On: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 [pdf]

[trickstra]

> landlords eventually capture all income gains in the form of rent increases

This is exactly the strongest argument against universal basic income, that nobody wants to address.

[erik_seaberg → trickstra]

We don't have a nationwide housing shortage. UBI might relieve pressure by letting some people relocate away from the local shortages in strong labor markets.

[trickstra → erik_seaberg]

Even when people have the meas to relocate, they are reluctant to do it. If the housing market was fluid enough that we could consider nationwide factors, localized high-rent regions like Seattle, Vancouver or Silicon Valley wouldn't even occur in the first place.

So with or without nationwide housing shortage, any income increase will still be captured by local landlords.

[inflatableDodo → trickstra]

It isn't so much an argument against it, but rather an acknowledgement that it is problematic if not coupled to very strong social housing provision.

[dsfyu404ed → inflatableDodo]

Rent controlling part of the market is so thoroughly considered a failure that it's in economics textbooks. Rent controlling all of the market is a failure to the point where it's in history textbooks.

The rent problem is a de-facto blocker for UBI

[inflatableDodo → dsfyu404ed]

Lots of things are in economics textbooks that are not neccesarily worth the paper they are written on.

Here's an article on the German method of rent control in the Financial Times, 'German rent control works for both landlords and tenants' - https://www.ft.com/content/efe1f74c-3c1d-11e9-9988-28303f70f...

Also, social housing is not the same as rent control.

Around 20% of the housing stock in Denmark is social housing - https://urbanlifecopenhagen.weebly.com/housing.html

[schnitzelstoat → dsfyu404ed]

Social housing provision means the government building/renovating loads of houses though - not rent control.