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
1,284 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
  • Software Developer · Vidor, TX · Member since 2015 · 922 posts · 639 votes
    7y

    I would take the 12,000/year and use it to subsidize the voluntary demotion at work in order to have more of my time.

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

    @Erik W.

    Yes, humans are more intelligent and useful than horses, even those of us who aren't that smart. It was a simple real world example of a living entity being put out of work by technology. There are none better that I know of. We shouldn't think that given enough time the same thing can't happen to happen to a more intelligent species like us. There will be some examples at the end of this post.

    Using my Legal AI example, a computer analyzed a document 212 times faster than a lawyer with decades of experience in law and was more accurate. That's a lot more complex work than a combustion engine, and shows that even the smartest of us can replaced on a smaller scale.

    You have two opposing forces at work here: 

    Natural population growth = need for more jobs

    Increased Automation = less jobs available

    So even when there are jobs still available, you will create a situation where more and more people are competing for them long before they are eliminated. And with an ever-increasing number of workers competing for fewer and fewer jobs wages will drop.

    Just take self-driving cars for example. Millions of jobs lost when that happens. Yet will millions of equal-paying jobs be created as a direct result from driver-less cars? I don't think so.

    Australia has a 12.5 million people aged 25-64, most likely to be working as younger people are likely to be still enrolled in school & study programs and 65 and older are likely to be retired.

    Yet, more than 400,000 jobs are at risk from self-driving cars, which is 3% of the population. That's not a number to brush off lightly. 

    Seeing as Truck Driving & Transportation is the #1 job is most states and the biggest job sector to be impacted by automation on the horizon, we should consider the potential impact it could have on your local area of Springfield, Missouri.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 193,920 moving and transportation jobs in the state of Missouri. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_mo.htm#53-0000

    The state's population is only 6.126 million, meaning that same 3% figure applies to Missouri as well. But even more so because that's ALL the population, not just the "working age" adult population like in the Australia example.

    Springfield is the 3rd largest city in Missouri, so certainly they have a fair share of the transportation industry jobs in the state. 

    When all those truckers and Uber drivers lose their jobs to automation, now they will have to go compete for other jobs and increase the supply of labor in those industries. Without other equal paying jobs to replace them it could potentially impact other industries.

    If just 25 of those 193,000 truckers decide to become a handyman in Springfield Missouri, your handyman may find himself having to bid lower to win jobs due to all the increased competition. And the same goes for almost every other industry as well.

    Yes, this hypothetical scenario makes a lot of assumptions, but in theory it makes sense and we can't deny that it will have SOME impact on the local economy in every state.

    New technology will create some new jobs, that is true. But I believe it is wishful thinking to assume that it will create an equal amount of jobs to those that are automated, and that the replaced workers will be qualified to do those new jobs, and that the new jobs will have the same pay.

    As robotics and AI continue to outperform humans in more and more fields (see lawyer example early), without replacing jobs at the same skill and pay level we're eventually going to hit a wall. 

    From a recent AI study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08807v1.pdf

    "Researchers predict AI will outperform humans in many activities in the next ten years, such as translating languages (by 2024), writing high-school essays (by 2026), driving a truck (by 2027), working in retail (by 2031), writing a bestselling book (by 2049), and working as a surgeon (by 2053). Researchers believe there is a 50% chance of AI outperforming humans in all tasks in 45 years and of automating all human jobs in 120 years, with Asian respondents expecting these dates much sooner than North Americans."

    Granted it's a long ways away, but when AI performs better in legal, surgery, transportation and retail than humans, what would it NOT be able to do? And when the retail worker has to compete with the surgeon for a job that a robot can't do, who do you think is going to get it?

    LOL looking back at this post I realized we've gone a little off topic here hahaha, but good discussion for sure. I think we can manage it and adapt in the short term, but longer term I have no idea how we're going to adjust. And in the grand scope of things 40 years really isn't that far away.

  • Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 13 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Matt OConnor:

    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.

     Two points of rebuttal...

    1) You state that "pure capitalism" doesn't work. I would argue that we have never seen an instance where we have let pure capitalism go long enough for us to validate that statement. We have always seen markets where there have been external forces applied that have impacted the landscape enough that we only know what the outcomes are with the external forces. We have never seen unencumbered pure capitalism. That said, you might be right. The end result might be a massive single company that becomes a monopoly and thus must be broken up for anti-competitive reasons/rationale. My argument... we just don't know. Of course, we absolutely do know that socialism/communism/stateism/etc do not work and result in millions starving and dying. So... we know that side sucks!

    2) You seem to want to make moral equivalence between the two... saying neither work in their purest forms... so let's blend them together. Seeing as we KNOW that socialism/communism/etc starves and kills millions... and pure capitalism MIGHT only result in a massive monopoly that makes loads of people super wealthy due to its dominance (thinking examples like MSFT, Goog, AMZN, etc). My suggestion would be, let's go ahead and err on the side of capitalism and maybe have a ratio of like 99:1 with the 99 being capitalism and 1 (at most) being some goofy socialism/communism/etc component.

  • Joe SplitrockPro Member
    Moderator
    Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell 

    If everyone made $12,000 more per year, housing and rent prices would NOT be the same as they are now. It would drive inflation. It is called wage push inflation. More consumers, seeking the same goods causes the price of those goods to increase. It wouldn't solve the housing affordability issue, it would make housing even more expensive. 

    There is also bad math here, because there are approximately 250 billion adults in the United States. Paying every adult $12,000 per year would be $3,000,000,000,000 (3 trillion dollars). Currently the entire income collected by the United State government is around $3.5 trillon. They spend every penny plus some! Of that tax income collected, almost 50% is from personal income taxes (you and me). Another 35% is from employee taxes. The taxes that businesses pay for each employee (you and me). Around 10% comes from corporations, which pay the money from their income. Their income comes from selling things to people (you and me). 

    Do you see the theme here? All tax money comes from you and me, either directly or indirectly. These taxes will need to essentially double to cover the cost of this program. All that money will come out of your pocket.

    But it gets worse.... Your burden won't just double, it will be far greater. That is because many people are not paying taxes and getting a refund that exceeds what they pay. This tax burden will fall on investors and high wage earners.

    UBI would destroy the entire US economy and housing market along with it. The burden would fall on investors and would destroy small businesses. Luckily it would never pass congress. There is enough educated people that would understand the consequences and they would block it.

  • Member since 2019 · 26 posts · 13 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Matt OConnor:

    @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"

    I think you cherry picked sources that tried to put a positive spin on the Finland experiment. There are several sources out there that view the results as not material when it comes to providing incentives for work (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/the-results-finlands-universal-basic-income-experiment-are-in-is-it-working/). This is from a Finnish source that states it is disappointed in the results (https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/nordic-welfare-news/heikki-hiilamo-disappointing-results-from-the-finnish-basic-income-experiment).

    I personally think UBI is interesting if (and only if) it replaces almost all other social programs (that is inline with what Yang proposes). Even then, I think there are major issues to be hammered through... not least of which is how is something like this implemented in a fashion that keep it from becoming bureaucratic mess that gets increased every time there is an approaching election and some team wants to buy votes

  • Real Estate Agent · Pacific Palisades, CA · Member since 2018 · 43 posts · 14 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Sunshine V.:

    If you are one of the many asking where the $1000 would come from, listen to the  podcast about Andrew Young and interview with him on The Freakanomocs podcast #362.  He explains that he would get the money from companies like Amazon and Apple because they will be the major benefactors of all this automation and effectively kill much of the American job market.  I believe he said it would be something like a tax on every transaction but it would only be like a penny or a fraction of a penny because of their immense volume.  

    I think they simply lie when they tell you this. Say there are 350,000,000 people in the US. Now say only 200 million of them get $1,000 per month "Basic Income". That would cost $200 Billion per month. Divide that by $.01 and you get a required 20 Trillion transactions per month. Yea... Amazon North America does how many? I'd be surprised if it is over 10 billion for Amazon & Apple combined.   

    These are not Economists, they are salesmen for a product which is UBI so question their every word.  What they do is slip in bad assumptions to build their otherwise seemingly logical argument upon. And let us not forget all these 'scientific' studies performed using a multitude of false assumptions.      

  • Member since 2019 · 3 posts · 3 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell who’s going to pay for it? The government is already printing money as fast as they can lol. And to answer the question if my tenants are getting an extra $1,000 a month why wouldn’t I raise the rent.....just kidding, maybe.

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

    @Wes Blackwell, thank you for sharing the information.  I'm impressed with your knowledge of the trucking industry in Springfield (go PRIME!), and I do not disagree that we're shaping up for a ton of upheaval in older industries that suffer from sub-optimal use of technology.  But I give our economy and ingenuity a lot of credit to help resolve the problem, mainly because it has done so many times in the past.

    Before we go any further, just wanted to let you know my background. I'm a software engineer and have worked for a Fortune 500 retailer since 2009. Before that, I worked for a Fortune 500 manufacturing company. So...I've seen inside the world of automation in two major industries. I'm also a part-time REI, which will make sense later. Doesn't make me an expert in any of those fields, but does give me some perspective. Now, back to our topic.

    I had typed up a lengthy response filled with examples, but I think you probably have already thought over a lot of what I was going to say.  Suffice it to say, I think that we are about to experience a transition that frees up a ton of human physical and mental energy to do tasks that are less repetitive, dull, and dangerous to do things that require more creativity and thinking.  Overall, that will be good, even for people who are not 130+ IQ.  People often grow into their environment.  It's how we evolve and get better.  Put them in repetitive, thoughtless jobs, and that's what they become.  Put them somewhere they can think, create, and do a variety of things, and we will see them flourish.  I could see a lot more people going into small businesses for themselves, and an end to the mind-numbing monotony of the factory assembly line.  Can we have both good-paying work and vocational fulfillment?  I say, "Yes."

    Anyway, fun topic!  Thanks for making me think.

  • Member since 2018 · 563 posts · 562 votes
    7y

    UBI, is a distraction from the real questions we should be asking.

    What will we do when AI/robotics can do everything for us?

     Will those that own/control the AI/robotic resources be benevolent?

    Fortunately, it will probably not happen in our lifetimes, but, the exponential growth of knowledge of the most intelligent humans and the AI they are creating, will eventually outpace all of the rest of us, and then what?

  • Member since 2018 · 563 posts · 562 votes
    7y

    ....oh yeah, haven't you all seen the "The Terminator" or "The Matrix"?!?

  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    7y

    This has been a pretty good thread but for one common theme: knee-jerk reactions by posters. No one on this thread, myself included, can know whether or not something like this would work, or whether it will become the most palatable or least detestable possibility from all possibilities in the future.

    It is the rare issue that is dichotomous. The answer to just about everything in every facet of life is "it depends". 

    As food for thought, one might consider that to some extent we already have a modified form of "universal basic income" that has replaced employment. Look in the inner cities and extreme rural areas - food stamps, housing assistance, SSI Disability, Veteran's disability, etc. has replaced physical employment for a lot of these people. This is not to say this is good or bad (personally, I don't think you should let people collect anything without participating as it is deleterious to society and to the person's self-esteem) but that it already goes on. If all of these individuals were forced back into the workforce the true levels of unemployment in the US would readily become apparent. 

    Skyline Properties
    View Page
  • Rental Property Investor · Madison, WI · Member since 2013 · 629 posts · 339 votes
    7y

    Regarding experiments: (a few links to add to those above)

    https://medium.com/basic-income/what-is-there-to-l...

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612640/universal-basic-income-had-a-rough-2018/

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

    One thing I do like about Andrew Yang's take on UBI is that it would take the place of all current forms of government assistance and be available to all citizens. 

    Having a social safety net and certain services like tax-payer funded urgent health care, primary education, roads, parks, etc is important and benefits all people, I am happy to pay into these programs because I can use the benefits.

    Current government financial and housing assistance is limited to a certain part of the population which is completely unfair, especially considering the people receiving the benefits don't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I should be allowed to access the services my tax dollars are providing. 

  • Crestline, CA · Member since 2018 · 63 posts · 70 votes
    7y

    Without building significantly more housing (I'm looking at you California), simple economics dictate all this will do is push up rents and house prices so the receivers of the income would have little net gain.  

    It would probably be good for Landlords though, who would be able to charge higher rent, and maybe even garnish defaulters' future UBI payments.   

    Though if it ever looked like UBI was going to happen I'd probably invest in casinos, liquor companies, Best Buy, etc.  

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

    @Matt OConnor

    "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."

    It appears even the analysis of the differences in opinion lends food for thought...

    I would venture to guess you and I are the same age based on your profile picture -- I'd even bet I may be younger.  Yet we seem to be on opposite sides of the aisle on this debate.

    One side believes mass unemployment is an eventuality and UBI is necessary, and that those who disagree are older Americans "patriots" (your words) who are stodgy and refuse to change.  This side believes we must do something now even though we are at historic unemployment lows and mass employment is not a problem -- we have plenty of problems but mass unemployment is not one.  That's a fact Jack.

    The other side knows that every generation for at least the last 300 years has believed that mass unemployment will result due to technological progress.  The fear of the unknown is often staggering...  They also know the facts and data from the past 300 years have suggested otherwise as @John Nachtigall succinctly described in his post.  Many industries that are material to a country's GDP arrive, peak, sunset and die.  There are no more oil lamps in the USA -- at least in a material fashion...  This is called PROGRESS.  New industries replace the old.

    One side relies on feelings, intuition and half considered data.  The other side knows that the same concerns have occurred many times in the past and what has actually played out with historical data is quite bright and inspiring, not nihilistic, helpless and dystopian.

    One side is rushing to tear out a perfectly fine bathroom and rebuild it from the studs out.  The other is trying to keep the baby from being thrown out with the bath water...

  • Member since 2018 · 16 posts · 6 votes
    7y

    @Andreas W.

    With unemployment as low as it is right now, I find it to be weird timing to suggest that people are in major danger of getting automated out of work. If this was 2009, it would be easier to buy this logic.

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

    @Brandon Temples

    Economic cycles happen.  That's a fact.  Unemployment is higher during a recession/depression.  They have happened and will continue to happen.  It would be easy to mislead people during a down cycle and make a stronger argument for UBI then because "this time it's different".

    Mass unemployment due to technological advancement has no historical basis.  There is historical mass unemployment...but it results from government mismanagement and bad policy.  That should tell you something right there...

  • Engineer · Portland, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    @Camille Treacy that wouldn’t t come out ofanyone’s paycheck, no politician has the political courage to say that except perhaps Sanders. They would just do more of what we are currently doing with deficit spending, print or borrow the extra money.

    As someone literate in economics has already mentioned, this would be mostly inflationary and erode much of the purchasing power the subsidy would provide.

    The bigger issue many advocates always ignore is that poverty is mostly a behavioral problem not an economic one. Giving away free money wouldn’t magically change poor economic behavior thus the result of such a policy would help the poor much less than the advocates claim

  • Los Angeles · Member since 2018 · 464 posts · 471 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Wes Blackwell:

    God I'm sorry I got into this discussion. Where's the exit?

    You don't win arguments by piling on more words. Let me try to be brief:

    paraphrasing: "Since the invention of automobiles, the population of horses has gone down dramatically"

    And we should care about that, why?

    "20 Top Lawyers were beaten by A.I."

    Sucks to be a Top Lawyer. I'd have to imagine that to any Robot that can beat out a lawyer, selling real estate should be child's play.

    "So where are all those replaced paralegals supposed to go?"

    If you read any part of my previous discussion, you already know my answer -- it is impossible to know, it is impossible to predict. I expect fully a third at least of today's job titles did not exist in 1819. But if History is any guide, those paralegals will find something. Something will be invented that Robots can't do yet, something that it is impossible for us to know today. And they'll find something a lot faster if they don't have the Government giving them a Crutch.

    Yah it won't be perfect, nothing ever is. But society overall, including displaced paralegals, will be better off in the long run.

  • Los Angeles · Member since 2018 · 464 posts · 471 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Andrew Brewer:

    One thing I do like about Andrew Yang's take on UBI is that it would take the place of all current forms of government assistance and be available to all citizens.

     That's been tried before. The famous economist Milton Friedman was in favor of a negative income tax and I think he drafted up a bill for it. It was actually bandied about in Congress a bit, until he found out that Congress made amendments such that no other federal aid program would be removed. That was when he removed his support and became against it and eventually got it killed, even though the original thing was his idea.

    The problem with government programs is that they are relatively easy to get started and almost impossible to get rid of. Once they start, they build up their own constituents and beneficiaries (and employees) who will fight tooth and nail for continuance, and there has never been a politician with the strength of character to say "No".

    And who can really blame the politicians? They'll haul out all the wheelchairs and one-legged war veterans and the crying mothers with babies sobbing about losing some benefit, and the moron media will cover it with relish. The politician will be made to look like the worst villain since Attila the Hun, and he'll cave like a week-old souffle.

    If UBI ever becomes the Law of the Land, you can bet your bottom dollar that each and every other form of government assistance will remain in full force.

    That's just the way it works in modern politics.

  • Los Angeles · Member since 2018 · 464 posts · 471 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

    @Wes Blackwell 

    Luckily it would never pass congress. There is enough educated people that would understand the consequences and they would block it.

     I wish I could share your optimism.

    I think I said something like this about Obamacare ...

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

    @Eamonn McElroy

    "This side believes we must do something now even though we are at historic unemployment lows and mass employment is not a problem -- we have plenty of problems but mass unemployment is not one. That's a fact Jack."

    You might want to check your facts - it's easy to draw misleading conclusions (too often done purposefully) looking at surface level data. In reality, U6 unemployment is still above early 2000 levels and our labor participation rate has been steadily declining for over two decades and is now at lows not seen since the late 1970s!

    Beyond the surface level "news byte economist" figures, the fact is that deflationary pressures are the new normal (hence endless quantitative easing), people are working less, underemployed more, and earning less with stagnating wage growth. Simply glancing at one headline number to conclude everything is fine is perhaps better than the intuition based approach your correctly lambaste, but it is a tell tale sign of amateur analysis. I encourage you to avoid the trap you mention of half considered data and examine the full macroeconomic environment, though falling prey to sound bytes is something we've all done before and even the best economists are often wrong.

    That said, I also think it's inaccurate to rush to the conclusion that "this has happened before" based on surface level similarities. Were the cotton gin and AI both cases of technology? Sure. But that's a bit too simplified no?

    I'm a data scientist who previously founded and ran a profitable AI/ML development agency. I've built systems that replace human man hours of work. In my informed opinion, never before in history has technology replaced so much thought work, only manual work.

    For the first time in history, we are on the precipice of aspects of every type of job - not just labor based jobs - being replaced by machines. Does this mean everyone will lose their jobs? Absolutely not. Does this mean new jobs and new industries will be created? Absolutely.

    But does this mean fewer humans will need to be employed to achieve the same or greater levels of production? Yes, 100% without question.

    Never before have our society's most skilled and revered jobs been at risk (doctors, lawyers, etc). It is naivete to equate the invention of the cotton gin or factory line assembly (one invention affecting one task in one industry) to the invention of intelligence itself (every task in every industry).

    The data shows it already playing out, if you look past the sound byte figures.

  • Los Angeles · Member since 2018 · 464 posts · 471 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Isaac S.:

    What will we do when AI/robotics can do everything for us?

     I guess if the danged machines get to be so danged smart, we can just ask them!

  • Durham, NC · Member since 2013 · 502 posts · 215 votes
    7y

    @Brandon Temples

    Our president applied the same kind of "logic" you are using when on a cold winter day he denounced the possibility of global warming.

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

    @Matt OConnor

    I started typing a long rebuttal to each and every one of your points.  Then I realized that you're going to come back at me and this is going to take too much time and energy.  I have a business to grow and too much work to do this week.

    Best of luck to you.  We'll know who's right in 20-30 years won't we?  Maybe I'll buy you a beer -- I'll still be employed.

    I appreciate the multiple strawmen you created about sound bytes and then knocked down so easily.  I don't watch MSM on either side.  Outside of my Accounting / Econ degree in college I'm self-taught.  Probably have read 2-3 hours a day for the last 16 years at least on whatever interests me at the moment.

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