In particular, there is a rather important bit missing: what happens to the price of the products (or services) that these people produced.
Yeah, in retrospect I should have said something like
(In this case, what probably happens next -- at least if there is competition -- is that the company lowers its prices somewhat. So now the business owners win and their customers win. In the long run these lower prices may lead to new jobs.)
... Oh, wait. I did.
No, what happens is that the original producer plays a stock short on the new guy, does an M & A on them, then liquidates the new company while trapping any intellectual property and patents in the safe.
Then we lose competition, price pressure, and innovation.
And even more folks are out of work.
I really like this argument for UBI, it looks at the real problems on the front lines of current problems with existing programs.
Something has to be done about this, none of those manufacturing, or managerial jobs are coming back, and the minimum wage increase movement is going to really hammer youth and the un-skilled. Those are the easiest to radicalize, and once they get really angry, things could get ugly very quickly.
"because they aren’t publicly acknowledging just how poorly our present means-tested programs are targeted by virtue of their applied conditions, and just how unequal one dollar can be to one dollar, however counterintuitive that may seem."
"The fact is that cash welfare, as it exists today, is not given to the overwhelming majority of those living in poverty who need it."
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/09/the-progressive-case-for-replacing-the-welfare-state-with-basic-income/