system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[economics] Effect of an unconditional basic income on rent/land prices?

I assume you know about the concept of an unconditional basic income paid to all citicens (not taking into account actual income or family-size, health situation etc.)
I was wondering what the effect on rent and land prices would be. Suppose in the current system the bottom 50% have an income and spend/consume nearly all of it, to a large extent on housing and food, since these are the goods you have to have so to speak. That keeps prices (in aggregate for all consumers) somewhat down i guess. If rent on the fixed amount of available land would go up today by 10%, a large proportion of people would not be able to afford it, so it is now as high as it is just bearable. What would happen, if anyone had at least 80% of the current median wage at their disposal, why not raise the price of rents on land to get to a new equilibrium, but then just on a higher level? (The price of food and home-building should not be that much higher, due to competition ?) Wouldn't the well-meant good social implications just be inflated away?
gpt
> Wouldn't the well-meant good social implications just be inflated away?

If the supply of housing is fixed, this might be the case, but there is almost certainly some degree of elasticity. Real estate investors might decide to create new developments for low-income renters, families can rent out an extra bedroom, etc etc. If the supply curve shifts then the price will not go up as much as you'd anticipate. In other words, the amount of land might be fixed, but the resources spent on developing it for human uses are not. So maybe we get more high-rises and less ranch-style homes as a result of this policy, but going beyond that you have to invoke many assumptions about how income is spent, effects on the labor market, and so on...

Inflation is a possibility, but probably not the best argument against a guaranteed minimum income.