Money has worth because of the value a region generates.
If you have 10 units of currency and then 10 more are printed with no more value generated you have inflation.
If you keep 10 units of currency but more value is generated you have deflation.
If you just change who has the 10 units of currency that's not inflationary or deflationary, that's redistribution of the value.
UBI is just giving workers back some of the value they have generated that has been capture by the owner class.
It's funded not through 'printing press go brrr' (deficit spending) but through actual redistribution of that value more equitably.
The entire disjointed and bloated gov't safety net apparatus of food stamps, WIC, Rental Subsidies, EITC, disability, unemployment, and more. would go away along with the bloated salaries of the people who run all of those programs.
So massive amounts of tax money would be saved at the start.
UBI is actually a small government conservatives dream.
Then there's also the possibility that the jobs it creates from increased demand due to an economy with a much higher flow of money, could have a deflationary aspect which would allow the money printer to go brr a little bit.
Then also, who know what kinds of new innovation would happen from smart people free to pursue their own goals without worrying about financial insecurity.
Taxes would go up on the rich probably moderately.
But it's doable and affordable and the country would be so much better off in my opinion.
What constrains your landlord from jacking up rent is competition. If he jacks up rent by $200 but the landlord across the street has an empty apartment he'd be glad to rent out for $1000 he'll think twice about jacking your rent.
The housing crisis in America is a supply issue. UBI has nothing to do with it.
Inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon. If they pay for UBI with deficit spending it might crank up inflation, but if it's fully funded it won't.
I remember, back around 2008, houses were popping up everywhere. You don't really see much of that anymore, at least in my experience. ALSO, lumber prices are HIGH and its not as profitable to build new houses, at the moment. But what if this is a larger lumber shortage/sustainability issue? What then?
Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
Only if you're using your home as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. But that has the same problems as eg, farmers and/or grocers having a financial interest in engineering a famine in order to drive up food prices.
> Could it be a mix of material supply issues and interest groups that are maintaining a housing shortage?
Probably, yes, plus various other factors in varying amounts.
For example if I gave everyone 250k and told them to all go out and buy a ferrari, its actually impossible. There are not enough cars and prices would rise substantially to box out people again. The same principal goes for homes, healthcare, education, etc. The best way to increase standard of living is to increase production and efficiency to meet everyone's needs in all service and product categories.