The variety and enthusiasm of responses on this thread is quite telling of the country's modern political disposition - you have some younger, more open-minded investors who see the writing on the wall that UBI is necessary but wonder about how it will be implemented, all the way to the "American patriots" who take UBI as an affront to the principles of this country.
To both extremes, and everyone in between, I ask does pure socialism work? If we define socialism as a system creating equal outcomes, then it is quite clear both in theory and from history that it does not work. When people with skill sets and abilities are crammed into roles and positions not fit for them, they are equal on the surface, but their true outcomes are very different - different levels of happiness, fulfillment, stress, etc. The car enthusiast stuck as a computer developer will be no happier than the computer geek stuck as an auto mechanic. Yet because there is a complete lack of competition, no one can naturally settle into what gives them the most fulfillment, and at best everyone is equal is being miserable. Historically, very few purely socialist entities have succeeded. Scandinavia and even modern China are great examples of countries which have elements of socialism but incorporate varying degrees of competition and capitalism - in fact one could argue modern China is more capitalistic than modern America is (at the very least in a dystopian sense).
Then we must ask, does pure capitalism work? If we define capitalism as equal access to opportunity, meaning the ability to compete for outcomes, then no it does not. In pure capitalism, it is inevitable that randomly, one competitor in an industry eventually gets so big such that they can acquire, squash, and price out any future would be competition. Ironically, while competition allowed this monopoly entity to build itself, now the presence of the monopoly prevents any future competition. And without any future competition, we do not have equal access to opportunity. Only external regulation and prevention of monopolies can reignite competition.
In other words, each system must paradoxically contain a piece of its opposite in order to succeed. Socialism must contain an element of competition to ensure equal outcomes (beyond equal starvation), and capitalism must contain an element of socialism to ensure continued competition (and therefore equal opportunity).
This is the lens I view UBI through. Implemented correctly, UBI is not a threat to capitalism, it is a massive boost to capitalism.
Imagine a more intelligent, more entrepreneurial populace who are now able to take more risks, start more companies, and work on more passion projects because they don't have to devote 100% of their psychological and physiological energy to ensuring their family does not starve to death.
https://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-effect-on-intelligence-2013-8
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2193136-universal-income-study-finds-money-for-nothing-wont-make-us-work-less/
Like it or not, some form of UBI is the future. UBI can be called 'socialist' but at it's most extreme its what I call "competitive socialism." UBI is more capitalistic than many aspects of modern America with oligopolies choking all competition from entire industries.
Needless to say UBI, rent controls, affordable housing zoning, etc are all factors us real estate investors need to be thinking about as they will impact not only our immediate returns, but the societies in which we live and invest.
As an investor my take is to limit exposure to more "progressive" cities as they experiment with different approaches and without question make a few missteps along the way, implementing regulations which entirely backfire and eschew the economic balance. Such is the nature of regulation, it is inherently reactive not proactive, and will always be an incredibly flawed tool - but one which used responsibly is absolutely vital to both socialism and capitalism.
All that said, in the long run real estate investing will become more and more competitive, not just due to limited returns, but also presence of competition (more and more interested capital), changes to technology (iBuyers etc), and the pervasiveness of data (less relationship based, everyone can find deals). This trend is nothing new, and has already played out in other industries which traditionally were incredibly non-accessible and relationship based (such as the financial markets).
The days of a handful of people capturing 99% of the returns the real estate industry has to offer are over - and that's a good thing. UBI is just one small part of these overall socioeconomic trends.
