The Floor

What the income floor actually buys in physical space

#

The Reshaped World, Part 1-05 of 7. The previous essays described what happens to the built environment when economic volume disappears, what gets built in its place, what remains of the city without its labor function, and how the enclave template already operates. This essay asks what an income floor would actually purchase for the people left in the remainder.

Elena has a spreadsheet she has been building for two years. It has 847 rows. Each row is a metropolitan area, micropolitan area, or rural county in the United States. Each column is an income scenario: current federal minimum wage, current poverty line, the most serious existing UBI pilot amounts, the proposals with actual political traction in congressional testimony, and two automation dividend scenarios based on published productivity forecasts.

The spreadsheet tells her, for each row and each column, what that income level purchases in terms of residential options in that geography: how many units are available at or below thirty percent of that income, which is the standard affordability threshold, and what those units look like in terms of size, condition, infrastructure access, and proximity to services.

She has submitted it to three publications. She has the rejection notes.

The Question Nobody Asks

#

The income floor debate in America is conducted almost entirely in economic terms. What does it cost to fund? What does it do to labor supply incentives? How is it structured to avoid the poverty trap? Who pays? These are real questions and they are being argued seriously by serious people.

Almost nobody asks the spatial question.

Where can you actually live on the proposed floor?

This sounds like a secondary question, an implementation detail to be worked out after the policy is designed. Elena’s spreadsheet suggests it is the primary question, because the answer changes what the policy actually is. An income floor that cannot purchase residential options in the places where economic opportunity exists is not a floor. It is a relocation program to the places the economy has already left behind.

The arithmetic is not complicated, but it is honest in a way that is difficult to publish.

The most politically serious UBI proposals currently circulating, the ones with actual sponsors and actual hearing testimony, cluster around $12,000 to $15,000 per year. The affordability threshold, thirty percent of income toward housing, puts the monthly housing budget at $300 to $375. At those figures, according to Elena’s spreadsheet, the residential options available in any major American city are approximately zero. The options available in most mid-sized cities with functioning labor markets are approximately zero. The options available in suburban areas adjacent to those cities are approximately zero.

The options available at $300 to $375 per month are in a specific geography: rural counties and small cities, generally outside commuting range of significant employment concentrations, often with declining service infrastructure, often with limited transit, often with school systems that have been consolidating for the reasons Diane’s proposal describes.

The income floor and the affordable built environment are geographically inverted. The places you can afford on the floor are not the places the floor was designed to help you access. They are, in many cases, the places the floor was designed to help you leave.

What the Floor Buys

#

The geography of UBI-affordable residence, mapped honestly, has a specific character.

It is the places this arc has been describing from a different direction. The Carolinas mill town with the infrastructure built for twice its current population. The agricultural service county whose commercial ecology contracted when the farms consolidated. The small city where the anchor employer automated and the downtown serves thirty-one thousand people with the buildings built for sixty thousand.

These are real places with real communities and real people who have built lives there. The point is not that they are unlivable. The point is that they are the places the economy has been exiting for thirty years, and a UBI that sends people there is not a neutral distribution mechanism. It is a spatial policy, whether or not anyone designing it looked at the map.

The services available at the income floor’s affordable geography are also specific. The school systems are the ones that have been consolidating. The hospitals are the ones that have been closing rural facilities. The transit is the one that doesn’t exist, which means the floor requires a car, which the floor doesn’t cover. The broadband is the one that has been unevenly deployed, which matters increasingly as remote work becomes the way people participate in the broader labor market from affordable locations.

The floor sends people to the places where the load-bearing infrastructure of daily life is under the most pressure. This is not a coincidence. The places affordable on the floor are affordable because the demand for residential space has declined as the economy has exited. The same exit that made the housing affordable has made the services expensive relative to the population remaining to pay for them.

The Intergenerational Arithmetic

#

Elena’s spreadsheet has an intergenerational dimension she added at the request of a colleague who studies wealth formation. The column asks: what is the relationship between the affordable geography and the residential asset base of the generation that currently owns property there?

The answer creates a tension the income floor debate rarely surfaces.

The people whose political support is most important for any income floor proposal are, disproportionately, the people who own residential property in the places that the income floor cannot reach. Their homes are in the suburban rings of major metropolitan areas, in the neighborhoods whose property values depend on those areas maintaining their demand for residential space. A policy that explicitly or implicitly directs economic pressure toward the smaller, more affordable geographies maintains the residential asset values of the suburban and urban property-owning class.

The generation that does not own property, and that would most directly rely on an income floor, would be directed by that floor toward the geographies where property values are lowest precisely because demand has exited. They inherit the income floor without the residential asset that the previous generation used to build net worth.

This is a wealth transfer embedded in a spatial question. The income floor, as currently proposed, would in practice direct those without assets toward the geographies with the least asset appreciation potential, while maintaining the property values of those who have already accumulated residential assets in more expensive geographies. The policy that appears to support the economically vulnerable may be structurally organized around protecting the asset values of those above them.

Elena is careful with this section of the spreadsheet. The correlation is real. The mechanism is more complicated than the correlation suggests, and she does not want the finding weaponized in ways that would use it to argue against income floors rather than for better-designed ones.

The Climate Column

#

Last month she added a new column: climate risk score by location. She used the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Risk Index, which scores counties on their vulnerability to eighteen types of natural hazards weighted by expected annual loss, social vulnerability, and community resilience.

She did not expect the correlation to be as strong as it is.

The places affordable on the income floor’s ranges are disproportionately in the high-risk quadrant of the climate index. Flood zones along river systems whose property values have declined as flood frequency has increased. Wildfire corridors in the interior West where insurance is becoming unavailable and property values are beginning to reflect that. Extreme heat environments in the Southwest and Southeast where outdoor labor is becoming dangerous for more weeks of the year and where cooling costs consume a significant share of low incomes.

Climate risk is already being priced into real estate markets. The places the market is pricing as dangerous are, by that pricing, made affordable. The income floor, without any climate policy intent, sends people toward the places the market has already identified as the highest risk residential environments in the country.

I wonder whether the architects of the serious income floor proposals have looked at the map, and specifically at this column, and if they have, what they concluded. Not whether they are aware that housing is expensive in cities. Whether they have looked at the specific geography their proposals would actually fund, and whether that geography is what they intended.

The Third Rejection

#

The third publication’s rejection note said the methodology was sound but the findings were too geographically specific to be of general interest.

Elena has started presenting at planning conferences instead. The audiences there understand immediately what the geography means. They have been working with versions of this problem for years, from the supply side rather than the demand side: how do you maintain service infrastructure in a place where the demand is declining, the tax base is contracting, and the population that remains has the least political capacity to advocate for investment? Her spreadsheet approaches the same problem from the demand side: what does the policy-level income support actually purchase in the built environment these planners are trying to maintain?

The conversation at the planning conferences is more useful than any publication response she has received. The planners see the spreadsheet not as a policy critique but as a diagnostic tool they can use to make visible what is otherwise invisible in the policy conversation: that the income floor and the built environment are the same question, and they are not being asked together.

She has not given up on publication. She is looking for a home that can hold both the arithmetic and the geography without treating the geography as a footnote.

The spreadsheet has 847 rows. The new column runs the length of it.

References

#

UBI Proposals and Income Floor Research

Daly, Mary C., et al. “Relative Status and Well-Being: Evidence from U.S. Suicide Deaths.” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 100, no. 4, 2018, pp. 763–775.

Hamilton, Darrick, and William Darity Jr. “Can ‘Baby Bonds’ Eliminate the Racial Wealth Gap in Putative Post-Racial America?” Review of Black Political Economy, vol. 37, no. 3–4, 2010, pp. 207–216.

Yang, Andrew. The War on Normal People: The Truth About America’s Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future. Hachette Books, 2018.

Housing Affordability and Cost Structure

Gyourko, Joseph, et al. “The Local Residential Land Use Regulatory Environment Across U.S. Housing Markets: Evidence from a New Wharton Index.” Working Paper 12756, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006.

Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University. The State of the Nation’s Housing 2023. Harvard University, 2023.

Quigley, John M., and Steven Raphael. “Is Housing Unaffordable? Why Isn’t It More Affordable?” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 18, no. 1, 2004, pp. 191–214.

Spatial Mismatch and Geographic Inequality

Chetty, Raj, et al. “Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 129, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1553–1623.

Moretti, Enrico. The New Geography of Jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2012.

Climate Risk and Real Estate

First Street Foundation. The 6th National Risk Assessment: Hazardous Heat. First Street Foundation, 2021.

Keenan, Jesse M., et al. “Climate Gentrification: From Theory to Empiricism in Miami-Dade County, Florida.” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 13, no. 5, 2018.

Ouazad, Amine, and Matthew E. Kahn. “Mortgage Finance in the Face of Rising Climate Risk.” Working Paper 26322, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019.

Intergenerational Wealth and Housing

Boehm, Thomas P., and Alan M. Schlottmann. “Is Renting or Owning in the United States Financially Better? A Wealth Accumulation Perspective.” Journal of Housing Economics, vol. 17, no. 3, 2008, pp. 141–164.

Shapiro, Thomas M. The Hidden Cost of Being African American: How Wealth Perpetuates Inequality. Oxford University Press, 2004.