It can be a very good replacement for social housing, as anybody being homeless if UBI exists would be homeless by choice and so there would be no moral issue about it.

As long as an ubi allows for solving absolute poverty SOMEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY then the moral considerations disappear, and no more welfare is needed.

This is why the left opposes it. Because they don't care at all about solving real poverty for everyone. They want unsolvable problems to justify their political existence.

What is the point of UBI? guaranteeing the basics of survival for every single human being citizen of a country, while keeping the privileges of merit and effort intact in order to avoid discouraging production.

And eliminating all the other welfare entities with their bureaucrats and distortions to the economy.

I think beings have a basic right not to be tortured for the pleasure of others, but we disagree on that. 60 sqm flats would fall under the heading of affordable housing, which there is a distinct lack of in the states.

You don't lack affordable housing in every single place of the country. You lack it in the most expensive cities.

Well yea that was the original point. Congrats on catching up

You don't lack housing except for areas where there are people.

****ing brilliant analysis there, professor.

with UBI no-one needs to live in the expensive places to survive, so the basic logic that applies now, won't apply anymore.

And wherever people go to live on their meagre UBI, that generates a local demand and with it a local supply of jobs. Low paying probably, but in addition to the UBI more than enough for a decent life for those that want to take them.

Anyway with UBI there is ZERO NEED for cheap housing in expensive places.

Ahh, so you're proposing estates out in the country where we send the poors in order for them to accept your handouts, thus freeing the enclaves of the rich from having to see such dregs. While your solution (perhaps a prelude to your final solution for the poors?) is horrible and dehumanizing, it doesn't solve the problem of how far away the low income workers who provide services for the rich live from their jobs?

US housing is as affordable as most of the rest of the world relative to income, even in metro areas.

US residents complain about rising housing costs because at one point US housing costs were well below the rest of the world.

I propose freedom to choose between options you can afford. There are thousands of cheap places in the USA right now.

Low income workers, if the commute eats too much in their quality of life, will ask for higher pay. Remember that labour would be MUCH stronger than now in the struggle vs capital, presence of an UBI allows for different equilibria than "you either work or die of hunger"

LMAO, "let the market decide." Right, what could go wrong there...

I don't think thats the idea.

The idea is, lets say I am a barista now. I am forced to work in a high cost metro area because there is less demand for artisanal coffee in the more affordable areas of the country. If UBI was around, I would be able to supplement my income as would residents of small town USA. I can afford to take a risk and move to lower cost of living towns and those residents of affordable areas also have more income to spend on things like coffee.

You have to pay for UBI through taxation so high income individuals end up with less and thus high cost of living areas will also have less demand.

Will it work out this way, I dont know but your scenario seems a fairly distorted representation.

rents are the problem, because the rent yield in USA is a little higher than in Europe and Japan, and income is more widely distributed, and renters tend to be low income households, so as a % of takehome pay rent is really high in the us in many cases

UBI alone can't solve the problem of the richer people owning all the housing in the best areas.

UBI isn't really from the right or left. It has good/bad aspects from both wings and is an idea that is emerging alongside the beginning of the end of the capitalist era as we have known it (because of automation)

he is terrified of giving people agency and responsibility while solving absolute poverty once and for all. He knows that could doom the left.

yeah it must be because of the end of capitalism thing, that's why Paine, MLK, Friedman, were in favour.

Rich people owning "all the houses in the best places" isn't a problem anymore than rich people owning all the Ferraris, if a good life is possible without a house in best places

There are going to be approx' zero barista jobs. People are in flat out denial about automation.

If its a systemic divide (which it will be) then yes it's a problem. The people will hate it and they will vote.

even if "hyperautomation" comes to fruition soon baristas could still be around, for the social interaction aspect of food&drink consumption. Uber and truck drivers is a different story.

people have voted already for quite some time in many countries, and in every democracy the best houses are owned by the richest people.

Remember chezlaw that if/when most people become truly irrelevant for production, democracy doesn't have a chance to survive. Because in that scenario the very rich also have automated weapon systems/police robots and that's the end of the game.

and it's been ok while the best houses and decent housing were close. As social inequality grows people become far less happy and they still vote.

A few sure but how many people go to a coffee house to socialise with the barista?

I understand the idea. Lucifer is an ACist, they have no problem killing poor people in their system. 2nd best is shipping them off to poor farms where they can live off of a UBI that's only offered on the poor farm.

It still doesn't answer the question of where low income service people live when there is no affordable housing near their jobs?

LMAO. Capital has rigged the system in the US so that they have much more power than Labor but I don't see you suggesting any solutions that equalize that imbalance anywhere. We'll see what the McDonald's strike accomplishes, one of the least covered strikes ever.

All I'm saying is if UBI is the safety net we have a lot of other things that will need to be addressed before it will be successful. Affordable housing being pretty high on that list.

Yeah, Lucifer is ok with automation getting rid of jobs for the poors, it makes it easier to ship them off to their UBI poor farms and keep them out of site of riches.