of the curve to the other.   So the total available remains the same.   I would expect a short term disruption as the market adjusts, but in the end the total housing will remain the same. 

  • Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 13 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell... Andrew Yang (think your original post referred to him as Young) recently did a lengthy podcast with Dave Rubin where he discussed UBI in detail. As a libertarian, my gut reaction is no way (for reasons outside of economics... think massive government bureaucracy), but Andrew does a very good job of addressing some of the issues, concerns and potential impacts during said podcast. That all said, if something like UBI does come into effect (for whatever reason)... the impact to our economy will depend on how other social programs are impacted. If, for example, UBI displaces rent assistance and/or food stamps... the overall effect may be negligible as the net increase would be modest of a per person basis. If not, then you would be adding a lot of money to the economy and that money would be spent and cycled through and the impact and potential multiplier effect could potentially be large as we are a consumer consumption-based economy (70 cents of every dollar is consumer spending oriented). The one interesting aspect of a UBI would be this... would it enable mobility and drive people to seek out lower priced markets where they could have a better quality of life and lower cost of living (i.e. would someone leave LA for Detroit) and how would this mobility impact real estate both on a macro and micro basis. We may never know, but interesting thought exercise.

  • Real Estate Agent · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2016 · 738 posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    @Eamonn McElroy

    I agree with you about UBI. Frankly I don't think anyone has a solution if some of the predictions about massive job loss are true. Perhaps waiting for the crap to get closer to hitting the fan before offering a solution is a better strategy. We simply don't have enough data to launch a nationwide UBI program of this magnitude right now.

    I think it would be WAY more beneficial for a us to consider a trial UBI program on a much smaller scale. Select a limited number of participants of different demographics, income levels, locations, etc. across the U.S. and give them $1,000/mo for a year and see what happens. No influence on how to spend or what to do.

    Even at 100,000 people it would only cost the US $1.2 billion to run the experiment (plus additional researcher and employee cost) which is pocket change for the data.

    But even then... that's not the same as EVERYONE getting $100,000 per month, so even then the idea has limitations. But I'm now researcher, and just came up with that idea sitting here at the kitchen table.

    But if nothing else, Yang is a great marketer and knows this will get him talked about. I agree that it's a flawed idea, but like that he's at least offering a solution. Perhaps in secret his own opinions differ, but we won't know that because he's running for President and will use UBI to get the votes.

  • Investor · United States · Member since 2018 · 565 posts · 356 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Wes Blackwell:

    DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

    1. If you received $1,000/mo in UBI, how would your family use this money to better your lives?

    2. What market are you in? How do you think $1,000/mo in UBI would affect your local housing market?

    3. Would you automatically increase the rent on your investment properties because your tenants are now receiving an extra $1,000/mo?

    I WOULD NEVER ACCEPT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME BECAUSE I AM AN AMERICAN, I BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, NOT SOCIALISM, NOT HANDOUTS. TAKE THIS CRAP OUT OF MY COUNTRY!

  • Accountant · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2015 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    I agree and have no issue with legislating and implementing UBI at the state level.  If CA wants to do state UBI and see how it goes more power to them.  Like the saying goes, we have 50 labs of democracy to experiment and try different things.

    I just think UBI has no business at the federal level and it would be folly to implement it there.  What scares me is that a good number of politicians now at days are hell bent on legislating radical changes at the federal level that are untested and logically lead to negative consequences on the average American.  The American citizen has to be more careful than ever who they elect to the house & senate in Washington...

  • Real Estate Professional · Tampa, FL · Member since 2017 · 104 posts · 47 votes
    7y

    @Account Closed democracy ? -ever heard of voter suppression ?electoral college ?-what kind of democratic system is that?...2 companies control All the internet access in the countries and are in the works to further control what sites you can access just like cable- what kind of free market capitalism is that? 6 companies own almost all mainstream media and radio and shape public discourse based on max profit-what kind of free market capitalism is that?. I could go on but it just get too easy....btw it says ur an "Airbnb expert"...In markets outside US the powerful hotel chain groups -some of which are U.S companies are putting restrictions on people hosting their homes on Airbnb ,even making it very hard to host their own private home/property on Airbnb...so much for free market capitalism!!

  • Rental Property Investor · GA · Member since 2019 · 19 posts · 11 votes
    7y

    The variety and enthusiasm of responses on this thread is quite telling of the country's modern political disposition - you have some younger, more open-minded investors who see the writing on the wall that UBI is necessary but wonder about how it will be implemented, all the way to the "American patriots" who take UBI as an affront to the principles of this country.

    To both extremes, and everyone in between, I ask does pure socialism work? If we define socialism as a system creating equal outcomes, then it is quite clear both in theory and from history that it does not work. When people with skill sets and abilities are crammed into roles and positions not fit for them, they are equal on the surface, but their true outcomes are very different - different levels of happiness, fulfillment, stress, etc. The car enthusiast stuck as a computer developer will be no happier than the computer geek stuck as an auto mechanic. Yet because there is a complete lack of competition, no one can naturally settle into what gives them the most fulfillment, and at best everyone is equal is being miserable. Historically, very few purely socialist entities have succeeded. Scandinavia and even modern China are great examples of countries which have elements of socialism but incorporate varying degrees of competition and capitalism - in fact one could argue modern China is more capitalistic than modern America is (at the very least in a dystopian sense).

    Then we must ask, does pure capitalism work? If we define capitalism as equal access to opportunity, meaning the ability to compete for outcomes, then no it does not. In pure capitalism, it is inevitable that randomly, one competitor in an industry eventually gets so big such that they can acquire, squash, and price out any future would be competition. Ironically, while competition allowed this monopoly entity to build itself, now the presence of the monopoly prevents any future competition. And without any future competition, we do not have equal access to opportunity. Only external regulation and prevention of monopolies can reignite competition.

    In other words, each system must paradoxically contain a piece of its opposite in order to succeed. Socialism must contain an element of competition to ensure equal outcomes (beyond equal starvation), and capitalism must contain an element of socialism to ensure continued competition (and therefore equal opportunity).

    This is the lens I view UBI through. Implemented correctly, UBI is not a threat to capitalism, it is a massive boost to capitalism.

    Imagine a more intelligent, more entrepreneurial populace who are now able to take more risks, start more companies, and work on more passion projects because they don't have to devote 100% of their psychological and physiological energy to ensuring their family does not starve to death.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-effect-on-intelligence-2013-8

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193136-universal-income-study-finds-money-for-nothing-wont-make-us-work-less/

    Like it or not, some form of UBI is the future. UBI can be called 'socialist' but at it's most extreme its what I call "competitive socialism." UBI is more capitalistic than many aspects of modern America with oligopolies choking all competition from entire industries.

    Needless to say UBI, rent controls, affordable housing zoning, etc are all factors us real estate investors need to be thinking about as they will impact not only our immediate returns, but the societies in which we live and invest.

    As an investor my take is to limit exposure to more "progressive" cities as they experiment with different approaches and without question make a few missteps along the way, implementing regulations which entirely backfire and eschew the economic balance. Such is the nature of regulation, it is inherently reactive not proactive, and will always be an incredibly flawed tool - but one which used responsibly is absolutely vital to both socialism and capitalism.

    All that said, in the long run real estate investing will become more and more competitive, not just due to limited returns, but also presence of competition (more and more interested capital), changes to technology (iBuyers etc), and the pervasiveness of data (less relationship based, everyone can find deals). This trend is nothing new, and has already played out in other industries which traditionally were incredibly non-accessible and relationship based (such as the financial markets).

    The days of a handful of people capturing 99% of the returns the real estate industry has to offer are over - and that's a good thing. UBI is just one small part of these overall socioeconomic trends.

  • Investor · United States · Member since 2018 · 565 posts · 356 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Krishnan T.:

    @Account Closed democracy ? -ever heard of voter suppression ?electoral college ?-what kind of democratic system is that?...2 companies control All the internet access in the countries and are in the works to further control what sites you can access just like cable- what kind of free market capitalism is that? 6 companies own almost all mainstream media and radio and shape public discourse based on max profit-what kind of free market capitalism is that?. I could go on but it just get too easy....btw it says ur an "Airbnb expert"...In markets outside US the powerful hotel chain groups -some of which are U.S companies are putting restrictions on people hosting their homes on Airbnb ,even making it very hard to host their own private home/property on Airbnb...so much for free market capitalism!!

     I never said is was perfect here. That's precisely the issue. 

    I don't believe in big government or big monopolies. They both end up becoming the same thing in the end. But UBI is unacceptable socialist garbage that YOU and I will end up paying for. Social programs incentivize laziness, dependance and degradation of a society. They take from the competent hard working individuals and give to the lowest common denominator. I've been dead broke and homeless and beaten down by life. I put one foot in front of the other and made something of myself over time. That's the answer, self reliance, force of will, work, focus, discipline NOT handouts. 

    I am truly worried about this country. People are accepting this stuff more and more and it's being taught in our education system. You don't lower the goal post when you can't get what you want. You look at yourself in the mirror and strive to become better. That's the mentality that this Great country was founded on. If that value system erodes the people and country as a whole will follow. Maybe that's what they want...

  • Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 13 votes
    7y

    @Krishnan T. -- I don't think you fully understand what either democracy and/or free markets actually mean. The US is NOT and never has been a true democracy. We are a democratic republic which is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies (thank you Wikipedia). In addition, the electoral college is designed to avoid mob rule or better known as "tyranny of the majority/'. It is in place to ensure that minority (not in a modern day definition of minority) voices are represented and that the majority cannot steamroll over the "little guy". As for free markets, if company A has the best product and owns the majority of the market... as long as they are not anti-competitive and/or violate anti-trust laws... they are allowed to enjoy a dominant market share. Sounds to me like you want more equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity... which is opposite of free markets. I would suggest you reread your post... as you keep trashing free market capitalism... yet using crappy examples to try and make your point.

  • Rental Property Investor · GA · Member since 2019 · 19 posts · 11 votes
    7y

    @Account Closed

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193136-universal-income-study-finds-money-for-nothing-wont-make-us-work-less/

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611418/basic-income-could-work-if-you-do-it-canada-style/


    "“All of the evidence from the project demonstrated the pilot was helping people get back into the workforce, eat healthier and participate in community activities,” Tom Cooper, director of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, which helped enroll citizens in the UBI plan, told Motherboard"

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.