The idea was proposed by two Democrats, so you know it has zero chance in this administration. We couldn’t even get our student loans forgiven.
The idea was proposed by two Democrats, so you know it has zero chance in this administration. We couldn’t even get our student loans forgiven.
What I don’t get is the assumption that a fixed stipend of currency will provide for basic necessities.
If the society was committed to universal housing, food and healthcare access then just make that the stated goal and get those funds involved directly in housing/food/healthcare. Just giving someone $1000 doesn’t stop their landlord from increasing rent by $900 to match; a government owned housing alternative does.
It doesn’t need to; market forces do that. The supply and demand for housing don’t actually change just because the buyers have more money in their budget (to divide among housing and other things) so it’s not reasonable to expect prices to rise all that much either.
I admit, that’s not a super-satisfactory answer, but it’s a complicated and counterintuitive enough topic that nothing I could write succinctly enough for a Lemmy comment would address all possible counterarguments. As such, best I can do is cite some sources that explore it more fully:
https://widerquist.com/will-basic-income-cause-rent-to-increase/
https://ubiadvocates.org/will-universal-basic-income-increase-house-prices-and-rents/
https://ask.metafilter.com/367648/How-does-universal-basic-income-not-mean-rent-going-up-the-same-amount
https://www.givedirectly.org/how-do-cash-transfers-impact-neighbors/ [this is the “Kenya study” referenced by somebody in the Metafilter thread from the previous bullet point]
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters
I don’t claim to be an economist but I’m doubtful that pulling indirect levers and letting the market regulate itself works. If it did we’d already be 45 years into a Reaganomic utopia.