[JDiculous]

I think that's the one thing that needs to be addressed more from basic income advocates. Basic income alone will simply lead to inflation of housing prices in artificially supply-constrained areas like NYC and SF.

Basic income should be coupled with government initiatives to increase the supply of housing (eg. zoning and regulation changes to allow increased density, subsidizing non-luxury apartments, land value tax).

[PaulRobinson]

The point of Universal Basic Income, is in part, to give people more choice in terms of employment. Some people choose to live in NYC or San Francisco, but many do so because that's where the work is. With Basic Income, well, perhaps a job paying a little less a little further away will help.

It's not clear that this will be enough to offset inflation, but the truly excellent Basic Income subreddit FAQs [1] addresses inflation specifically, and in essence there has been little to no evidence of it in practice.

I personally have always been a fan of Henry George who not just advocated an LVT, but suggested that this should be the only tax - all other taxes were unfair. I realise I am in a minority and some taxes can help with social/healthcare issues (e.g. on tobacco and alcohol).

That said, UBI with a rigorous LVT would be my ideal. Alas, voters utterly despise both, at least in the UK, so it's unlikely we'll see either any time soon.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index

[pkaye]

One of the reasons people live in high population areas is because that is where the jobs are. If we had some form of basic income, people could live more spread out and reduce the demand on expensive high demand housing.

[Gustomaximus]

This is such an important point. In Australia and we have so many beautiful places to live but anyone tied into white collar work like mine basically has 2 cities that have good employment options and a few more with limited opportunity.

I suspect many would head to sea/tree change if ensuring your earnings was not such an important factor.

[jb613]

government subsidies cause distortions. Somehow providing basic income to incentivize people to live more in rural areas would only cause those currently living in rural areas to be more costly. The salaries of farmers, oil rig workers, truck drivers, miners, lumberjacks, etc... would rise.

Plug one hole in the dike and others will pop up. Just let the free market work and people choose where they want to live and work.

[literallycancer]

There are many villages and towns where a significant portion of the properties is uninhabited, so an increase in population wouldn't necessarily increase the cost of living there (up to a point). This is a real problem for rural areas at least in Europe, and many places are offering various incentives to try and lure some younger people, since otherwise they will be completely empty in a few decades.

[crdoconnor]

100% land value tax.

Whether or not there is a basic income, it's the right thing to do. Income should be either earned (by creating value) or shared equally (if derived from land and natural resources).

[avn2109]

>> "...government initiatives to increase the supply of housing..."

The government zones the way it does today on purpose, to create a built environment and social structure that insures you have to work all the time to afford housing and a car. This makes you docile and governable and taxable.

[TulliusCicero]

This is an overly cynical view of zoning. While zoning today in most cities is overzealous, there are good aspects to zoning too (compared to what came before).