I&#x27;ve spent some time thinking about basic income. At times arguing for it, other times arguing against it.<p>Unfortunately we cannot resolve the scarcity problem, particularly when it comes to real estate, i.e. the location one chooses to reside. There is a simple physical constraint: only one thing can occupy a specific space at a time. Cities in general are popular places to live because of their proximity to &quot;things&quot;, the Arts and that interesting stuff happens where more people can collaborate in the real world. (Consider the demand to be close to your child&#x27;s school or near a dog park.)<p>Given this (assumption if you will), let&#x27;s consider a few rounds of economic cause&#x2F;effect. Round 1: if everyone were given a basic income, many more people will be able to afford to live in a city. Round 2: not all people, but some, will seek housing (rent or buy) in this city. Round 3: owners will need to choose between [1] renting&#x2F;selling at current price for which there is suddenly higher demand or [2] increasing their price until there is less demand. Round 4: most owners choose option [2] and excess income begins to be sucked up by higher and higher prices.<p>The issue is basic income increases the demand (perhaps good for today&#x27;s global economic ailments) while supply of goods&#x2F;housing will take time to adjust. Of course, given the opportunity to sell apartments in a city at higher margins will cause developers to build new supply, but this takes years.<p>One way to deal with the supply&#x2F;demand issue is having a basic income that starts low ($100 a month?) and increases to a basic living wage over the course of 5 years. This way, investments can be planned ahead of time so supply increases with demand.