1. Europe has healthcare but not basic income.

2. Innovation and entrepreneurship are not the same thing. Innovation is coming up with something new, entrepreneurship is starting a new business to make money. The former does not always lead to the latter, and the latter does not always require the former (in fact, it rarely does).

3. What the research in this study shows is that limitations of the financial and survival sort do not drive entrepreneurship.

The book "The Trap: selling out to stay afloat in winner-take-all America" discusses the effect of healthcare on entrepreneurship:[1]

> It's a truism that American culture celebrates entrepreneurs. The opinion polls show exactly what you expect: Americans are incredibly entrepreneurship-minded. A 2005 survey showed that 28 percent of Americans have considered setting up their own businesses, compared to only 15 percent of Europeans. Yet the employment statistics reveal that Americans are far less likely to actually do it — 14.7 percent of the European workforce is self-employed, compared with only 7.3 percent of Americans. American entrepreneurs are clearly being held back from pursuing their dreams. > ... > What explains the paradox? In Europe working for yourself doesn't affect your health-care coverage...In America, the ambitious many are held back.

[1] https://archive.org/details/trapsellingoutto00broo/page/108/...

> Would it though? From what I understand EU has way better social safety nets, yet much smaller entrepreneurship rates compared to USA.

This is definitely a multiple factor problem, and health care is just one of them. A couple obvious ones - social acceptance/rejection of this as a path, and government/financial friction. If you have only been exposed to the US, it's pretty shocking how hard it is to get a company up and running in many countries. One of the biggies is fairly direct access to capital with the right risk appetite, which itself is complex.

This. Not sure about the US, but starting a company seems pretty damn daunting from where I'm standing

This is all jurisdictional of course, but in parts of North America (I'm including Canadian provinces as well as US states) you can incorporate in less than 30 min online for a few hundred dollars. There are a few other details you'll have to sort out before your first tax filing, but that's about it.

>Counter-intuitively, limitations drive innovations. When your resources are limited, you are forced to innovate.

If this was true you'd see people from poor families being more entrepreneurial than those from rich.

What you actually see in America is that most millionaires come from humble beginnings. That doesn’t mean most people from humble beginnings become millionaires. A->B does not equal B->A. Basic logic.

Go talk to the owners of the five nearest local small businesses, ask them how they started, and see how it goes.

Speaking from experience, btw.

That doesn't mean anything though: vastly more millionaires are from usa than from Dubai, it doesn't say anything about any place, you can replace "millionaires" with any category and likely end up with a true statment, USA just has way more people. Those with humble beginnings are most of us, off course* there are going to be more humble-born <$anything> than privileged-born <$anything>, that's just how populations work.

*: in fact, merely being "humble" is still relatively privileged, a vast sea of humans exists where internet and food and clean water are fleeting dreams

Well, as another commented pointed out, there is a difference between innovating and starting companies. So I would argue that you do see more innovation from poor families than rich families. After all, rich families have no need to innovate, they just throw money at problems until they go away. Poor people are financially constrained and have to think outside the box to solve their problems. But you also see more companies started by rich people. Not necessarily innovative companies, mind you, just companies.

> So I would argue that you do see more innovation from poor families than rich families. After all, rich families have no need to innovate, they just throw money at problems until they go away.

This is not something to argue about, this is something that that we should measure.

And how do you measure innovation in poor families? Does jerry-rigging your car to work using duct tape and aluminum cans count?

In the discussion here, I am assuming innovation refers specifically to innovative products and business ideas, not stuff that remains confined to your close family.

Well yeah, you probably aren't going to get a lot of business innovation from the poor, but because they are resource constrained, you'll see innovation in other forms - such as how they adapt to broken cars, appliances, shortage of food, clothing, etc. The rich have no need to come up with novel ways to mend shoes - they just buy a new pair.

Well, this whole thread started from your claim here:

> From what I understand EU has way better social safety nets, yet much smaller entrepreneurship rates compared to USA.

> Counter-intuitively, limitations drive innovations.

It seemed like you were claiming that people with fewer resources may counter-intuitively do more innovative businesses, so providing people with UBI or similar resources could reduce innovation in entrepreneurship.

The inventiveness you need to thrive as a poor person is very different from that, and I don't think losing that kind of inventiveness would be a real loss in our world.

In my travels in Brazil I saw some incredible hustling going on in poor areas.

I'd guess that basic income would encourage entrepreneurship in individuals with a high degree of self-actualization but not individuals with a low degree of self-actualization.

Whether or not basic income itself would increase the degree of self-actualization people have is not an easy question. It is in fact a complicated question deeply integrated with culture. I'd guess peoples opinion on this question mostly reflects their political ideology and/or support for basic income.

China Lake's development of the Sidewinder missile is a similar story - minimal resources, compared to the vast amounts wasted on radar guided missiles that more or less didn't work until much later.

However, I think it's orthogonal. Limitations are good, but having a basic fallback is also good.

There are cultural differences in the EU and the US. I don't think you can control for social safety nets, but not the rest of culture. That said, the existence of social safety nets could well be related to the other differences in culture.

Sweden, for example, has much better safety nets and better income equality than the US, and is rated as being much easier than the US to start a business.

Essentially, Swedes have far greater economic freedom due to greater economic equality. Despite not having UBI.

> Would it though? From what I understand EU has way better social safety nets, yet much smaller entrepreneurship rates compared to USA.

Germany is pretty close to the United States, despite the United States being a wealthier nation by comparison.

Basic income in my understanding is far from "infinite resources," and a lot closer to ensuring folks have at least McDonalds levels of nutrition available.

Rates of entrepreneurship are higher in Scandinavian countries than they are in the US.

I've heard that as well. A reminder that most entrepreneurs aren't founding web tech companies.

Regarding the entrepreneurship rates, are gig economy workers considered entrepreneurs?

Also, where did you find these numbers indicating such a big difference?

Exploited working class people who have no other choices I think you mean

Uber loses money on every ride because it subsidizes ride fare - not sure it makes sense to call them exploited even in a marxist sense

Well fake "self employed" status might count

> Would it though? From what I understand EU has way better social safety nets, yet much smaller entrepreneurship rates compared to USA.

Try firing an employee in France. It's a two year process minimum and in the end a judge might rule you can't do it.

Also the regulatory landscape in the EU imposes such a high burden on entrepreneurs. Coupled with investors being way more conservatives.

But the study says exactly the opposite, that ample resources are key to innovation. Basic income would replace parental income as a backstop.