Re:McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis...
by mlac on Friday February 05, 2021 @01:16PM
(#26039408)
I hear you, but I still question how long those on UBI could get ahead of the rat traps before the non-rat trap options become their old cost + the cost of UBI, effectively transferring most of the UBI benefit to the landlords and ending us up in a similar place.
In my mind, it's about answering the question of how we lower barriers to moving to ownership and getting people out of the poverty cycles. There are two major hurdles I see:
- The current structure right now, and incentives that exist, are so good at extracting money that they might quickly eat up the additional money handed out - whether it's through financial instruments or increased prices for basic necessities.
- The people that consistently don't have money are bad at earning money, bad at keeping money, or some combination of the two. UBI only helps the people who can't earn money, but doesn't solve the financial literacy problem or the root cause that a group of people is bad at keeping money.
It could be that housing rents in certain situations could increase in response to UBI, but in most cases having more money gives one more choice, not less. A family who are now stuck in a rattrap located conveniently with respect to public transport might move to a better cheaper place in a more remote location and buy an old car. They wouldn't have to stay at the mercy of their current landlord. Other people in other situations might respond in other ways.