3 ms·

My preferred answer (although others may differ) is that it should be the same for everyone. If you can't afford to live where you are now, move somewhere cheap

My preferred answer (although others may differ) is that it should be the same for everyone. If you can't afford to live where you are now, move somewhere cheaper or get a job. If you're jobless and can't afford an expensive city that means the economy is telling you to make room for someone who can make productive use of the limited space in an area that many need to be to work together. If you want to stay near family and friends, find a nice cheap place an hour or two away, if you want a shorter commute that's a luxury, not a necessity, and you should work for it. Basic incomes are for the minimum needed to live a decent life, living in a specific expensive location is a luxury you should have to work for.

zo1 10y ago
>"If you can't afford to live where you are now, move somewhere cheaper or get a job. If you're jobless and can't afford an expensive city that means the economy is telling you to make room for someone who can make productive use of the limited space in an area that many need to be to work together." That's exactly how it should work, even in a system with no UBI. Sadly, people see the state as the grand fixer and enabler of everything. Eventually, we'd all realize that certain places simply cost more to live in due to reasons outside of everyone's control. E.g. maybe it's hard to create affordable safe housing in a very earthquake/tornado prone area. Or hard to deliver fresh healthy produce to a city in the middle of nowhere like a desert. I exaggerate, of course, but these minor details still affect prices to a certain extent. We can't have cosmic-justice.