Should people in higher cost places by given greater subsidy? Isn't a better approach to hold the tax relief/credits steady so that populations are incentivized

Should people in higher cost places by given greater subsidy? Isn't a better approach to hold the tax relief/credits steady so that populations are incentivized to move and occupy less populated areas that are in lower demand and have lower costs? There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem with what moves first - people or economic opportunity. But I do think having a more distributed economy would resolve a lot of tensions American society experiences today.