Another poorly crafted SPA app. Click on a post then go back and it jumps to the top on its own. Sometimes there is just a blank screen. Please make it a simple MVC app without JavaScript BS.
It depends, if you have some essential resource where supply is constrained then you might expect inflation. On the other hand goods that are readily available like food or oil shouldn't see any significant difference.
All resources are constrained. Food production requires land which is constrained. No one dies from hunger this days. People receiving UBI will just start buying organic food which is going to increase its price. Rent prices will soar as well because of constrained supply. So do salaries. So do other goods. And boom - there goes inflation.
Why? What mechanism would drive that? In the West we already have more food available than we can reasonably eat. Margins in agriculture are wafer thin driven down by competition.
Compare that to property where there is a limited supply and people are constrained in what they can buy by their salary and ability to get a mortgage.
I'm working and I don't get any basic income. I actually lose income because of taxes. So when you give me 1k a month extra, where exactly will this money come from you say?
If UBI is just a redistribution scheme and aggregate income stays the same, how is UBI than different from the various 'social' countries in Europe such as e.g. Sweden and Finland?
Those countries have progressive income taxes and social benefits for those without work. Isn't this the same as what UBI would look like if aggregate income would stay the same?
I don't understand your assumption about a current high marginal tax rate for poor households. I would say that in a progressive tax system, the marginal tax rate decreases when one's income is lower.
In your other post you state that Finnish effective marginal tax rate for poor persons is more than 80%. Do you have a source for that?
Effective marginal tax rate, not marginal tax rate. EMTR is what how much you actually get when taxes and reduction of welfare with increasing income is taken into account.
It's in Finnish, but if you go to page 13 there is a nice graph. x-axis is wage, EUR/month, y-axis is effective marginal income tax in year 2015 for single person household who pays rent 440 EUR/month. Effective marginal tax rate is the red dotted line.
In page 20 you can see even what single adult with a child can have.
I was actually wrong, the effective marginal tax rate can spike above 11% in some cases.
> UBI removes high marginal tax rate from poor households.
How so? I understand the "it's the same, just with less bureaucracy" camp wants everybody to get UBI, but everyone that's not below a certain threshold will essentially pay all of the UBI back via increased taxation.
So if you get $1000 in welfare now and you earn money, this changes the amount of welfare you receive. I understand that. How does that change if you get $1000 in UBI and for every buck you make, you'll pay essentiall $1 in taxes? You'll still only actually have more money when you're > $1000 on income.
I have a hard time believing that real estate prices will explode.
From what i can see the prices are expected to go down, mostly due to the fact that there's less ppl able to buy due to many being out of work(some for a good while probably as i doubt some jobs/positions will be immediately re-filled). This same thing will cause many to go into foreclosure, this adding new supply to the real estate market. Also banks already tightening credit/loans requirements and availability. All this means larger supply than demand, no reason for real estate to go up.
This is all just starting, curious to see what the end of 2020 will bring and start of 2021.
Also the market doesn't represent the economy and right now most of the money goes into the market creating a false-positive idea that everything's fine. Just my 2 cents.
Agree. It turns out that jumbo mortgage rates are higher than regular mortgages. Banks cannot find buyers for the jumbos because of the anticipated drop in real estate value from the COVID freeze. No one wants to lend to people who might find themselves underwater on a mortgage. AGAIN.
There is quite a lot of stuff going on here, but I think it can still swing both ways. An adverse effect to the one you mentioned could be the flux of debt / bonds to the central banks and the flux of printed money to the investors. This money is looking to be invested (which happened to find real estate post 2008)
The more you build the more people will come.
When can you consider a city to be full? When there is no land to build? Or maybe when it's impossible to provide an infrastructure to support its population?
Are you ok with raising a family in a 400 sq. feet condo like people do in Asia? Because if you increase density that's going to be a new standard for American cities.
The problem is the high concentration of IT businesses in a small region of space. And the solution is to spread it to other cities across US. It's already happening as companies struggle to find workers in SF bay area opening offices in other west coast cities.
> Are you ok with raising a family in a 400 sq. feet condo like people do in Asia? Because if you increase density that's going to be a new standard for American cities.
I'd rather that be an option than only having slightly larger apartments that are unaffordable, like the bay area currently does.
I think Vienna is a better model, though. Dense and highly livable. I live in Munich right now, which is similar. It's a great place for families.
> The problem is the high concentration of IT businesses in a small region of space. And the solution is to spread it to other cities across US.
Wrong. Ecosystem effects are a natural phenomenon. There's a reason you tend to get clusters for industries: they're more effective that way. Forcibly spreading out the economic success also means reducing the economic success in total. A much better option is just letting people come. The bay area isn't dense at all right now anyway.
But if there are already jobs fro them, it's absolutely 100% the responsibility of cities to make sure that they allow enough housing to be built.
Right now California cities are encouraging growth in jobs while simultaneously actively preventing any sort of balance with housing. This has great effects for the pocket books of landowners in cities, and tremendously negative effects for the environment and all the workers that come later.
It's a completely false strawman to assert that families in 400sqft condos are the inevitable result of density. But we know what happens when nothing is built, that families savings are drained until they are forced to move to other areas, displacing them. That's by far the worst consequence, and it is the active choice of wealthy people in California.
Yup, and then they move where they can accord: to a sprawling suburb in Texas that's energy-inefficient and cuts more into nature. A real progressive win, that!
It's like these people have infant-style lack of object permanence: if we just make these people leave my city, they disappear! Look how great it is for the environment that they vanished into the aether, never to be seen again!
> Right now California cities are encouraging growth in jobs while simultaneously actively preventing any sort of balance with housing. This has great effects for the pocket books of landowners in cities, and tremendously negative effects for the environment and all the workers that come later.
Interestingly since local regulation is voted on only by locals, either directly or indirectly via their elected officials, the system is naturally catered to the existing land owners. Winning the support of commuters does not win elections.
Cities are full. US population has doubled since 1960. If we get rid of zoning we will end up with overpopulated cities like Hong-Kong, Jakarta, Moscow, Tokyo.
> Here is a startling fact: in 2014 there were 142,417 housing starts in the city of Tokyo (population 13.3m, no empty land), more than the 83,657 housing permits issued in the state of California (population 38.7m), or the 137,010 houses started in the entire country of England (population 54.3m).
> Tokyo’s steady construction is linked to a still more startling fact. In contrast to the enormous house price booms that have distorted western cities — setting young against old, redistributing wealth to the already wealthy, and denying others the chance to move to where the good jobs are — the cost of property in Japan’s capital has hardly budged.
> This is not the result of a falling population. Japan has experienced the same “return to the city” wave as other nations.
No they are not, look at the varience in population density of us cities [0] and it's pretty obvious lots of them can expand. The real problem is that jobs are highly local and people want to live in an area where their are lots of job opportunities. Thus, cities with lots of good job opportunities beget more job opportunities like how Amazon chose New York instead of a smaller city.
When you build more appartments, more people come to the city. It’s a positive feedback loop. The result is a city with terrible quality of life. The city no one wants to live in. Only then it will stop growing.
Yeah, like Tokyo. It's still one of the most amazing places on the planet, with great culture, ready to get around and even beautiful green spaces. But soon it will continue to grow and become awful...<\s>
That is not a problem of population density, that problem is inadequate peak capacity in transportation infrastructure. For example if you stack subway lines one under the other simalar to those described by Elon Musk, or increase the capacity of the existing public transport system through through faster & more frequent trains, you can resolve such issues. You just need to commit to spending on the infrastructure to support the population density.
Interestingly, it is policies like prop 13 in California that restrict the revenue needed to invest in the infrastructure to support higher population densities.
I've been to Tokyo several times and always use public transit, even during rush hour and it honestly has never been worse than the light rail in SF. It gets crowded at times sure and I'm sure there are specific times on some lines when it's this bad that you get staff posing passengers in, however it's far away from being the norm. It's usually pleasant and if take it over my commute on a car any day.
