3 ms·

I think this is a key concern. I don't think that there is a good counterargument, but the best that I've heard is that UBI will enable mass migration to rural

• mises 8y ago
  You're saying I should go live in the countryside, away from everyone? Yeah, teleconferencing is possible, but I don't know that most people would want to. It's also impractical to build public transportation that far out (you have to build increasingly more for each mile you expand from the nearest city center; distance between angles grows as you move outward), meaning that people would be driving a LOT more (higher gas prices). Or, if you by some miracle built all that transportation, it would be expensive. And people still need to "go to town" for many supplies, so just staying there isn't practical (let alone realistic for most).
  • _rpd 8y ago
    It's less 'should' than that UBI enables the possibility of reversal of the long term rural -> urban migration trend, since this trend is driven by job seekers. I don't think it will occur (the lower your income, the more you rely on geographically-based support networks) but if it doesn't, then UBI increases will be largely captured by rentiers. If it does, then urban rentiers will have to compete with non-urban rentiers, and UBI will have a chance to have the economic effect intended by proponents.