But UBI isn't a SV invention, far from it. Applied to SV, it does serve to continue concentrating the wealth. There was an interesting author on KQED forum a day or 2 ago who wrote a book about our betters keeping us down in just this way. I found that guy a bit ridiculous but again, not wrong.
Had Andrew Jackson not overturned the original reconstruction proposal for freed slaves to be given 40 acres and a mule as reparation, instead of simply allowing them to earn wage labor on former slaveowners’ lands, we might be looking at a vastly less divided America today.
----------------------
Andrew Jackson was long dead. It was Andrew Johnson who rejected 40 acres and a mule. I guess those Tennessee presidents all sound alike.
When people eventually become too poor to
continue working as drivers or paying for
rides, UBI supplies the required cash infusion
for the business to keep operating.
So, that's the big problem? It's just some calculated ploy to subsidize small time freelancers within a side hustle economy?
The rest of the article is simply philosophical grandstanding about how UBI is really a figurative IV drip in the ICU being a secret plot by hospitals in order to keep people as patients forever.
I don't implicitly trust governments or corporations. The concept of an aggressive company like Uber, an organization that analyzed greyballing their data to subvert lawful behavior, is certainly one to operate their users exploitatively.
But, a supplemental pay check that means the difference between not eating plus getting evicted, contrasted against just hanging out and safely waiting for business to pick up again, in between seasonal dry spells, available to anyone, especially those who normally operate odd jobs as a career, this isn't some sinister trojan horse to lock people into a no-options future of scooter charging.
When people are facing eviction and starvation, and the very cold reality of getting locked into living on the streets, homeless, there are bigger problems at large, and worth fixing.
Universal Basic Income can change the world, but it's not a siren song assuredly leading to total powerlessness. It can't protect people from their own bad decisions. It is probable that both sides might employ behaviors that take advantage and game the system. But that doesn't mean this won't do a lot of good, and solve real problems for a lot of people who need the help.
> Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top.
This sounds like a non sequitur. How does UBI lead to capital accumulating at the top? Couldn't it reasonably accumulate to whichever company creates the most value efficiently? Isn't that one of the features of capitalism?
If the issue is monopolistic behaviors of companies, this is what the author should be attacking.
> How does UBI lead to capital accumulating at the top?
It all depends on how you fund the UBI from different households (and their holding-companies, trusts, offshore bank accounts, etc.) versus how well each of those groups can recapture it from the economic engine.
There are probably scenarios where the UBI could be used to cause a net-benefit to the top 1%, based on net-losses among the 90-99th percentiles. That the bottom 90% see a minor benefit would just a side-effect.
The big thing UBI can do is help people whom want and desire to get out of suffering and miserable circumstances to higher level of productivity, lifestyle and tax generation. It's a no-brainer. Otherwise, pitchforks will be coming for the 1%. https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8
Given that the author is directing their outrage at public companies (Uber, FB, Amazon), what's to stop UBI recipients from buying shares of those companies to effect the same thing? Employees (though not contractors) already get equity as well. If control is the issue, then something akin to Elizabeth Warren's plan of an employee-representative board member is an equally useful tool, and a much less heavy-handed one.
Paranoid, cynical garbage. Silicon Valley also produces affordable, reliable, high resolution ultrasound diagnostic devices that save many lives with noninvasive procedures, but it is more gripping to talk about taxis.
The biggest problem with inequality is the floor and that is a problem UBI robustly addresses. Once people are off the floor they have many options and are not forced into the gig economy or any other specific option.
Could you please be more specific? So far I haven't seen a proposal that solves price inflation and reliable money source is very unclear as well - it'd be great if you could clarify.
16 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 43.5 ms ] threadBut UBI isn't a SV invention, far from it. Applied to SV, it does serve to continue concentrating the wealth. There was an interesting author on KQED forum a day or 2 ago who wrote a book about our betters keeping us down in just this way. I found that guy a bit ridiculous but again, not wrong.
-------------------
Had Andrew Jackson not overturned the original reconstruction proposal for freed slaves to be given 40 acres and a mule as reparation, instead of simply allowing them to earn wage labor on former slaveowners’ lands, we might be looking at a vastly less divided America today.
----------------------
Andrew Jackson was long dead. It was Andrew Johnson who rejected 40 acres and a mule. I guess those Tennessee presidents all sound alike.
The rest of the article is simply philosophical grandstanding about how UBI is really a figurative IV drip in the ICU being a secret plot by hospitals in order to keep people as patients forever.
I don't implicitly trust governments or corporations. The concept of an aggressive company like Uber, an organization that analyzed greyballing their data to subvert lawful behavior, is certainly one to operate their users exploitatively.
But, a supplemental pay check that means the difference between not eating plus getting evicted, contrasted against just hanging out and safely waiting for business to pick up again, in between seasonal dry spells, available to anyone, especially those who normally operate odd jobs as a career, this isn't some sinister trojan horse to lock people into a no-options future of scooter charging.
When people are facing eviction and starvation, and the very cold reality of getting locked into living on the streets, homeless, there are bigger problems at large, and worth fixing.
Universal Basic Income can change the world, but it's not a siren song assuredly leading to total powerlessness. It can't protect people from their own bad decisions. It is probable that both sides might employ behaviors that take advantage and game the system. But that doesn't mean this won't do a lot of good, and solve real problems for a lot of people who need the help.
This sounds like a non sequitur. How does UBI lead to capital accumulating at the top? Couldn't it reasonably accumulate to whichever company creates the most value efficiently? Isn't that one of the features of capitalism?
If the issue is monopolistic behaviors of companies, this is what the author should be attacking.
It all depends on how you fund the UBI from different households (and their holding-companies, trusts, offshore bank accounts, etc.) versus how well each of those groups can recapture it from the economic engine.
There are probably scenarios where the UBI could be used to cause a net-benefit to the top 1%, based on net-losses among the 90-99th percentiles. That the bottom 90% see a minor benefit would just a side-effect.
The biggest problem with inequality is the floor and that is a problem UBI robustly addresses. Once people are off the floor they have many options and are not forced into the gig economy or any other specific option.
Yours is a bad faith comparison unless you do this.