UBI is implemented tomorrow. Every citizen gets $1000 per month.
Landlord now knows you have an extra $1000 that you never had before. Why wouldn’t the landlord raise prices?
Now you have an extra $1000 a month and instead of eating rice and beans for a few meals you go out to a restaurant. The restaurant owners know everyone is eating out more so why not raise prices and maximize shareholder profit as always. The restaurant/corporation is on TV saying, “well, demand increased and it is a simple Economic principle that prices had to increase. There’s nothing we can do about it”.
Your state/country has toll roads. The state needs money for its deficit. UBI is implemented and the state/country sees it as the perfect time to incrementally raise toll prices.
Next thing you know UBI is effectively gone because everything costs more and billionaires keep hitting higher and higher all time net worth records.
If my landlord raises my rent to match the UBI I’m getting then I’m going to move to the Apartment down the street that DIDN’T raise their rents because I FINALLY can afford to do that! Or are you saying that Landlords are ILLEGALLY colluding with one another to ensure Rent remains high? If that’s the case why are you bringing up UBI?
Because they actually are illegally colluding. UBI is a proposal to address a lot of stuff, not just rent
This is a problem, but the claim made in the lawsuit is pretty far from saying that the market might as well not exist and this company is able to arbitrarily choose prices, they’re talking about a slight edge gained by shared information. Supply and demand etc. all still applies.
I compare landlords to gas stations, if one increases the cost of gasoline for 0.20 USD overnight, believe me that the one less than a block away will follow suit in less than 6 hours.
Only if the price is actually increasing. Otherwise you’d just sell cheap petrol and put them out of business
You’d go up at least 10 cents. Still worth it to cross the street, but more profit while it’s available.
Right, but the in order for the other station to not go out of business they have to match. But are incentivised to beat that price by a further 10c to increase the amount of business they get See where I’m going?
If there’s competition, yes.
If there’s scarcity, where the supplier side has more leverage, the math changes. They may well just volunteer to make more profit.
Where I live, the difference of one block is 50 cents over two intervals. One price on this street, 50 cents cheaper a block further, and another 50 cents cheaper another block down. $1 in difference total.
They’re all in business and have been this way for years.
I actually don’t believe you. $1 difference in petrol price and people still go to the expensive one? You’d have to be a moron surely
I’m not telling you where I live, but it’s near an interstate.
I’m not lying and I don’t enjoy the accusation.
You also, after the veiled ad hom, did nothing to address the topic.
That’s not really an ad hom. I don’t think you run a petrol station, so I’m not calling you a moron
It just economically make no sense that you’d have 3 different businesses that close together with wildly different prices. Like who would ever go to the expensive one? And why?
No… I’m saying that a Landlord can read a paper and know that people have an extra 1000 dollars, so they can raise their rent 330/660/ or real dickbags 1000 dollars since you now have extra money.
One thing nobody ever considers about landlords. . . It costs them a considerable amount of money for their property to be empty. Most of them will accept slightly lower rents to keep the property occupied constantly. This cost avoidance ensures that there are always landlords at below market value, thus keep the higher rents in check.
They might, but Demand is high enough in California they’re still raising rates. Demand doesn’t change because of this. Supply doesn’t change. But the amount of available cash that a rents has will have changed, which means the market will change accordingly.