I've heard this concern before, but what's the assumption that is being made? That UBI will drive more people to cities and increase demand? That landlords would simply increase rent knowing renters have a larger income? That people's long term expectations of inflation changes?
The notion being put forward here is that the more money Joe Sixpack has, the more things will crop up to extract some.
This one seems a serious problem. Home sales too, since sellers know people could make larger mortgage payments.
Is there a good argument for why this will not inevitably transfer much of the money to landowners?
I regularly rent out the guest bedroom in my house. When I do so, I do not run complex formulas to figure out what a particular tenant might be able to afford. I simply look at rents for similar units in the area, and bump it up or down slightly based on the various features and amenities the room has. I don't charge a corporate executive higher rent than I charge a college student. Their ability to pay is not relevant.
You might be thinking "okay, but what if everyone's income went up in an UBI scenario?" Honestly, unless literally all the landlords in a city came together and colluded, you wouldn't see much increase, because we would have the same level of competition we have today.
The market is all the collusion necessary.
? Do you think these rents are set by God or something? The fact that it's a dynamic system doesn't change the fact that the equilibrium (and thus prices) are set through supply and demand.
People receive UBI, more people are able to move out and buy/rent an apartment or house, landlords are getting more applicants and apartment buildings start filling up, some landlords increase price to compensate for increased demand, average rent for an area goes up, the rest of the landlords increase their prices to match the market
> I simply look at rents for similar units in the area
Iterate that and the rents rise until they reach a new, higher global equilibrium.
Which is why I'd prefer to see UBH (Universal Basic Housing).
Only if there is insufficient competition to keep prices down and the market is already broken, which is the case in some areas but not most. In the more notable cases like housing UBI still helps by freeing people to live anywhere instead of cities with plentiful jobs, and even that is largely an artificial problem in developed countries with birth rates below replacement levels.
Income inequality is a problem of massively unequal political and economic power, and of insider knowledge and class-cultural arbitrage - not a problem of income.
If - hypothetically - all the jobs required to provide food, shelter, and other basics were taken over by robots, there would be no reason at all not to provide them for free, and give everyone the political and economic freedom to do whatever they wanted.
It's a fair bet that while most people would do nothing much of interest - including most of those who are currently rent seekers - there would still be enough competitive drive to inspire a decent chunk of the population to excel in art, music, science, math, and other productive activities.
That would be real freedom as a birthright - not as the freedom from economic slavery that can only be earned by contributing to that slavery, as now, but as a true inalienable right.