Slashdot Mirror
Are Universal Basic Incomes 'A Tool For Our Further Enslavement'? (medium.com)
Douglas Rushkoff, long-time open source advocate (and currently a professor of Digital Economics at the City University of New York, Queens College), is calling Universal Basic Incomes "no gift to the masses, but a tool for our further enslavement."
Uber's business plan, like that of so many other digital unicorns, is based on extracting all the value from the markets it enters. This ultimately means squeezing employees, customers, and suppliers alike in the name of continued growth. 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. When it's looked at the way a software developer would, it's clear that UBI is really little more than a patch to a program that's fundamentally flawed. The real purpose of digital capitalism is to extract value from the economy and deliver it to those at the top. If consumers find a way to retain some of that value for themselves, the thinking goes, you're doing something wrong or "leaving money on the table."
Walmart perfected the softer version of this model in the 20th century. Move into a town, undercut the local merchants by selling items below cost, and put everyone else out of business. Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want. So what if your workers have to go on welfare and food stamps. Now, digital companies are accomplishing the same thing, only faster and more completely.... Soon, consumers simply can't consume enough to keep the revenues flowing in. Even the prospect of stockpiling everyone's data, like Facebook or Google do, begins to lose its allure if none of the people behind the data have any money to spend. To the rescue comes UBI.
The policy was once thought of as a way of taking extreme poverty off the table. In this new incarnation, however, it merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system. Because of course, the cash doled out to citizens by the government will inevitably flow to them.... Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords... if Silicon Valley's UBI fans really wanted to repair the economic operating system, they should be looking not to universal basic income but universal basic assets, first proposed by Institute for the Future's Marina Gorbis... As appealing as it may sound, UBI is nothing more than a way for corporations to increase their power over us, all under the pretense of putting us on the payroll. It's the candy that a creep offers a kid to get into the car or the raise a sleazy employer gives a staff member who they've sexually harassed. It's hush money.
Rushkoff's conclusion? "Whether its proponents are cynical or simply naive, UBI is not the patch we need."
Walmart perfected the softer version of this model in the 20th century. Move into a town, undercut the local merchants by selling items below cost, and put everyone else out of business. Then, as sole retailer and sole employer, set the prices and wages you want. So what if your workers have to go on welfare and food stamps. Now, digital companies are accomplishing the same thing, only faster and more completely.... Soon, consumers simply can't consume enough to keep the revenues flowing in. Even the prospect of stockpiling everyone's data, like Facebook or Google do, begins to lose its allure if none of the people behind the data have any money to spend. To the rescue comes UBI.
The policy was once thought of as a way of taking extreme poverty off the table. In this new incarnation, however, it merely serves as a way to keep the wealthiest people (and their loyal vassals, the software developers) entrenched at the very top of the economic operating system. Because of course, the cash doled out to citizens by the government will inevitably flow to them.... Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords... if Silicon Valley's UBI fans really wanted to repair the economic operating system, they should be looking not to universal basic income but universal basic assets, first proposed by Institute for the Future's Marina Gorbis... As appealing as it may sound, UBI is nothing more than a way for corporations to increase their power over us, all under the pretense of putting us on the payroll. It's the candy that a creep offers a kid to get into the car or the raise a sleazy employer gives a staff member who they've sexually harassed. It's hush money.
Rushkoff's conclusion? "Whether its proponents are cynical or simply naive, UBI is not the patch we need."
If the least productive members of society are actually able to get off the treadmill of a minimum-wage job, they'll have time to better themselves through education, training, reading, etc should they desire to. The breathing room given to them will actually allow them to become MORE productive people.
That sounds like a desperate last-ditch effort to discredit UBI. According to his logic, employment is just another tool to funnel money to Uber and Walmart as well, so we should all quit our jobs right now to stop them.
OTOH, is we actually issue UBI, people won't need to work for Uber until they're too poor to work anymore. They can hold out for a real job that pays what their time and resources are worth.
At least cab companies are local, pay local taxes and their revenues go back into the community instead of all the profit being shoved off to some douche's new San Francisco campus.
This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market. They exchange one thing of value (in the case of Uber, transportation services) for another thing of value (money).
The point your ignoring, which the article summary touches on is the concept of externalities. Wal-Mart is heavily subsidized by the government, since a great many of its employees couldn't exist without government assistance. UBI is just government assistance in a different form. It may work out or not. It has the bonus of allowing the end user to control how it is spent and I suppose the negative of allowing the end user to control how it is spent. The actual outcome depends on the end user.
Either way externalities exist in businesses. The most successful are liable to be those that shift the cost to future generations or to others. Want uber to be "fair"? Just make sure the total amount of regulation they face is the same as an ordinary cab driver faces. Do also remember that regulation tends to come about as a result of bad behaviour, so quite often removing regulations has consequences that are significant.
So to answer the question of the article. No, not really. UBI is not slavery. If anything it is the opposite. A person could do what they love, even if it takes awhile to find, cause their basics are met. Of course, whether UBI is feasible is another matter...
That's... beyond untrue. Lot's of government programs produce values that are many times the amount spent on them.
Your ad here. Ask me how!