[iamcurious]

>Should the basic income given to residents of Manhattan be 2.5x what people in Wichita get?

One of the main arguments of basic income, as opposed to unemployment benefits, is to reduce the bureaucracy involved. So the answer would be an empathetic 'no'. Hopefully, having a guaranteed income decoupled from location would push people to populate cheaper places. And thus, rent would get much cheaper overall.

[criddell]

> reduce the bureaucracy involved

Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem. Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

[unabridged]

Checking that people actually live where they claim requires a big bureaucracy. For 2.5x the money a lot of people would claim to be homeless living in Manhattan.

[iamcurious]

>Basic income indexed to a geographical cost of living doesn't have to be a big bureaucracy problem.

See what unabridged said.

>Plus, I think segregating by wealth is a terrible idea.

Giving people more money because the rent is more expensive where they live equates to giving more money to landlords. That is an even more terrible idea.

Besides, Manhattan isn't that good of a place to live. Specially when you aren't tied to the job market and can take more risks.