Hacker News Reader

Comment by chillwaves | Hacker News Reader

People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. In fact, many would argue this is a benefit of UBI and will bring much needed economic resources to under populated parts of the country.

Not everyone needs to live in the Bay Area.

COL adjustment to UBI would be a huge mistake and undermine the entire concept.

View on HN

I think it's a double edged sword. Encouraging people to minimize their COL and spend the money on underinvested areas of the country is fantastic for decreasing the wealth gap.

But the other likely outcome is drastic COL inflation in low COL areas which adversely impacts them significantly more.

But if everyone including those in the low COL area was getting UBI then it should equalize no?

I believe so, but the economic impact isn't well understood yet.

The UBI experiments so far have shown that it does have an inflationary effect (which causes COL to go up), and at the same time, incomes decrease as secondary earners opt for UBI instead of working. People overall are much happier, but their financial situation gets worse.

Yes. Colorado hates on Texans for scooping up real estate and driving up prices and taxes. And Texans hate on Californians for scooping up their real estate. You can't have it all. And if you do, it won't last forever. Such is life.

Low COL areas are so widespread in practice that no real inflation would occur, even if all the money was spent there. Urban living is the kind that's scarce and expensive.

> People are free to move to lower cost of living areas. I

That's probably NOT what is going to happen if you implement UBI. Rather people complaining UBI is too low for the place they are currently living in. Well known phenomenon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com