Not sure I follow how the milk as a substitute for water analogy translates to housing. There are no substitutes for housing in desirable areas. When the entire working class suddenly has more income, it doesn't create more housing, it pushes up the price of housing. Sure we could build more, but why? After all, if the price of affordable housing goes up, so does less affordable housing, and luxury housing. And we end up in the same place, except with inflation.
UBI removes the geographical constraints that have been distorting the US housing market. There are plenty of areas in the country that would gladly absorb excess housing demand, but the lack the jobs and economic prospects of those areas make it difficult under current circumstances.
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.
If people are moving to areas that lack jobs and economic prospects, because they can survive on UBI, you’ve just burdened a bunch of small towns with people who aren’t interested in making more money.
Towns need tax revenue, which doesn’t come in sufficient quantity from people happily volunteering on a UBI wage.
These places are already overburdened by people living off of social security and disability insurance. At least with UBI they will get a better mix of working aged and abled bodied individuals.
Yes. Also, first home owner's grants increased prices. Reduced interest rates increased house prices. Perhaps the great covid-19 WFH experiment will (partially) undermine the housing geography monopoly.
Would socialist free housing, utilities, food, medical care, education might work better than UBI? What incentives would make capitalism provide them?
Capitalism can't provide housing, utilities, food, medical care and education for free.
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.
You could have the choice to refuse the UBI and end up in a similar position to homeless today, though most homeless did not make a choice not to work.
But, could you choose to not be one of the taxpayers to fund UBI?
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.
If you don't make any income, you aren't paying for it. You can have your issues with UBI, but "the government could force you to work to pay taxes" isn't any scarier than the current situation, where not working can just kill you.
People still work in countries with free medical care and education.
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.
