Probably the most significant cost for most people is housing and that does seem to have an in-elastic supply. My guess is this is where the money will go.

We have seen an element of this in the UK where housing benefit largely ended up in the laps of landlords.

Elizabeth Warren of all people has focused on this as a problem in the US also.

The move from single-income to double-income families produced far less than a doubled standard of living, but it drove housing prices sky high. It's an interesting natural experiment for what we might see with UBI programs (which act a lot like adding a 'free' wage-earner to each household).

If you don't need a job, you don't have to live in the city with everyone else. There's plenty of cheap empty land you could live on.

There are other reasons to live in a city besides a job. I imagine that as we move toward a "jobless" future cultural and scientific output will increase, and you'll still want to be around the people who are doing the "cool stuff."

But when you're not spending 40+ hours a week working, an hour long journey to do cool stuff isn't as big a deal.

And besides, I think a most of the other people doing cool stuff will want cheaper accommodation as well, and over time particular kinds of cool stuff will congregate in different smaller towns.

But you will have the choice. Also, I imagine that a jobless future will be heavily automated. Cheap autonomous transportation might expand the housing area with sustainable commute. Even more so if you can work remotely part-time and shorter hours.

You'll want to, but you won't be able to afford it. In a future with UBI the city will be for employed people only.