You give the constraints of the middle class worried they’ll slip down, not the poorest Americans directly. If 12% of Americans live in poverty, then the example concerns are those of the 12-50th percentiles. You say the lumpen-proletariat will always exist, but prove that the lives of the proletariat won’t improve much.
“credentialist colleges that raise their prices to capture more and more of the returns to the credential, until huge portions of the former middle class’s early-life earnings”—Explicitly not the poorest.
“Like working 60-hour weeks to afford rent somewhere the school districts will damage your child less”—but a lot of people’s kids do go to the worst school districts. I’d say if your kid goes to a bad school that’s poverty, not the person who sends their kid to a better school.
“rents in San Francisco would almost instantly rise by the amount of the UBI; no janitors in the Bay Area would be better off as a result”—But housing prices over all of the US won’t rise by the amount of UBI. Some would move out of SF to cheaper areas. They’ve been given an option they preferred so their lives have improved. UBI only does them no good if everyone choose to stay in SF, but why would they?
“maybe the Ferguson police departments of the world, just raise their annual quota for fines per capita by the per capita UBI.”—This assumes the policing level is set by the wealth of the poor. I think it’s set by the level that generates political opposition. Claims there’s on 12% as many arrest warrants after 6 years, clearly a political decision not a reduction in wealth. The Police in Beverly Hills are not stationary bandits nor are SF Cops making more in fines. I don’t think it’s a law of history that governments automatically grind down any surplus the poorest have.
The example of Anoxistan relies on the people not being able to afford the most necessary Oxygen, if they had to work 60 hour weeks to get cars, and some people choose to forgo cars, then that’s clearly an improvement.
The idea that poverty is squeeze from the tightest constraint, not the average of constraints is interesting, but you don’t talk about the tightest constraint on the poorest. I suspect those have eased up: look at average hours worked, or the labor participation rate, or stories of the voluntarily homeless who work 3 months a year. All indicate that some people choose not to work much, thus their constraints are smaller.
“But housing prices over all of the US won’t rise by the amount of UBI”.
If UBI were being offered across the US, I would expect them to rise by the amount of UBI.
If UBI is restricted to SF, then moving out of SF to take advantage of lower rents would not make sense, since you would also be giving up the UBI payments of equivalent value to do so.
(Edit): If you disagree, I’d appreciate it if you can explain, or link me to some resources where I can learn more. I’m aware that my economic model is probably simplistic and I’m interested in improving it.
You give the constraints of the middle class worried they’ll slip down, not the poorest Americans directly. If 12% of Americans live in poverty, then the example concerns are those of the 12-50th percentiles. You say the lumpen-proletariat will always exist, but prove that the lives of the proletariat won’t improve much.
“credentialist colleges that raise their prices to capture more and more of the returns to the credential, until huge portions of the former middle class’s early-life earnings”—Explicitly not the poorest.
“Like working 60-hour weeks to afford rent somewhere the school districts will damage your child less”—but a lot of people’s kids do go to the worst school districts. I’d say if your kid goes to a bad school that’s poverty, not the person who sends their kid to a better school.
“rents in San Francisco would almost instantly rise by the amount of the UBI; no janitors in the Bay Area would be better off as a result”—But housing prices over all of the US won’t rise by the amount of UBI. Some would move out of SF to cheaper areas. They’ve been given an option they preferred so their lives have improved. UBI only does them no good if everyone choose to stay in SF, but why would they?
“maybe the Ferguson police departments of the world, just raise their annual quota for fines per capita by the per capita UBI.”—This assumes the policing level is set by the wealth of the poor. I think it’s set by the level that generates political opposition. Claims there’s on 12% as many arrest warrants after 6 years, clearly a political decision not a reduction in wealth. The Police in Beverly Hills are not stationary bandits nor are SF Cops making more in fines. I don’t think it’s a law of history that governments automatically grind down any surplus the poorest have.
The example of Anoxistan relies on the people not being able to afford the most necessary Oxygen, if they had to work 60 hour weeks to get cars, and some people choose to forgo cars, then that’s clearly an improvement.
The idea that poverty is squeeze from the tightest constraint, not the average of constraints is interesting, but you don’t talk about the tightest constraint on the poorest. I suspect those have eased up: look at average hours worked, or the labor participation rate, or stories of the voluntarily homeless who work 3 months a year. All indicate that some people choose not to work much, thus their constraints are smaller.
“The system will always grind you down”, but you’re allowed to opt out and it’s getting easier all the time.
“But housing prices over all of the US won’t rise by the amount of UBI”.
If UBI were being offered across the US, I would expect them to rise by the amount of UBI.
If UBI is restricted to SF, then moving out of SF to take advantage of lower rents would not make sense, since you would also be giving up the UBI payments of equivalent value to do so.
(Edit): If you disagree, I’d appreciate it if you can explain, or link me to some resources where I can learn more. I’m aware that my economic model is probably simplistic and I’m interested in improving it.