Scott Santens

So we can assume even from this that provided more income, people are going to want to own more homes instead of rent.

A lot of renting is because people can't afford to actually be a homeowner.

There's certainly a lot of renters that want to stay renters, but there's a lot of renters who would like to buy.

And as soon as you enable more people to buy, then that means that rents, of course, go down.

There's less pressure on them to go up at least.

And then another interesting thing too, when it comes to housing and a fully universal basic income,

And this would have to be in the long term because I think in this particular situation, it's harder to move.

But when you actually have a permanent kind of setup, then you're enabling essentially competition between high cost of living areas and low cost of living areas.

You have a lot of people living around expensive cities because that's where all the jobs are.

it's become increasingly difficult to have a good life in rural areas of the U.S.

So if you enable people to actually...

move from cities to rural areas, and it would even make sense to do that because your $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever it is, is going to go further in those lower cost of living areas, then again, you're going to reduce pressure on rents in those cities.

So that's another interesting impact of a fully universal nationwide basic income.

I mean, this is a debate between like, is an inflationary policy good or is a deflationary policy good?

Like, do you want prices to continually go up a bit?

And what are the benefits of that versus the cons?

And what are the benefits and cons of prices going down?

And I mean, that's in a whole argument that I don't think that

that's even something to get into.

I would say personally, I think that there is sense behind prices increasing slightly.