3 ms·

> This is why a UBI is good for businesses -- customers have more money in their pockets. I'm a proponent of UBI and I think this claim needs a citation for th

by kodah 5y ago

> This is why a UBI is good for businesses -- customers have more money in their pockets. I'm a proponent of UBI and I think this claim needs a citation for the level of certainty that you expressed. I have always viewed that UBI will likely be bad for small businesses, but that by the time that we need UBI there won't be many small businesses left. There are two pilots of UBI worth paying attention to: Finland and Ontario. Finland proposes paying the unemployed (this differs slightly from unemployment benefits in the US) while Ontario proposes paying anyone below the poverty line. Source: https://hiring.workopolis.com/article/universal-basic-income-mean-small-businesses/ https://hiring.workopolis.com/article/universal-basic-income... UBI-like concepts, like what was implemented by the US and other countries during COVID, do help recover us from a recession. Source: https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9649-universal-basic-income-business-impact.html https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/9649-universal-basic-incom... That said, it was not enough to impact small businesses in a positive way. Over 50% of small businesses reported having a large negative impact. There's lots of questions to be answered there, like the availability of non-extractive technology for small businesses to use to compete, and where the income levels where UBI-like income disbursements were centered actually spend their money. > Estimates from the weekly U.S. Census Small Business Pulse Survey indicate that roughly 50% of businesses report having a large negative effect from the COVID‐19 pandemic and that only 15%–20% of businesses have enough cash on hand to cover 3 months of operations (Bohn, Mejia, & Lafortune, 2020; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7461311/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7461311/

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Finland proposes paying the unemployed (this differs slightly from unemployment benefits in the US) while Ontario proposes paying anyone below the poverty line. Neither of these is a UBI. Paying only people who are unemployed is in particular quite the opposite of what you want, because it discourages people from taking a job since they'll lose the money. Moreover, you need more of the middle class to be receiving some of the money (they'll pay some but not all of it back in taxes), because that's what increases consumer demand.
- kodah 5y ago
  > Neither of these is a UBI. They're considered quasi-UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Quasi-UBI_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Quasi-U... I do agree there are better implementations to be had, and that the implementation probably makes all the difference in outcomes. That said, I wouldn't say they're expressly not UBI. I also just learned about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Alaska_...
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Quasi expressly means not really. Google claims under 9,000 results for quasi UBI. Some use it to highlight how actual UBI would be better. Some use it to describe programs like basic income for everyone in rural regions. Not expanded unemployment benefits.
    - kodah 5y ago
      It's also a good expression for something that doesn't perscriptively follow UBI but accomplishes the net effect or intended outcome. I'm willing to admit that there's more than one way to accomplish what UBI wants to accomplish.
      - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
        But you're then using evidence from the not-UBI to claim that a UBI doesn't do something (benefit businesses), when the difference between the UBI and the not-UBI is that the not-UBI wouldn't be expected to do that thing.
        kodah 5y ago
        Right, because that's the only evidence I have to draw from when UBI in the form you're referencing doesn't exist yet. I also didn't say it can't, but I think the choice to make it optimal for SMB's, middle class, and upper middle class is an intentional one. I don't think that'll happen just by doing UBI. Hence I said, if you think it will then citation needed.
atom_arranger 5y ago
If UBI is implemented we may be able to do away with minimum wage, at which point small businesses could possibly offer better (more interesting, less stressful) working conditions for less money, it’s possible people might go for that. Right now companies must make $X per employee per hour. If their business cannot do that it’s deemed that it’s not productive enough and should not exist.
- kodah 5y ago
  Agreed, that is a possible future, but it also depends on not raising taxes for already cash strapped SMB's and bankrolling those efforts with large corporations and high income earners who have lots of capital to fight those initiatives.

by kodah 5y ago

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Finland proposes paying the unemployed (this differs slightly from unemployment benefits in the US) while Ontario proposes paying anyone below the poverty line. Neither of these is a UBI. Paying only people who are unemployed is in particular quite the opposite of what you want, because it discourages people from taking a job since they'll lose the money. Moreover, you need more of the middle class to be receiving some of the money (they'll pay some but not all of it back in taxes), because that's what increases consumer demand.

kodah 5y ago
> Neither of these is a UBI. They're considered quasi-UBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Quasi-UBI_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Quasi-U... I do agree there are better implementations to be had, and that the implementation probably makes all the difference in outcomes. That said, I wouldn't say they're expressly not UBI. I also just learned about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Alaska_...
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Quasi expressly means not really. Google claims under 9,000 results for quasi UBI. Some use it to highlight how actual UBI would be better. Some use it to describe programs like basic income for everyone in rural regions. Not expanded unemployment benefits.
  - kodah 5y ago
    It's also a good expression for something that doesn't perscriptively follow UBI but accomplishes the net effect or intended outcome. I'm willing to admit that there's more than one way to accomplish what UBI wants to accomplish.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      But you're then using evidence from the not-UBI to claim that a UBI doesn't do something (benefit businesses), when the difference between the UBI and the not-UBI is that the not-UBI wouldn't be expected to do that thing.
      - kodah 5y ago
        Right, because that's the only evidence I have to draw from when UBI in the form you're referencing doesn't exist yet. I also didn't say it can't, but I think the choice to make it optimal for SMB's, middle class, and upper middle class is an intentional one. I don't think that'll happen just by doing UBI. Hence I said, if you think it will then citation needed.

atom_arranger 5y ago

If UBI is implemented we may be able to do away with minimum wage, at which point small businesses could possibly offer better (more interesting, less stressful) working conditions for less money, it’s possible people might go for that. Right now companies must make $X per employee per hour. If their business cannot do that it’s deemed that it’s not productive enough and should not exist.

kodah 5y ago
Agreed, that is a possible future, but it also depends on not raising taxes for already cash strapped SMB's and bankrolling those efforts with large corporations and high income earners who have lots of capital to fight those initiatives.