Those seem incompatible to me.

(UBI means Universal Basic Income, giving everyone a basic income, for free)

  • Landmammals@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The problem with that argument is that UBI frees up people to move to lower cost of living areas.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It also means there’s more money in the pool of demand for housing, so as long as it’s a free market there will be more effort applied to fulfilling housing needs.

      • Landmammals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I grew up in a small coal town in Southern Illinois. The last time I was there was for my grandfather’s funeral. The town was abandoned and empty, even compared to when I was growing up which certainly wasn’t it’s booming time. Most of the stores on main Street were closed except the bar and the legion which is also a bar.

        I’d move back in a heartbeat, but there’s no jobs there. The house that five generations of my family lived in sold for $30,000.

        If we had Ubi, my family and I would definitely live there. A few thousand dollars a month to make sure we survive and money actually coming into the town? It would seem like a miracle and I know there’s so many little towns like that all across America that are just completely forgotten about.

        People like to say that the rent will just go up to match ubi, but underestimate the number of people who live in cities solely because that’s where the work is.