Surely they shouldn't. One of the expected positive outcomes from UBI is people will move out of cities to rural areas where it's cheaper.
Right now that's hard to do because all the economic activity is in cities. But when a baseline of economic activity follows people anywhere it'll help revive less successful areas, where that UBI goes a longer way.
And should they? Or is it reasonable to expect that those unable to work temporarily move to some low/reasonable cost area of living? Or find solution sufficient solution with the ubi they get.
That’s problematic. You don’t just move your residence on a whim like it’s picking a different pair of socks on an online store. In EU at least, people tend to hold onto their network more strongly and uprooting is a highly stressful and somewhat traumatic experience. Not to mention that moving in a “cheaper area” reduces opportunities and becomes an income local minimum you can’t escape that easily.
Also, how does UBI work with different life circumstances. Does a disabled person get extra to cover wheelchair maintenance? Does allergic person gets more to afford allergy-OK food? Does woman get more to cover pads/tampons?
I don't think UBI should take anything into account, no, but an average man needs more money than an average woman. That some women needs more than some men doesn't really matter, women arguing that they as a group need more money than men is nonsense.
It's just fixed amount of money that may or may not cover for your specific needs and preferences.
Variability in those needs are taken care of outside of UBI. You can still have a separate funds for medical equipment and you can still have prices of pads subsidized by goverment to promote hygiene.
The original idea of UBI was to drop all welfare apparatus, add saved moneys to welfare budget and then give it away equally.
But now it's turning into a beast that doesn't remove much of existing complexity and adds additional welfare. Money source for a meaningful payout be damned.
The very initial idea in libertarian circles was to abolish literally all welfare.
The problem is once you start looking into leaving safety nets, bureaucracy is no longer reduced and budget savings no longer happen. Then you need to find a ton fo extra €€€€ to fund UBI. Suddenly „yay no nanny state“ becomes „yay more taxes“...
Not sure why you’re downvoted. Completely reasonable question.
Not everyone has the same needs. So UBI either has to be so high that everyone can have a basic standard of living (e.g. a nurse for a disabled person) or you retain a plethora of other social programs to address those needs.
And I always ask - what about the drug addict that blows through their whole UBI on day 2? What then? Let them starve in the street? Of course not, there will be a separate social program for them as well.
Right now that's hard to do because all the economic activity is in cities. But when a baseline of economic activity follows people anywhere it'll help revive less successful areas, where that UBI goes a longer way.