I imagine, in a country with UBI, people wouldn't talk about "minimum livable wage", but rather "minimum livable all-source income."

Also, UBI provides a minimum standard of living, but I believe the idea there is that you'd have to make several potentially-drastic changes in your life to truly be living the sort of "minimum" life that it pays for. For example, I believe that UBI isn't supposed to pay out more for people who live in areas of a country with higher costs of living; so part of "living minimally" would be moving to the lowest cost-of-living part of the country.

Remember, UBI is usually spoken of as a federal program; whereas "minimum livable wage" is usually modelled by state or even by city. So it'd make sense to talk about needing a certain level of wages, above-and-beyond your UBI, to survive in a high cost-of-living area.

(What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.)

> (What would happen if UBI was based on regional cost-of-living? Well, for one thing, we'd see a lot of people who either don't "live where they live", but instead consistently renew their IDs within the highest cost-of-living areas; or, if the controls are tighter, we'd see people migrating to high cost-of-living areas to live out of their cars in the middle of them, to save up the most money.)

IMO those would be exploited infrequently enough that it would be worth it to base it on regional cost-of-living and tighten the controls until exploitation falls below an acceptable level.

The real exploitation wouldn't come from individuals, but rather real-estate developers, who would see an opportunity to build communities with absurdly-high costs of living (due to e.g. being built in the middle of nowhere with everything needing to be imported, like Dubai), where the government would basically pay people to live there, by increasing their UBI commensurate to the increased costs of being there vs. somewhere else. Unlike now, there'd be no disincentive to moving somewhere "more expensive" — you'd be given exactly as much money as you need to balance those expenses!

You'd also get the same sort of wealth-transfer effect that you get when people move from poor countries to rich countries to gain access to rich clients who pay more for the same service; or, for that matter, when people move from the rest of the US to SV (but with the government, in this case, taking the place of FAANG.) Namely, that most of the goods that people want aren't inelastic-demand goods priced in "percentage of income relative to the norm for this market" terms; but rather are priced in absolute, static dollars.

This means that in a low cost-of-living area, saving 10% of your UBI could buy you crappy clothes and a crappy car. While, in a high cost-of-living area, saving 10% of your UBI could buy you nice clothes and a nice car, and maybe a boat and a new phone every year, too. Who, then, wouldn't want to live in a high cost-of-living area? You don't have to do any more work, or have any more skills; you just have to choose to live in a "basic" big-city apartment instead of a "basic" small-town detached house.

Which, of course, means that everybody would move to these places, and their housing markets would halt and catch fire from the overburden of all these people trying to cram into them. It'd change an equilibrium of regional housing prices into a rich-get-richer one-directional reaction. And probably cause hyperinflation besides, as the government would have to print money to pay everyone's rent, as the rents in high-cost-of-living cities would rise exponentially as infinite demand meets finite capacity.