I don't understand how this example describes a situation where inflation is a non-issue. I used to be able to afford to drink milk; now, due to inflation, I can only afford to drink water. That sounds like inflation. What am I missing from this example?
Inflation requires a persistent and durable increase in the price of a good. The first issue is that a large proportion of individuals in modern economies are barely making enough money to make ends meet. They are very sensitive to price. An increase in the price of milk would likely cause them to switch to alternatives, thus lowering demand for milk which would then bring the price back down. In effect, the constraint on the wages of the lower classes acts as a constraint on prices of goods. And the second factor, is that in these modern global economies, we have plenty of replacements for almost all types of goods. So if a drought in the mid-west causes soy prices to spike, people will just east less soy based products and switch to something cheaper for a while.
COVID-19 could disrupt that of course. But my hunch is that within a few months after the lockdowns are over, most supply chains will be back up and running. At that point we will be back to being demand constrained (perhaps significantly so if the economic impact is severe enough).
When Chavez goes nutty, people don't want his currency, it starts to crash, he prints to pay his bills, it really crashes. This is where all the inflation crisis comes.
2) The 'milk substitute' thing I think illustrates the opposite point you're trying to make. Having to give up Milk to drink water is a severely negative consequence! Projected across all of one's lifestyle and habits, it would be comparable to giving up a car to ride only the bus. Giving up Netflix for 'library books'. This implies a serious degradation in the quality of life.
If anything though, we've been concerned about deflation for a very long time, not inflation.
If everyone gave up Netflix for library books, I think that’d be a massive societal win.
Other than that, I agree with your point.
But we can choose books anytime, and we don't. So when you and I think about 'win' it must be different than what 'everyone else wants' at least in terms of how they actively chose to spend their time.
In addition if it got to the point where someone priced milk so high that customers were abandoning that segment of the beverage market, an aspiring milk empire builder could enter the market with lower prices.
The assumption being made in the allegory is that water and milk fill the same role as “something to drink,” with no qualitative difference in consideration.
Also everybody has low interest rates for their houses. It’s not only open to speculators- there are people getting almost 3% interest, which is quite low.
Case 1: With no UBI the person who works in food service has to live an hour or more out of town and commutes to work each day. This is because their pay is better in town than out of town so it's worth it financially overall. Or they simply are paying more in housing costs than they should, are feeding money up the rent chain instead of saving to say own their own house and have a tenuous living environment for a family.
Case 2: With UBI the person can just move to a place where housing costs are $300 a month and do whatever they want without worrying about how they'll support themselves in an emergency where they can't find work. They could start a business. Volunteer. Stay at home and raise kids. Take care of the neighbors kids and teach them gardening. Or work if the pay is actually high enough to justify it, which seems to push more money down to human workers over profit automatons. Hey, teachers could live and teach in cities with smaller school budgets!
Is that inflation? I suppose in the sense of rising buying power diluting the dollar some, but assuming it's paid for by a high progressive tax after a certain income amount, I think it's just wealth redistribution that levels out the overall geographical housing cost to income ratio.
I think it would reduce the power of landlords, though certainly doomsayers say it will just push up rental and house prices. I think this is possible to a point, but honestly seems too locally focused. I think a lot of people would leave where they are if they knew they could support themselves somewhere new.
$1000 a month would offset decreased pay more in an absolute sense in a lower cost of living area. This will make it feasible for a family to move safely to a new place without a job lined up. Or know that if they join a union and get fired they'll have baseline support. It's hard for me to see this as favoring anyone but lower income human workers even if it's not perfect in every way.
Its also worth mentioning that the US is very big and there are a lot of places that are just not that attractive to live in[1]. So I feel like it will be quite a while before we get to that point.
And a final point. UBI is not meant to provide free rent. It is a form of social welfare and safety net. The fact that the real estate market is so imbalanced in the US is a failure of capitalism (why aren't startups and companies moving to low-cost of living areas?) And the fact that UBI can help bring some balance to real estate markets is nice side benefit, but its main goal it to act as a counter weight to the ruthlessness of market economies.
I'm not saying it's good for San Francisco tech workers, but I don't think rent costing two thirds of your take home pay is historically typical. Based on that history I do not think landlords could effectively collude to keep prices high if people are willing and able to walk away.
There are two kinds of goods. The ones like computers and phones which are steadily getting cheaper and the ones like housing whose price has got inflated enormously. Remember how we tried to fix the education problem by student loans and how we tried to alleviate the housing burden by mortgage tax deduction and subsidies of interests? I don't think the problem is people are unable to afford milk or a shiny iPhone. It is the price of housing, education, and healthcare.
I don't understand how anyone ever thought that making it easier to borrow money would make things with inelastic demand more affordable. People will pay what they must to get food and shelter. If you make tertiary education non-negotiable in getting a job, then people will pay what they must to get an education. If you loan them huge sums then you just reduce price insensitivity and create a massive pricing bubble.
Some context that was left out, inflation has been stubbornly low this past decade[1]. For many of us, this feels counterintuitive based on our experience with housing, education and healthcare. But as you pointed out, globalization and industrialization has resulted in downward pressure on prices of a wide array of goods. And when you factor housing costs across the entire US population (and not just the high COL areas), the inflation math sort of pencils out[2].
And my original point was that inflation caused by UBI should not be a concern because a) the prices of iPhones and milk are constrained by forces that are beyond the impact of UBI (globalization, hyper-efficient capitalism, etc..) and because b) prices of housing, education, and healthcare have long since untethered themselves from needing to be affordable (so UBI, which largely benefits the working class and poor, will have little impact there).
[1] https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economi...
[2] I disagree with how the Fed has handled monetary policy the past few years. Even if the inflation numbers support their moves, they seem to be willfully ignoring very large bubbles (real estate, VC) forming due to their policies.
For instance, rents are proportionally related to the income of the population. How can we prevent the extra cash flow from being translated into higher rent/housing prices? If I have that extra cash, I would certainly 'leverage' it to expand my real estate portfolio :)
That said, I don't object to UBI per se and I agree that the Fed's policy would lead to some undesirable consequences. But without addressing the problem systematically, UBI would go nowhere better, I am afraid.
Here is another angle to look at the issue from. We have been relying on monetary stimulus for the last decade to keep the economy chugging along. The landlord class has been benefiting from that via cheaper interest rates. What if, instead of lowering rates, we did a UBI and in your proposed scenario, most of that money just results in high rents. Well, we would be roughly in the same spot we are in (stimulus largely benefiting landlords), but with the key difference that people who are really struggling (living in their car for example) can use that cash to get back on their feet. Also, because the money passes through multiple peoples hands before eventually getting sucked up by the wealthy, it will actually result in higher measured economic activity (because GDP is basically measure the velocity of money).
So I guess, that is what I don't understand. Our current policy is to just shovel money to the wealthy. They in turn just bid up the price of stocks, real estate, art, yachts, super bowl tickets, etc.. creating an inflationary bubble for rich people things. With a UBI, the working class gets first dibs on that stimulus, and every one up the chain will benefit (including small businesses, which also don't bet much benefit from monetary stimulus).
For example, even with UBI, a startup will still tend to want to locate in Silicon Valley than in, say, Amarillo Texas.
The sheer ability to grab a drink with someone who can change you life in tech does not exist in the same proportion in Amarillo as it does in Silicon Valley. Hence, housing prices will differ.
This is also why there are more oil companies in Houston than in Atlanta, despite the roughly same size metro area.
Towns need tax revenue, which doesn’t come in sufficient quantity from people happily volunteering on a UBI wage.
Would socialist free housing, utilities, food, medical care, education might work better than UBI? What incentives would make capitalism provide them?
People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort. Then how would the government be able to pay for the free stuff if it wasn't able to tax workers?
Edit: It occurred to me the government could lock people up in work camps in order to be able to tax them.
So people end up in a situation where they are forced to work in order to survive, the same situation they are in now.
I say if you want to do UBI, add a checkbox on the tax return where a person can choose to donate $1000 to the UBI program out of their tax refund. Let the UBI recipients all have an equal share of the funds collected from that checkbox.
Your opt in situation couldn't be considered UBI.
> People would just quit their job if they got all that with no effort.
Citation needed. All previous experiments on ubi have shown the opposite. You are just painting a boogeyman, without evidence to back it up.
I think the effect on motivation is the central issue of UBI. There might need to be an adjustment. I know for myself, it can be helpful to be compelled to do something that I've been putting off. Sometimes, people don't feel they have a reason to act, but having to go to work can help. It prevents inactivity and isolation.
Perhaps a focus on mental health and intrinsic motivation will be the answer.
But I think most will naturally aim at higher goals than survival... as they do now.
What happens when the water gets privatized and you can't afford that?
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/water-privatizatio...
>After privatization, water rates increase at about three times the rate of inflation, with an average increase of 18 percent every other year
This is the most basic misunderstanding of economics that I'm 95% confident you have never taken even an introduction to macro course. Demand shocks don't lead to growth, only inflation.