Oh ok, thanks. I’m never sure honestly.

Wouldn’t you say the automation of factory jobs in the American interior has decreased the living standard of many former factory workers and factory towns? In aggregate and over time, automation increases the general standard of living. No question. But the danger many of us are seeing is in the in-between period where huge swaths of labor, even high paying, supposedly stable jobs, are being eradicated over a relatively tiny period.

Honestly it’s kind of comforting to see this kind of argument these days. Compared to the recent offerings of American politics, I’ll take this kind of conservatism lol. It even has a little Thatcher, no? “Government doesn’t provide anything, people do,” sounds like that old quote regarding society.

Anyhow, I’ve a question for you:

What do you think your competitors will be doing as you double the price of rent? If comparable units in the area maintain the previous price (or even increase it, but less than you did) why would a renter choose yours?

I’ve actually seen this same argument of yours from leftists before on the subject of a UBI. Of course in those corners they just see landlords as leeches who add no value to society and increase the cost of housing. My point being that they argue this point partly because they see landlords as fundamentally greedy and shortsighted.

You’re correct that the price would increase, but not by so much, and not enough to cancel out the additional spending power most people would get from the UBI.

If everyone had the same thought process as you, and prices increased in such drastic proportions everywhere else in the economy, businesses would shortly understand - if they didn’t already - that increased disposable income does not immediately eradicate one’s price sensitivity.

Also, I suspect there might’ve been one or two other things going on in our economy at the time of those stimulus checks.

That’s pretty much it, I think.

I would like to ask one more question, though. What do you mean when you say people “leave the U out” exactly? Did they use the term UBI specifically but wanted it given to only some people? That’s a bit silly of them, if so. One of the supposed benefits of UBI it’s proponents will bring up is that it doesn’t require any means testing, which is a source of inefficiency in government programs.

Is this a bit? I don’t mean it in an insulting way; I’m genuinely not sure.