I always disagree with this moving freely argument. Certainly some live where they do specifically for work, but some are also there to be close to family. They will not be interested in relocating to save a buck.

In other words, the real estate market is sticky. There are large costs to moving, so consumers put up with price increases more readily than they do in other markets.

But there's a big gulf between "sticky" and "laws of supply and demand don't apply".

People on UBI will be much more price sensitive than those supplementing with wage income since the UBI dependent will be time rich and money poor. Landlords will have less power over them. They'll still have some power because of the stickiness.

There's a big gulf between "eventually all marginal productivity increases are eaten by rising land rent" and "laws of supply and demand don't apply."

You have no reason to believe people with new marginal income from UBI would move to lower COL areas. We have strong reason to believe they'd spend that money to move toward high COL areas. Evidence for this is the fact that people, when they have money, choose to live in high COL areas.

People living solely on UBI will be the poorest people in the country. It's absurd to believe that UBI will be generous enough to cover more than basic living expenses. They're not going to behave like "people with money".

I didn't say anything about "people living solely on UBI"

Your claim is, I guess, that people supplementing wages with UBI will move to poorer locations, because they are less tied to their jobs, and then the poorest of the poor (those who already live in bottom-percentile COL locations) will... move to even poorer locations?

Seems like a wacky argument relative to: "people will do what they literally always do with new marginal income, which is move to nicer areas, and since everyone is doing it simultaneously without new supply, prices will go up and nobody will improve their lifestyle."