[dllthomas]

"The risk would be that you ended up with low cost of living slum areas where the unemployed would congregate , separate from the productive economy."

But in this case, they would be able to offer each other money for providing each other services. Congregations of people would inherently be able to realize some demand, which is not presently the case (or that demand is filtered through bureaucrats).

[jiggy2011]

Maybe, but the same could probably be said about the favelas in Brazil. It probably makes some sense to subsidize people to live in the area where there is currently the most opportunity for them.

[dllthomas]

"Maybe, but the same could probably be said about the favelas in Brazil."

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. My understanding of the favelas is that there is a great deal of economic activity going on there, and a lot of people working actively to better their situations. Limited resources coupled with sparse, unequally applied regulation and rule of law leads to some bad situations, but those in the favelas are living in the favelas primarily to have access to the economic activity of the city. Resources go to the favelas only in proportion to the earning power of the residents, which dynamic basic income specifically changes, and it is this change specifically that I am saying is likely to produce better results.

It's totally possible you were saying something I'm missing; if so, please clarify.

"It probably makes some sense to subsidize people to live in the area where there is currently the most opportunity for them."

Physical location matters, but it matters less than it ever has before. Ideally, we want more places with opportunity, not ever higher rents in SF and Manhattan.