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."
As opposed to the social democratic systems that just tax the hell out of people? Or the outright Soviet-style socialist systems that seize private property and nationalize it, usually to disastrous results?
If you think that profit is immoral, you should probably give back some of your salary to your employer. Wouldn't you agree that anything you earn above what you need to live is a profit on your part?
Human beings are required to work and be productive at something. If an economic model doesn't provide that outlet then psychological problems tend to happen such as, depression and suicide.
That is why it is a curse to have lots of money.
Sure it is fine for the first year or so, but then you become bored or you indulge in self destructive behavior.
So to avoid that an economic model should include everyones participation. So far, the best model we have is free markets coupled with a Republic/Democracy.
Nobody has found a better solution yet at scale.
The code of ethics, the oldest which is Judao Christian/Western ethics embodies this idea when it says you are not to covet they neighbors goods.
It implies you can own things, from the fruits of your own labor and keep them safe so you can plan your existence in a predictable way.
Without that, predictability is not something you can plan for and you have no control over, such as in Communism.
The state plans everything for you.
People have all sorts of faults of course. The largest one is, being lazy. The other is lust for power.
The majority of us, do not wake up in the morning with the first thing on our minds is how to control my fellow human begins. Most of us wake up and look forward to the work day and what sorts of things we can contribute or work for.
But obviously, those who seek power awake with the first goal on their minds to start their day, and this is a problem no matter what political or economic system you pick.
But Universal Basic Income basically makes the human soul rot. With a bribe everyday from governments, corporations or individuals who want to control you.
So you do not act, and restore your own destiny so they can live on their private little islands, or enjoy their "you can't fire me" government jobs.
While you and your kids live with no future.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
"No one is taking your money,"
can you at least not blatantly lie?
Taxes are not voluntary, they are compulsory, meaning people with guns come for you when you do not pay them. Yes, people are in fact "taking my money". Do you know what else? The Government gets paid before I do as well. The only thing I see is how munch the government TOOK out of my paycheck before it gets deposited in my bank account.
Shopping at the grocery store is not compulsory. For now until total socialism takes total control I can still at least grow my own food.