I think landlords make a lot of sense for commercially-zoned property, and for residentially there needs to be some way to live somewhere even if you can’t afford the mortgage deposit. So there’s nuance here that needs addressing IMO.
People do kinda pick where they are though? If there’s some unoccupied housing in Denver, but you’re living in Austin it’s not necessarily useful, that’s what I meant. I agree in principle on social housing, but there would probably need to be some kind of associated projects – either new construction or housing where ppl live but there isn’t enough accommodation, or new jobs created in areas with surplus, or both… And then you also need to think about local amenities (shops, hospitals, parks, schools, that sort of SimCity thing)
Sorry, I might have come across as if I fully disagreed with the notion, but I really don’t - I just think that the idea only works with a more integrated policy.
Oh, sure, If you’re just talking about stuff like which city to live in, I would think that these services would be available in every city. Although it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a system in place to encourage people to relocate, but it wouldn’t be forced.
I think under a UBI scenario, people should get to pick the city they want to reside in, then get assigned a public housing unit(s) for their immediate family. They can also be provided free public transport, and a basic UBI vehicle with free fuel.
Ideally, people would have a bedrock of UBI services to rely upon for their wellbeing, and money is turned into something solely used for lifestyle upgrades: Buying a house of the quality, size, and location you want, a fancier non-UBI car, brand-name food or supplies, private school, ect.
We also need to outlaw landlords. Owning land is not a job and it’s certainly not a business.
I think landlords make a lot of sense for commercially-zoned property, and for residentially there needs to be some way to live somewhere even if you can’t afford the mortgage deposit. So there’s nuance here that needs addressing IMO.
We could just… give everyone a place to live. Then there’s no such thing as “can’t afford a mortgage.”
Do people get to choose where they live in this scenario, or do we just allocate housing based on where’s currently unoccupied?
People don’t really get to choose where they live now. If you mean choosing from a list of vacancies, then sure, I don’t see why not.
People do kinda pick where they are though? If there’s some unoccupied housing in Denver, but you’re living in Austin it’s not necessarily useful, that’s what I meant. I agree in principle on social housing, but there would probably need to be some kind of associated projects – either new construction or housing where ppl live but there isn’t enough accommodation, or new jobs created in areas with surplus, or both… And then you also need to think about local amenities (shops, hospitals, parks, schools, that sort of SimCity thing)
Sorry, I might have come across as if I fully disagreed with the notion, but I really don’t - I just think that the idea only works with a more integrated policy.
Oh, sure, If you’re just talking about stuff like which city to live in, I would think that these services would be available in every city. Although it wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a system in place to encourage people to relocate, but it wouldn’t be forced.
I think under a UBI scenario, people should get to pick the city they want to reside in, then get assigned a public housing unit(s) for their immediate family. They can also be provided free public transport, and a basic UBI vehicle with free fuel.
Ideally, people would have a bedrock of UBI services to rely upon for their wellbeing, and money is turned into something solely used for lifestyle upgrades: Buying a house of the quality, size, and location you want, a fancier non-UBI car, brand-name food or supplies, private school, ect.
Only raccoons could be owners of land :D
Hard Agree.