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
1,288 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
  • Investor · Crown Point, IN · Member since 2014 · 177 posts · 84 votes
    7y

    Other than how UBI would potentially go to everyone rather than a select few. I don't see how it would create any different changes in how thing work than existing programs have. For low income individuals, there are already many programs in place that provide this, snap, section 8, social security, and others. 

    for someone like you or I, an extra $1k/mo might be a nice bonus, assuming you don't lose that an more in taxes later. For many of those who they propose it would help, I don't think they will be any better off. If it goes in place of the current social programs, some may actually be worse off. I've seen tenants in the past that received a lot more than $1k in benefits each month, in a lot of areas, section 8 will pay more than that. 

    if it goes along with the current programs, it may help some, but again many of those they say it will help, don't have good money skills, and though the intentions are good, I see it playing out a lot like the guy who spends his entire paycheck each month, then when he gets a raise, can't figure out why he still spends his entire income each month. 

  • Investor · Houston, TX · Member since 2019 · 13 posts · 5 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell Way too long of a post to even consider reading/completely irrelevant as well.

  • Investor · Albuquerque, NM · Member since 2017 · 133 posts · 83 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell - thanks for a well organized post and starting an interesting thread!

    My .02:  I agree with the historical data that new technology will not create legions of unemployed - new jobs will arise.  AI is a non-issue in terms of employment over the longer term.  There will of course be localized and short term disruptions, but new options will evolve.  

    UBI is detrimental to individual development - I would rather see that money spent on free education, improved physical and electronic infrastructure, drug rehabilitation, financial counseling, and other systems that empower people by creating a supportive framework for them to improve their lives themselves.  When people who already have life management issues get more money, they tend not to use it effectively to improve their situations.  A more supportive society would provide free higher education for those who want it, giving those born without wealth the chance and incentive to improve their situation.  Better infrastructure would make our country more competitive, speed up innovation and commerce.  Drug rehabilitation and financial counseling are needed for those who already have issues and need help to learn better life skills and problem solving.  

    As one poster noted, many adults are just "big children".  For whatever reason they didn't learn needed life skills from their parents or society.  What is needed is good education and economic laddering, not freebie handouts without any considerations or consequences.  

    Also, the inflationary effect of UBI would in the end negate the impact, especially for the middle class who would bear the brunt of the tax burden, further weakening economic equality and widening the economic gap.  Any taxes imposed on business would be passed on to the consumer via higher prices.  The inflationary effect would impact all assets, including real estate.  While there might be some good times short term, within a few years it would zero out.  For the most part, "there's no such thing as a free lunch", though of course there are exceptions to every rule.  But talking about the overall condition of millions of people, that would hold true. 

  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
    Originally posted by @Matt OConnor:

    @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.

    First, lets take your argument at face value.   That "this time is different" and technology is now replacing "thought" work not manual labor.   But you ignore that manual labor (or unskilled labor) is the larger part of the pie.   So if technology has been systematically destroying manual labor jobs for decades (actually centuries) why is total employment higher.  Up 30% since 1990.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/

    Does a job know it is being replaced by AI or a machine? No it does not. So why then, has the constant advancement of technology not resulted in a reduction in employment. Where did all those farmers from 100 years ago...representing 40% of total employment go? They went to new jobs...jobs that technology has probably erased again already. 

    Since 1990 technology has completely transformed almost every aspect of the US economy...but total full time employment is 30% higher.  Is technology causing people to be unemployed and discouraged (U6)...why yes it is.    Has labor force participation fallen, you betcha.   People who lost their jobs in the last recession, the worst since the great depression, will never be employed again.   The older workers, the unskilled workers unwilling to learn new skills...they wont recover.    But total employment is up, that is a fact.   And a lot of those jobs didnt exist in 1990.   There were not Wi-Fi network engineer jobs in 1990....because that technology didnt exist.   No Uber drivers, no social media influencers, etc. etc. 

    Also, lots of skilled jobs has been eliminated by technology.   Example: Given computers, spreadsheets, and automated reporting do you think that more or less accountants are needed?  3 axis mills and machinists.   Travel agents.   Librarians.  etc.  

    Technology causes winner and loser, individuals will be impacted.   But your argument that total employment will decline has be repeatable proven wrong.  You think your company built machines that replaced human labor?   The cotton gin has you beat by billions of man hours.   ATMs replace more in an hour than your company probably did for its entire existence.   This is not new.  And it remains wrong

     Without getting into all of your post, I would caution that utilizing absolute quantities is usually meaningless (or, sometimes, deliberately misleading) without context. 

    You stated that in 1990 that full time employment was up 30% since 1990. I visited your source. In 1990 there were 99 million full time employees, and 129 million in 2018. Indeed, a 30% increase. But as Paul Harvey would have said, let's have the rest of the story.

    The population in 1990 was 250 million. In 2018 the population was 325 million. That means in 1990 39% of the population was employed full time, and in 2018 39% was employed full time. Essentially no growth in full time employment at all. Digging further, we find that in 1990 there were about 177 million adults, and in 2018 about 237 million adults. Now we plug in our numbers and find that in 1990 56% of adults had full time employment and in 2018 54% of adults had full time employment. A decrease, when taken in context. 

    Skyline Properties
    View Page
  • JD MartinBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Chris Hadley:

    @Wes Blackwell Way too long of a post to even consider reading/completely irrelevant as well.

     This is just for my own curiosity, but why would anyone bother making a post that says "This post is too long for me to read and bother commenting on"? Why wouldn't you just skip it and move on? I ask this because normally posts that are completely off topic or irrelevant/disruptive to a thread are removed, but there may be a good reason for someone saying "I feel the need to post despite the fact that I can't be bothered reading the thread in the first place." I just don't know what it is.

    Skyline Properties
    View Page
  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @JD Martin:
    Originally posted by @John Nachtigall:
    Originally posted by @Matt OConnor:

    @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.

    First, lets take your argument at face value.   That "this time is different" and technology is now replacing "thought" work not manual labor.   But you ignore that manual labor (or unskilled labor) is the larger part of the pie.   So if technology has been systematically destroying manual labor jobs for decades (actually centuries) why is total employment higher.  Up 30% since 1990.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/192356/number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-usa-since-1990/

    Does a job know it is being replaced by AI or a machine? No it does not. So why then, has the constant advancement of technology not resulted in a reduction in employment. Where did all those farmers from 100 years ago...representing 40% of total employment go? They went to new jobs...jobs that technology has probably erased again already. 

    Since 1990 technology has completely transformed almost every aspect of the US economy...but total full time employment is 30% higher.  Is technology causing people to be unemployed and discouraged (U6)...why yes it is.    Has labor force participation fallen, you betcha.   People who lost their jobs in the last recession, the worst since the great depression, will never be employed again.   The older workers, the unskilled workers unwilling to learn new skills...they wont recover.    But total employment is up, that is a fact.   And a lot of those jobs didnt exist in 1990.   There were not Wi-Fi network engineer jobs in 1990....because that technology didnt exist.   No Uber drivers, no social media influencers, etc. etc. 

    Also, lots of skilled jobs has been eliminated by technology.   Example: Given computers, spreadsheets, and automated reporting do you think that more or less accountants are needed?  3 axis mills and machinists.   Travel agents.   Librarians.  etc.  

    Technology causes winner and loser, individuals will be impacted.   But your argument that total employment will decline has be repeatable proven wrong.  You think your company built machines that replaced human labor?   The cotton gin has you beat by billions of man hours.   ATMs replace more in an hour than your company probably did for its entire existence.   This is not new.  And it remains wrong

     Without getting into all of your post, I would caution that utilizing absolute quantities is usually meaningless (or, sometimes, deliberately misleading) without context. 

    You stated that in 1990 that full time employment was up 30% since 1990. I visited your source. In 1990 there were 99 million full time employees, and 129 million in 2018. Indeed, a 30% increase. But as Paul Harvey would have said, let's have the rest of the story.

    The population in 1990 was 250 million. In 2018 the population was 325 million. That means in 1990 39% of the population was employed full time, and in 2018 39% was employed full time. Essentially no growth in full time employment at all. Digging further, we find that in 1990 there were about 177 million adults, and in 2018 about 237 million adults. Now we plug in our numbers and find that in 1990 56% of adults had full time employment and in 2018 54% of adults had full time employment. A decrease, when taken in context. 

    Certainly absolute numbers can be misleading.   I readily acknowledged the post that labor participation is down a from its high, but that was an all time high.   The participation rate in the 50s and 60s was sub 60%.   It is now at 63% (hit max on the graph below)

    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

    So if you want to look at percentages go right ahead, it shows the same story.   Technology advanced in the last 70 years, productivity went up, and the % labor force participation is actually higher.    So despite huge advancements in technology there are (as a percentage) more jobs.     

    How many ways do you want to argue this.   Where is the drop?   Where is the mass replacement of workers?   There is no data supporting the position that technology causes net job loss.   

  • deals in PA & NH · Member since 2016 · 10 posts · 8 votes
    7y

    Now do the impact of the falling US birth rate and the cutbacks to immigration. Will there be a glut of 55+ double wides no one wants to buy when the last of the boomers pass away?

    This was a very interesting analysis, and I agree with you on how multigenerational families might team up to buy properties. Banking on a "it'll get worse before it gets better" strategy, my husband and I bought a large home on significant acreage in southern NH, rural but a quick commute from two thriving metro areas with plenty of jobs but a housing crunch. Once we build a planned garage with 2 bedroom apartment, we will have a property that easily divides into four units of varying sizes (right now 2 plus the owner's are legal where we live). 

    While I don't see Andrew Yang even getting the nomination, someday something has to give. Hopefully the future economy looks more like it is portrayed in Star Trek, less like various books by Asimov or Heinlein.

  • Rental Property Investor · Tampa - Lakeland, FL · Member since 2019 · 21 posts · 15 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    We can see this model in certain areas of the country already. Alaska is a great example. The punchline is that it doesn’t provide that much of an impact because the market adjusts a bit.

    1) not much

    2) a few :)

    3) no, we’d still price to market and cash flow.

  • Investor / Broker · Brooklyn, NY · Member since 2016 · 665 posts · 1k+ votes
    7y

    I'm glad I had my AI Robot read this thread because it's too freaking long! haha! (just kidding!)

  • Member since 2018 · 10 posts · 9 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    1. I would use the extra 1k to pay off student loan debts sooner, then build a cash reserve for future investments. But that’s what i would do with any windfall.

    2. I’m in northern Nevada. I don’t know what would happen to the real estate market there with the introduction of UBI. Rents have increased there nicely in the past few years. Perhaps an extra thousand a month would make it easier for younger people to remain in communities where they grew up instead of having to move to work. The largest effect of UBI would likely be revitalizing the economies of rural areas, which in turn would support real estate values and rents in those locations.

    3. I wouldn’t automatically raise rents, but I would follow rental price trends and raise rent if the local market supports it.

    This is an interesting discussion which is likely to continue.

    Already nearly half of Americans surveyed express support for the idea of UBI. While it should be approached with due care, it should be not be dismissed out of hand as it offers a pragmatic market oriented approach to some very thorny problems which are here to some extent now and will likely increase in the next 10-15 years. Moreover, it is an idea which has attracted substantial interest on both the right and the left, and could be an idea around which we might ultimately build a political consensus.

  • Member since 2018 · 10 posts · 9 votes
    7y

    @Benjamin Stewart

    Agree that much government regulation is inflationary, particularly with regards to housing and education. That said most governments are contending with deflationary pressures caused by automation and technology. Putting more dollars in the hands of consumers might persuade companies to create more goods and services instead of simply repurchasing their own stock. The competition among them would likely temper inflation.

  • Rental Property Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 401 posts · 221 votes
    7y

    At the Democrats primary is approaching, all candidates are trying to one up one another’s in promising freebies to buy vote, from forgiving all student loan to rent subsidies to free healthcare... Andrew is just merely more direct and transparent in his vote buying transaction 😁. Traditionally, most president will forgot what they promised after they got elected, so you don’t have to worry what it will do to your profolio.

    Just for the discussion, I think universal income will harm the economic in general, including the real estate market. A bunch of able bodies, including me, will just retired, move to a cheaper country, and live off the universal income.

  • Rental Property Investor · San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 401 posts · 221 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell

    I used to backpacking and had a great time traveling the world for less than $1000 per month. Ready to do it again as soon as they pass this law ( no hope thou)

  • Ashland City, TN · Member since 2018 · 12 posts · 2 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Brad Hodach:

    @Benjamin Stewart

    Agree that much government regulation is inflationary, particularly with regards to housing and education. That said most governments are contending with deflationary pressures caused by automation and technology. Putting more dollars in the hands of consumers might persuade companies to create more goods and services instead of simply repurchasing their own stock. The competition among them would likely temper inflation.

    I hear your position and there is definitely the possibility of it producing instead of redistribution, however historically the patterns of consumers stay the same with or without an increase in financial position.  I’ve not seen a historical context where supplying a good or service simply based off of existence produced a long lasting positive effect on the health of the country or any country.  It’s even debatable that the easing of minimum wage raised the quality of life for the consumer in the long run, its simply added 4 points to almost every market on their cost of living index. 

    But back to real estate - I don’t see how this helps the wholesaler or the broker in the long run either. Sure it will move everyone “up” a level if they so choose, but eventually all of us will feel the col increase and be back in this position 7 years from now except with a more expensive economy bust. 

  • Asheville, NC · Member since 2017 · 170 posts · 242 votes
    7y

    I can’t imagine anyone here would disagree that when children aren’t fed, don’t have a place to sleep or stability in their lives, it makes it hard to succeed in school. And without a decent education, it’s that much harder to get ahead as adults.

    It’s clear that a vast number of people here , most of you with penises and educations, have little grasp of raising children as a single mother but are more than happy to go ahead and assume single moms would squander $1,000/mo.

    My assistant is paid $15/hr and works 10-15/hrs week. She used to work in excess of 50/week before she was injured on the job (as a bartender) and had back surgery. Now she gets housing assistance (qualifies for a 2br with 3 kids) and 17/hrs a week daycare.

    $1,000/month for her would be a nice cushion if her car breaks down again so she doesn’t have to get a title loan and repay $2300 just to borrow $600.

    It would let her afford more daycare and childcare on weekends so she could work more.

    She’d also likely start paying her own rent so she could have a 3 bedroom with a yard so her kids could be outside more. She’d likely have avoided bedbugs, which she recent had to pay to treat, and pay to replace all her soft goods furniture, after a neighboring apartment was infested.

    So many kids don’t have the familial support my assistant has, and they suffer and grow up suffering. The end up with addictions, emotional issues and environmental challenges that make it harder for them to be the productive members of society we expect.

    I personally would likely not be here if I didn’t have my father to raise me when my mother became too disabled to take care of herself or kids. My dad sent me to college and got up every damn morning to make me breakfast as a kid. He’s given us everything so we can be successful.

    How many smart kids don’t have that dad and are left untapped because we put a greater value on amazon paying $0 corporate taxes?

    (Not saying I agree with UBI but it’s clear some of y’all have some pretty high and mighty attitudes about yourselves and aren’t taking a good look at the opportunities that allowed you to be where you are).

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

    @Wes Blackwell Way too long of a post to even consider reading/completely irrelevant as well.

     Then why would you waste even more space with a useless comment?

    If the information is not useful to you, then don't read it, and don't waste space by commenting and telling everyone you didn't read it, because you're not adding anything to the conversation. Talk about being irrelevant.

    Have you ever stopped to consider that if I didn't write a thorough post on the subject, half of the replies would be people simply commenting and telling me what I left out of the post? 

    There are obviously plenty of people who DO find this information interesting and useful, as there are over 160 replies and it is a trending topic on the forums.

    Do you want to know why I have hundreds of upvotes on my posts (more than actual posts), and over 33 awards, while you only have 4? 

    Because when I joined this site, I saw that people like you were giving twitter size answers to extremely complicated real estate problems, and I decided to actually take the time to write longer informative posts that were actually useful.

    This site is full of people who are just trying to better their life and provide for their family, and have never purchased a single property before. So they NEED lengthy posts like this to keep them informed of the issues.

    As someone who lives this every day, I consider it my duty to be more informed than my clients and provide relevant information about market trends that may affect them.

    And when a major democratic presidential candidate is running on a platform that promises to give everyone $1,000/mo, and is getting major press for it, you better believe that it has the potential to affect the housing market and U.S. Economy. So it's worth being discussed, as evident by the number of replies to this post.

    So I'm sorry I couldn't keep my post to 140 characters. Perhaps you should try following real estate investors on Twitter, as I'm assuming books must be too long for you to consider reading either.

    Being too cool to read stopped being cool back in high school, bro.

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

     Productivity went up, but wages didn't.

    Who cares about productivity and labor force participation if costs keep going up and wages aren't going up with it? Isn't affordability and quality of life what are REALLY important in any given society?

    California has an economy that is the fifth largest in the world as a nation, when it's only a single state, boasting a $3 trillion gross state product. Talk about productivity! What an overachiever!

    Yet, the state also tops the charts as having the worst quality of life, and also is the most expensive state in the US to earn a living wage.

    A family of 2 adults and 1 child requires $48,537 to reach a living wage in Mississippi. That’s almost 30% cheaper than California where it takes $68,190 to reach a living wage.

    Which doesn't seem that bad, yet when you consider that 30 of the 40 million people who live in this state reside in either the Bay Area ($117k to be considered 'low income') or Southern California (where fewer than half of all jobs pay a living wage).

    So yes, tech will make everybody more efficient and productive. Woo hoo. That's great. 

    But who cares if wages aren't rising to match and people can't afford housing or life a decent life? Shouldn't that be the goal? The quality of life for our nation's citizens?

    Artificial Intelligence can already outperform most people on IQ tests, performing at the same level of people who hold bachelor's and master degrees.

    Yet we sit here playing make believe that as a capitalist society we aren't going to replace human workers en masse as soon as it becomes feasible to do a decent job with AI that doesn't need time off, sick pay, or employment taxes. Ha!

    I think what most people do is look around and say "How much can really change in 10 years?" instead of "How much can really change in 20-30 years?"

    I don't think so much about how AI will affect me (it will, and already has as a real estate agent)... more so about about my children are going to fare when they are my age.

    Even then, it will probably still be in a transitional period, with the AI we see in science fiction movies much more likely to affect my grand kids.

    But as more jobs continue to be automated, without equal paying jobs to replace them, and more and more people being born to compete for the remaining jobs, costs will continue to increase through inflation and demand while wages don't grow to match them, as we are already seeing.

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

    @Lauren B.

    "Penises" -- WOW!

    First of all, while several posters did say that the money would be squandered by some people (which is certainly true beyond a shadow of a doubt), only one poster specifically mentioned mothers. I went back and searched every single post for the word "mom" and "mother."

    Here's the post:

    @Alvin Sylvain

    "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."

    I believe what Alvin was referring to was the optics that politicians would use in order to keep a welfare system in place. He believes that politicians will try to earn voter sympathy by showing all the personal stories of disadvantaged receivers of this benefit, and asking how are they supposed to live once this money is taken away because they now rely on it.

    While UBI would certainly help these disadvantaged people, we already have welfare systems in place for that (which could be improved), and the vast majority of recipients will be every day people and a good percentage of them probably won't think long term and probably will spend the money poorly.

    As another poster said, "being good with money" is a skill, and without that being developed giving people handouts isn't going to help. It's just going to give more money to ultimately go back into the hands of people who are good with it, just like Monopoly.

    Second, you should not assume that all of us who do not hold your same political opinions had advantageous childhoods without suffering.

    I come from a home with a single mother, who to this day has not received a single cent of support from my father, and came from a poor family and never earned a college degree herself either.

    But you know what I DID see my mother do? Get a job commuting out of town so she could earn more income and save up enough money so she could buy her first house and we could stop moving from apartment to apartment or constantly be living with family members.

    After she bought the house, there were certainly some scares. I remember when there were cutbacks in the California budget and my mother worried about losing her job. I remember her crying at the kitchen table afraid that we were about to lose the home she had worked so hard for. I remember having holes in my clothes and not telling my mom I needed new ones because I knew she didn't have the money and I didn't want to feel like a burden.

    And it all worked out. My mother is now selling that same home, the first home she ever bought, and is retiring. She never pulled money out during the bubble, and kept working and paying her bills while all our neighbors got foreclosed on. All for me. And I can't thank her enough.

    So despite growing up poor with a single mother as a parent, I turned out ok too. Why?

    Because despite those disadvantages I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps and improved my life by my own efforts. And I'm willing to bet a majority of the posters in this thread have done the same.

    Yes, we all see the posts where some 30 year old's granpda just died and he's wondering how he should invest the $2 million dollars he's about to inherit. But that's the exception, not the rule.

    I remember when I was fresh out of high school working at a waiter while going to the local community college. I was waiting on this table where a kid my age was wearing a yuppie sweater tied around his neck like he had just come back from the country club.

    He talked about how he wanted to go out of state to a major university, but his parents wanted him to stay local and offered to buy him a house if he did.

    MAN I wanted to be that guy! I remember going back into the kitchen and realizing that I'm working a job I hate begging for tips just to try and get by, and this kid is getting a free ride wherever he wants to go with the largest safety net ever. 

    But then a few years later when I started bartending, I met one of the regulars who was my age and his parents owned the local bank. He was a trust fund baby without a worry in the world.

    And you know what he was? A degenerate drug dealer. Same for his best friend Mike who's father was co-owner in the restaurant I worked in.

    His father was LOADED because he owned a household product you've certainly heard of and had recently sold it. Yet despite having all the opportunity in the world, his son was a total pothead and spent his 20's pursuing a music career as a rapper. And you haven't heard any of his songs on the radio either.

    Some people get advantages early in life, while others don't. But at the end of the day all an individual has is his own efforts. 

    THAT is what is important. That individuals learn from their parents to work hard and apply themselves to the best of the efforts. That's all anyone has. Because even if you hand someone a check for a million dollars, it's not going to mean a thing if they don't spend it wisely.

  • Camille T.Pro Member
    Member since 2019 · 44 posts · 33 votes
    7y

    @John Sharpe exactly.  If it passes, invest in casinos, liquor stores, pot houses, amazon etc.

  • Investor · Anchorage, AK · Member since 2013 · 229 posts · 133 votes
    7y

    @Wes Blackwell - I don't much care for your style of blasting people that question the relevance of this topic - better to smile and move on. Moving on:

    I'm a life-long Alaska resident and have been receiving "basic income" my whole life, so can add to the conversation here. We have no income tax, no state sales tax, and use the royalties from oil and gas to fund the state government. Our state and local taxes (SALT) amount to about 4% for the highest decile, and 6% for the lowest decile. Funding the government hasn't been working so great recently and the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) has been cut for the last three years to a much smaller amount (about $1,000) to fund the state budget.

    The PFD was originally established as a way for the state to share its wealth with the people who live here. The fund was seeded with oil royalties from about 1975 to 1985. Since then, the Alaska Permanent Fund has been invested in markets around the world and is a premier member of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds. No part of the dividend is a direct royalty from the oil leases here, but many uninformed people believe it is directly from oil.

    The PFD has been a really big topic because each person gets one. When you add these together, they can make a really big change in family budgets in the low-mid incomes. Can you imagine giving a family of 5 an additional $15,000 all at once? How about $60,000 if this proposed basic income becomes a reality? How often the money gets distributed will influence if it gets added to housing budgets. As a general observation, most people don’t end up putting it toward housing here. Here are my personal observations of where the dividend gets spent:

    • Credit Card Bills – people will often spend in deficit here. When they receive the PFD, it will go towards the credit card balance they’ve been carrying for the last 11 months.
    • Cars, Trucks, Cell phones and TVs – People that want to have the latest and greatest will use it to upgrade these or go bigger than they would have otherwise been able to afford.
    • Donate it to a charity – usually people donate a small part to a charity.
    • College savings – Responsible parents may choose to put their child’s dividend toward a college fund. This is what I do for my children’s income.
    • Go on vacation – Many people use these to go to Hawaii in the winter, or at the very least Seattle to get some more vitamin D.

    Other observations– other than save for kid’s college, people don’t really invest the money. It gets distributed, then immediately spent. Can you imagine the lines at Costco? The saddest thing about it really is that parents have full autonomy over their child’s income. Their money gets spent, but not always for their benefit. Additionally, people that need the money feel entitled and it shows in their behavior. I would rather have a population of people who work for everything, than a bunch of people dependent on this income.

    My personal history of spending basic income has been: Years 1-12 - Parents spent it all. Years 13-19 Computers and video games. Years 20-present, tuition and student loans. Certainly, my personal spending of basic income got better over time, especially as I gained control over the funds. But the average high school educated person (we are a blue collar state), it will barely touch their wallets and won’t have any wealth re-distribution effect for them – which is the idea behind it correct?

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

    @Connor Dunham

    Very interesting... seems as though since it comes once a year people are treating it essentially just like they would a tax return.

    The part about credit card bills is especially interesting. People may view a monthly UBI as a $1,000 credit card they get every month and spend it on cars, trucks, cell phones, etc. like you mentioned. 

    I think that it could be a complete game-changer for those in need who use it wisely, but if the majority uses it to get the latest iphone, nikes, etc. then it will all be for naught. 

    That's why before it goes on a nationwide scale, it should be tested in a much smaller market first and studied. 

    Great post.

  • Investor · Naples, FL · Member since 2016 · 256 posts · 75 votes
    7y

    ...........................................................I think that it could be a complete game-changer for those in need who use it wisely, but if the majority uses it to get the latest iphone, nikes, etc. then it will all be for naught..................................................................

    The problem is that IMHO  most of those in need will SPEND the money instead of saving it....................................my  dos centavos

  • downey, CA · Member since 2018 · 70 posts · 13 votes
    7y

    So I'm guessing this post is in regards to this video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAtyv8NpbFQ

  • Santa Rosa, CA · Member since 2017 · 325 posts · 701 votes
    7y
    Originally posted by @Wes Blackwell:

     Productivity went up, but wages didn't.

    Who cares about productivity and labor force participation if costs keep going up and wages aren't going up with it? Isn't affordability and quality of life what are REALLY important in any given society?

    California has an economy that is the fifth largest in the world as a nation, when it's only a single state, boasting a $3 trillion gross state product. Talk about productivity! What an overachiever!

    Yet, the state also tops the charts as having the worst quality of life, and also is the most expensive state in the US to earn a living wage.

    A family of 2 adults and 1 child requires $48,537 to reach a living wage in Mississippi. That’s almost 30% cheaper than California where it takes $68,190 to reach a living wage.

    Which doesn't seem that bad, yet when you consider that 30 of the 40 million people who live in this state reside in either the Bay Area ($117k to be considered 'low income') or Southern California (where fewer than half of all jobs pay a living wage).

    So yes, tech will make everybody more efficient and productive. Woo hoo. That's great. 

    But who cares if wages aren't rising to match and people can't afford housing or life a decent life? Shouldn't that be the goal? The quality of life for our nation's citizens?

    Artificial Intelligence can already outperform most people on IQ tests, performing at the same level of people who hold bachelor's and master degrees.

    Yet we sit here playing make believe that as a capitalist society we aren't going to replace human workers en masse as soon as it becomes feasible to do a decent job with AI that doesn't need time off, sick pay, or employment taxes. Ha!

    I think what most people do is look around and say "How much can really change in 10 years?" instead of "How much can really change in 20-30 years?"

    I don't think so much about how AI will affect me (it will, and already has as a real estate agent)... more so about about my children are going to fare when they are my age.

    Even then, it will probably still be in a transitional period, with the AI we see in science fiction movies much more likely to affect my grand kids.

    But as more jobs continue to be automated, without equal paying jobs to replace them, and more and more people being born to compete for the remaining jobs, costs will continue to increase through inflation and demand while wages don't grow to match them, as we are already seeing.

    Great.   So we all agree, technology has not cause a decrease in employment.   Because your comments about  quality of life is completely different than the original argument (and I will address below).   Before I moved on I just wanted to confirm that we all agree that up to this point, technology has not factually caused a reduction in employment, as your graph shows and you admit.  You can believe whatever you want about going forward, but as far as human history to this point it is clear technology has created more jobs than it has eliminated.

    Now, as for your arguments you are all over the board but I will try to systematically address them.

    1.   I never argued that AI or other technologies won't replace workers.   That has already happened and I hope it continues to happen.   Technology has replaced lot of jobs, some dirty and dangerous (mining and agriculture) and some simply boring and repetitive.   I am not going to yearn for the days when warehouse sized rooms where filled with women in a typing pool having now been replaced with PCs and printers.   Jobs will be eliminated...and replaced with higher and better callings.   If AI can be a better engineer than me, then I will have to find a new job.    Such is the advancement of technology.   Individuals will be hurt, but overall it is best for society.   Honestly, would your really want to freeze the advancement of technology even if you could?   In your 20-30 year time frame think of the amazing things we will see and be able to do!   Why would you want to stagnate?

    2.  Since there is no subjective measure of "quality of life" I will just provide counter examples.   We live in an age where 96% of the US population owns a pocket sized computer capable of instantaneous wireless worldwide transfer of information in the megabyte per second range.   92% of households own a car which is capable of traveling hundreds of miles per day at a whim.   Smallpox, Polio, measles and a variety of other diseases have been effectively  eradicated.   99.8% of the US population is housed.  So few people starve in the US every year it is not even on the statistics.    Simply put the quality of life in the USA is the highest it has ever been and that is thanks to technology.   Again, the facts just don't support the argument.

    The quality of life rankings using voter participation and "community engagement" are great for headlines.   They only show that the actual things that kill and hurt people are so low in this country we have had to make up problems just for something to complain about.  

    3.   As for wages....well others have written about it better than I can

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/03/us-wages-have-been-rising-faster-than-productivity-for-decades/#2bf98c077342

    It is a free country Wes, you can believe the end is coming I cant convince you otherwise.   But I would suggest an objective review of the data shows a much brighter picture and that light is due to technology.  

  • Investor · San Francisco, CA · Member since 2016 · 338 posts · 444 votes
    7y

    @Connor Dunham, I like that you posted based on actual experience - I haven't heard from an alaskan up to this point. One thought occurred to me when reading your last sentence about the idea being a "wealth re-distribution effect". Actually, when I listened to Andrew Yang talk about it, or other tech leaders, I don't think it's so much about wealth re-distribution in the end. I mean, yes it is, but it seems to me the ultimate goal is really about "taming the masses". 

    I know this sounds like it comes from some dystopian idea, but if what they talk about really comes to pass, then they're talking about a reasonably long period for society when a vast amount of the labor force is unemployable because their skill sets do not match the jobs available. As Yang put it, what do you think happens if you get rid of 3 million trucking jobs in a few years with no backstop? I think this is the key that a lot of folks are overlooking about the potential purpose for UBI. I totally get it if people just don't believe society will hit this type of disaster - that's fair, but if we truly do hit an inflection point with jobs being replaced en masse, then these folks talking about UBI along with other cultural rethinking are really talking about how to keep people who've been shoved aside by technology from rioting. 

    From this perspective, it doesn't really matter whether people spend the money responsibly or not. It just matters whether they have some money in their pocket along with some other sense of purpose (which Yang and others talk about), to keep them, at a minimum, relatively content.

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