> I'm a little confused on what you are saying. A small business that cannot afford to raise wages certainly cannot with cash on hand afford to innovate.

Well I don't think that's quite true (workers are very expensive -- reforming your business processes could take like $100/month for some SaaS tool that massively saves everyone time or improves some process), but what I was failing to get across is that people get more shots at innovation (and entrepreneurship) with higher worker pay.

There's another thing here -- paying workers more also leads to more income for the businesses that workers frequent, but that's a mess of hypotheticals to go down.

> UBI means people are payed better whether they are hired or not, minimum wage only effects those with jobs. The latter incentivizes illegal jobs with skirt the minimum wage laws, since the employer is responsible for wages. UBI being financed "macroeconomically" means there less much less marginal incentive for an employer to go rougue because even if it lowers their wages, it won't allow them to skirt their UBI-funding tax obligations.

> (I prefer simple, hard to evade taxes like VATs, LVTs, Carbon taxes, etc.)

Illegal jobs which skirt the minimum wage laws aren't my focus. I actually think of those as fine as an on-ramp for recent immigrants who may be in an odd spot where applications haven't cleared but they need cash to purchase stuff to eat. Most normal citizens are not doing this unless you're in a society with lots of marginal fraudulent activity (some EU member states), but those countries have their own problems.

Agreed on preferring harder to evade taxes.

--------------

> UBI is supposed to be the ultimate way to defeat the coordination failure, since the actions of employers (as employers) don't effect the UBI at all! Whereas with minimum wage their actions do matter of a) how many employees b) illegal work perverse incentive.

Right I get that -- but why doesn't this lead to a stagnant minimum wage? It's been hard enough raising the minimum wage with inflation and/or cost of living (again, it's supposed to be a "living" wage), and that's going to be a lot harder with UBI around. In my mind this starts with making the minimum wage a living wage, then considering whether UBI is still necessary (ex. when too many jobs have been automated).

------------------

> I'll happy grant that they do; this is fine. Turning on UBI is a one-time adjustment, and this would be a one-time rise in prices. (I'm looking at all flows, no stocks here, to examine equilibria more simply.)

Disagree, unless the benefits of UBI are extraordinarily well designed (percentage of some moving metric with inflation adjustment), then it will be much like the minimum wage is right now, and lag inflation and other changes. Businesses will adapt to those costs (and raise their prices) and UBI will fall behind just like minimum wage does now.

> The thing to ask is, after that one-time adjustment, are we back where we started? The answer is emphatically "no".

> Firstly, remember inflation is multiplicative, but wages are additive. If we scaled all wages by 1.2, prices could rise by 1.2, and we would be back where we started, but adding a fixed amount to wages is non-linear so no price scaling will restore the same distribution.

Hmnnn I think it's more a "maybe". Adding the fixed amount will not make it easy to restore the distribution, and I'm not guaranteeing it will be one for one, but some of that different will definitely slip. There is a realized % gain of wages that varies for each household, but businesses don't need to know the exact % to scale prices, they'll rise naturally. Now whether it gets to exact 1.2 (given that the household has a realized scale factor of 1.2%) is up for debate, but I'm arguing that it will not be 1 -- the pernicious thing is that it may even go past 1.2 for certain things.

> Remember now how richer people have helped jacking up the price of things like healthcare, childcare, housing, and education? (Those other cost diseases causer are at play). UBI with "compress" the purchasing power distribution so that the gap of "real" prices between that shit show and basic goods must shrink.

> Now, we want the shit show goods to stop spiraling out of control, rather than the basic goods to join them. To that I have to argue spooky dynamics and appeal to the Keynsianisms we evidentally agree on. If the last few decades have been a case of too-low aggregate demand, then ratcheting up aggregate demand should lead to virtuous cycles like the WWII mobilization, not vicious cycles like 1970s inflation.

I'm not sure that I can blame that uniformly on "richer people" -- there are lots of reasons those sectors are broken. I don't really see UBI shrinking the purchasing power distribution though -- it just shifts the whole curve? What if they just both go up (both basic goods and the shit show industries)?

I don't think anything can lead to WWII mobilization without an actual war and massive debt. I just don't know enough about economics but again, I see it very simply -- why would the price of both the shit show industries and basic goods go down with higher aggregate demand assuming constant-ish supply?

> Finally here's a thing to consider: why are tech capitalists rather found of UBI? One might say singularity ideologically, but that's bullshit even if they do believe it. Here's a better one: competition between tech and traditionally elites. I think on some level tech is frustrated that they feel so much more productive than traditional business, but that very productivity frees up labor to make legacy businesses' operations cheap.

I'm hugely critical of anything tech capitalists are fond of. The vast majority of them are not my friends (as in they do not have my best interest in mind) -- when I hear that they're fond of something, I assume it is because it will be beneficial to them and they feel they already have a space in the world. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars instead of cleaning up the oceans because he runs a company that does that.

I hadn't thought of that motivation (frustration) before but that sounds pretty plausible.

> UBI, like I said above, is employment-agnostic and will raises taxes and wages on all corps. But if you are a more productive, demand-limited tech company, you can raise output (or embark in new fields) taking advantage of the new demand and make it up in volume. If you are a traditionally company, however, you will get screwed when your UBI-secure employees can bargain harder, and volume therefore can't save you.

We don't need a UBI to raise taxes, and I don't want to raise taxes and wages on all corps. I want to raise taxes on the corporations with a massive disparity between generated capital gains and worker wages -- they're bad for society (in my opinion) and I want to disincentivize that behavior. I don't need UBI to do that, I just raise either taxes or mandated worker wages. In an ideal world, taxes just go up, and money is invested into the tax reclamation operations that target people in the top 10%. OK, let's not single those people out -- assuming they pay a reasonable amount near their fair share without any shenanigans, increase the capital gains tax directly, or tax the corners of finance shuffling around dollars every day.