[BWStearns]

>> If the government adjusted the basic income to account for regional cost-of-living, I imagine it would be popular to maintain a fake residency in an expensive area while actually living somewhere cheaper.

Good hack.

>> some areas become rich elite enclaves while other areas become basic income ghettos.

This is basically the direction we're already headed in already.

[dllthomas]

>>> some areas become rich elite enclaves while other areas become basic income ghettos.

> This is basically the direction we're already headed in already.

A flat basic income would make this better not worse, as there would be more money available serving the needs of people in these poorer areas.

[BWStearns]

I am inclined to agree with you but I'm not certain. There are some arguments that those living off of BI would form a unique subset of the population and might effectively be ghettoized at least in terms of colocation as opposed to the more economic/social aspect due to their similar needs/means.

[dragonwriter]

> There are some arguments that those living off of BI would form a unique subset of the population and might effectively be ghettoized at least in terms of colocation as opposed to the more economic/social aspect due to their similar needs/means.

The people living primarily off BI (that is "the poor") would likely continue to be segregated, to a certain degree, both physically and socially from those more well-off. But that's not an effect of BI, that's true of the poor now and basically for all of human history.

[jchrisa]

the whole point of BI is that everyone gets it, even the rich

[dllthomas]

That doesn't mean those living exclusively on BI mightn't wind up ghettoized. I don't see why this would be any more true than in any other situation, though. (and as I've said elsewhere, I don't think BI should presently be enough to live comfortably on without draining savings).