Are Universal Basic Incomes 'A Tool For Our Further Enslavement'? (medium.com) 651
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."
Or you could stick with the tried and true (Score:5, Insightful)
tool for enslavement: using emotionally loaded language.
Re:Or you could stick with the tried and true (Score:4, Insightful)
tool for enslavement: using emotionally loaded language.
Quoting Tacitus, actually ... in a slightly round about way. Mind you Tacitus was speaking about 'civilisation' as the tool of enslavement
"He...gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses...and so the population was gradually led into the demoralising temptations of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilisation,' when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement."
If you had asked him about the Roman elite's practice of pacifying the vast masses of Rome's unemployed with 'bread and games' (in a modern context: universal income, reality TV, Trump rallies and Fox News) he probably would have had similar things to say except he would probably have also pointed out, with a considerable degree of satisfaction, that the Roman mob sold itself more cheaply than the Britons did.
Re:Or you could stick with the tried and true (Score:5, Insightful)
Except UBI and Trump are pretty much mortal enemies. Silly argument.
Well, it's a bit late to debate Tacitus on the validity of his argument. As for UBI it's pretty much a case of: WOOSH! ... on your part. If you can choose between pacifying the downtrodden and neglected citizenry with UBI or have then come for you with Glocks, AR-15s and IEDs then UBI starts to look pretty good much like investing in bread and games did 2000 years ago. Civil unrest, or god forbid civil war and revolution, tend not to be conducive to profitable capitalist activities (excepting weapons manufacturing, private security and private incarcerations service industries but they don't make for much of an economy). I will agree with you on one point. While the rest of the plutocrats will probably realise the value of UBI as a relatively cheap way of pacifying the masses, Donald Trump is far too much of an idiot to ever reach that conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to propose more value-neutral alternatives.
Complete nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Complete nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Well one of the arguments in favor of UBI is it provides the financial stability/assurance to take risks.
If you're guaranteed to have at least enough money to make rent and keep yourself fed, maybe you can spend some time looking for a better job, or go back to school/get a new skill to move into a different profession, or rally for better pay and working conditions with less fear of getting fired over it (and being able to quit, which puts at least some weight in your position as an employee).
Or maybe you could take a chance at quitting your current job and starting a new business, since it's easier to afford to taking that risk.
=Smidge=
Re:Complete nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
As shaky as the the "science" of economics is, any Econ grad student could explain to you why that is simply, and absolutely not true historically. In the United States, we have had a rapidly growing money supply, based entirely on the Fed printing money, and it has not led to inflation.
If you're using a fixed (or relatively fixed) commodity like gold as the basis for your currency then you might have an argument. Since we went off the gold standard, you do not see any correlation between the number of dollars in the system and inflation. The simplest way to express it is this: if the growth in monetary supply outpaces the growth in output, then there might be some inflation, but since we've had decades of increased output and virtually no increase in money in the pockets of working people, there is a lot of ground to make up before we start seeing any impact. So, if the Fed printing money to put in the pockets of rich people (aka, quantitative easing) has not caused monetary inflation, then certainly putting money in the hands of people at the other end of the spectrum won't either. In fact, the increase in demand would probably trigger greater output.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In the United States, we have had a rapidly growing money supply, based entirely on the Fed printing money, and it has not led to inflation.
This is misleading. The whole point of QE was to prevent a deflationary spiral in the aftermath of the financial crisis. So while it didn't lead to high inflation, it did lead to much higher inflation than we would have otherwise had.
In 2008, we came very close to another great depression, and it was QE, Obama's stimulus package, and yes, the unpopular but necessary bank bailout, that kept that from happening.
Re: (Score:3)
The money was pumped into the financial sector and government. The Fed bought mortgages and government debt. [brookings.edu] I seem to recall the Fed buyi
Re: (Score:3)
The bailouts rescued the old system.
Indeed they did. But October 2008 was not the best time to do a redesign. When the lifeboat is sinking, you don't debate, you grab a bucket and start bailing.
The time for the redesign came later. The solution from the left was Sarbanes-Oxley. The solution from the right was more deregulation. I'm not sure which was worse.
Re: (Score:3)
So, why do we still have quantitative easing?
We don't. The Fed has not been a net buyer of treasury bonds for years. QE tapered to zero in 2014.
Re:Complete nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
We do. The interest that the Fed is still paying banks for their reserves (which we have them in QE 1 through QE 4), is part of quantitative easing. They're getting money for free and charging, let's see, what is the interest rate on the Visa card in your pocket? 20 percent? 23 percent?
They can say QE is over, but the floodgates are still open and the printing presses are still working, and all those federal diplomas are still going to the same big banks, which are refusing to lend it out or pay interest on your deposits.
I love how all the MAGA chuds who read Zerohedge all of a sudden think they know what's what because they've learned some buzzwords. The swamp continues to get flooded and you're raising your hands in victory.
Re: (Score:3)
It is when the interest paid on reserves is more than 2.25%. Since the banks aren't making home loans at anywhere near the rate they're supposed to, all the printed money is going straight into reserves.
Do you really think you live in a world where money isn't being printed and handed to the rich?
Re: (Score:3)
and absolutely not true historically. In the United States, we have had a rapidly growing money supply, based entirely on the Fed printing money, and it has not led to inflation.
You're dumb as a brick. If you had actually talked to a student of economics (and a good student in economics 101 would know it, this is really basic stuff and you are ignorant), they would have told you that MV=PQ. In other words, the velocity of money matters just as much as the total money supply. If the money supply increases and people act the same (ie, velocity and total goods doesn't change), then there will be inflation. This is empirically demonstrated, through a lot of historical examples, which y
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's a common counter-argument, but doesn't seem to make sense. You seem to be arguing that charity-type wealth distribution is pointless in general... I'd like to settle this for myself once and for all, so perhaps you can help clarify your point.
As far as I understand it, the goal of UBI is to redistribute the wealth more fairly*, not to create wealth, and only ends up helping those that need money.
For a simpler example, if I buy someone a pair of shoes, that doesn't create wealth, just takes it out of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
That's not how economics works. A UBI is re-distributive, if Sue has $10K, and Frank and George only have $1K then sellers have a lot of incentive to create things for Sue and not much to make things for Frank and George.
But if Sue now only has $8K and Frank and George have $2K sellers are going to shift some effort away from making things for Sue and put more effort into making things for George and Frank.
How this translates into prices is fuzzy and very circumstantial. Housing generally gets cheaper, Sue
Re: (Score:3)
Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Now there's going to be some inflationary effect on the prices Frank and George pay, but Mary is also trying to sell them things and if Sue jacks her prices up too high then Mary will steal the market by undercutting Sue.
There's a lot of reason to thing the economy isn't functioning well when it comes to the wages of Frank and George, wages are
Re: (Score:3)
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
That's the point I was trying to make, the driver of wealth inequality isn't from firms gouging their customers, it's from firms being able to underpay their workers.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
Well of course then you just raise UBI. Problem solved.
War on poverty cannot be won (Score:4, Insightful)
40+ years and trillions of dollars after Johnson declared war on poverty and here we are wondering how to enslave more generations in poverty with even more expensive schemes.
Re:War on poverty cannot be won (Score:5, Interesting)
40+ years and trillions of dollars after Johnson declared war on poverty and here we are wondering how to enslave more generations in poverty with even more expensive schemes.
If people want to see where this gets them, just look up here to Canada. ~100 years of the federal government paying natives under treaty, and it's effectively collapsed their entire culture and society. Laziness is an inherent human trait, and without something that pushes large swaths of society to improve themselves it just all goes screaming downhill.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, laziness is inherent in humans. That's why it's so important to tax inheritances at roughly 99%. Otherwise, all those wealthy children will just sit on their asses and do nothing except consume and make political contributions to reactionaries. By taxing them and redistributing the decedent's hoarded wealth, the children are allowed to work for a living, and those in dire need have a shot at the money that had been pulled away from things like housing and food and placed instead into yachts, jewelry
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and as children many were taken from their communities against their will and put into Residential Schools that had the express purpose of trying to erase their indigenous identities.
Yeah residential schools, funny how many natives actually do and still support them and believe they should come back.
So after all of this... you think a bit of Government money is to blame for their problems?
Indirectly yes. And it's not an uncommon belief among natives that "have left the reservation."
To mangle an old expression, you're blaming the deck chair arrangement for the sinking of the Titanic.
Well you sure did mangle it. But why not look at the actions, what the previous government(Harper) did in an attempt to gain accountability and the current government(Trudeau) which screeched that it was racist and we'll go from there.
Re: (Score:3)
it's got nothing to do with laziness. Most folks just aren't that capable. That was fine when we had farm jobs and later factory jobs. We've done away with most of those, and we're starting to see the effect.
That said, folks can and will amuse themselves. And given birth control they won't even breed out of control. Heck, give the birth control for free and start sex ed early and you'll have trouble getting them to have enough people to sustain a population. People breeded a lot because they needed farm hands. Take that need away and they'll control themselves.
Well it appears your argument is they're just stupid. So what's your savior answer going to be?
You're spouting puritanical nonsense that got jammed in your skull when you were too young to have mental defenses against it. Look around the world at how people behave when they're under constant pressure. Poor people make consistently worse decisions and mistakes. Pressure doesn't make diamonds, it makes garbage more compact.
So, when a native makes the same statement when they've left the reservation. Or bands that are extremely successful, and haven't fallen into the "free money" claptrap state the same, it's obviously my problem and not a common sentiment? Gee it's almost like you're fundamentally ignorant of what's actually going on.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it might be the centuries of genocide against the Indigenous / Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, and not the government living up to any treaties obligations that is responsible for what you see in Canada. Residential schools, Indian hospitals, Sixties Scoop, the list goes on and on.
Really? So when the natives were genociding themselves, raping, enslaving each other and other people did the same thing it was suddenly whitey's fault? Hey whatever I guess, I mean it's not like there wasn't historical evidence that natives from other bands would take women captive, rape them until pregnant then kill them after giving birth or anything. Such a great shining cultural ethos and all that, and really plays well with the peaceful natives bit.
Shouldn't be surprised by that comment especially w
This thinking misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people like to complain that as this wealth is created that a disproportionate amount of it goes to the wealthiest people, but it misses the point. It doesn't matter if the wealthiest are getting a disproportionate amount of it as long as everyone is moving up, and if you look at the world, poverty has been declining globally at massive rates. Even in the U.S. which is already wealthy, people are moving up. You often see people complain about the shrinking middle class, but what they fail to mention is that it's because the upper middle class is growing [aei.org].
If anything is a problem with UBI, it's that humans seem to need some purpose in order to function well and for a lot of people that's a job that they feel gives their lives meaning. Many proponents like to think that most UBI recipients will learn new skills, etc. but I think a large number either won't or there might be a few at the bottom who won't be able do any kind of productive labor that wouldn't be better done by a machine. Even though further industrialization will continue to drive productivity higher and make goods more affordable, people without purpose tend to fall victim to substance abuse or other forms of behavior with similar consequences and outcomes. I think that's going to be the harder problem to crack, because I'm not sure if technology can do anything about it.
Re:This thinking misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This thinking misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
they'll have time to better themselves through education, training, reading, etc should they desire to.
That's really the key part right there. There are a large number of people who have no such desire and would just be a sponge. I'd argue that it's probably less expensive to just let them be sponges than to deal with the other unwanted outcomes of just leaving them in abject poverty, but that's just my view. Basically I can either pay for a UBI or I can pay for police, prisons, etc. when these people end up on the street and turn to crime to survive.
Also, when I'm talking about the least productive members of society, I'm talking about people who are probably moderately mentally disabled and doing cleaning work as a part of some program that subsidizes their employment to some degree. They may not be able to read (though with video services that might not be a necessity anymore) and there are likely limits to their attainment. As computers become more powerful and AI more capable, the aptitude floor just increases.
Fortunately, I don't believe that this is a large issue. There will be some people who just choose to become useless, but I believe that most people do want to better themselves or do something useful. Perhaps there could be a stipulation that people who get a UBI and don't gain new employment within some duration have to do 10 hours of volunteer work per week. Even if it's not cost effective, it's still something. I also think that having people do volunteer work would do a lot to prevent withdrawal from society as it's precisely the kind of work that's easy to take some pride in or let's people feel as though they're making a difference in the world.
Other misses (Score:3)
I'd argue that it's probably less expensive to just let them be sponges
Even after you correctly call some category of people sponges you don't follow through the analogy of what sponges do best - absorb things.
There's an old saying that "idle hands are the devils playground" and if you start to give a bunch of people just enough money to subsist on, you will quickly find they are consuming VASTLY more resources than the poor are today.- in terms of health care, and costs to society at large from greatly inc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not everyone is given equal educational opportunities in the first place. There are states with piss-poor public high schools where even public universities cost $15 grand a year. Likewise, job opportunities differ regionally, but people with families can't just pack it up and move on a dime's drop. Also, people mature at different rates, and some people have learning differences (ADHD, etc) that get diagnosed later in life.
Grow up instead of speaking from a position of privilege.
Idiocracy (Score:2)
UBI is the primary ingredient.
Huge tax rate (Score:2)
Want to support the poor and working poor?
Use a means test to find out who is not working, poor, working poor, in need of gov support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Offer that support until they are working the needed hours and earning a wage.
Use photo ID to prove citizenship when starting such payments and ensure the payment goes into a new bank account that has been set up with photo ID.
That ensures payments only go to approved citizens and no
Extreme poverty... (Score:2)
...is a sign of a systemic problem in society.
UBI could help some of the poor to change their situation for the better but it will not fix the root of the problems and as long as that persists we will have poor people no matter what "band aids" are used.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines: No. (Score:3)
This article proposes, instead of the UBI, something called "universal basic assets". Looking online, this seems to be a grab-bag of three things: 1) some form of income redistribution such as UBI, welfare, or progressive taxation, 2) government-provided services such as parks and libraries 3) nongovernment-provided services such as Wikipedia.
How exactly does UBA differ from UBI? Assets #2 and #3 already exist. #2 can be supplemented by adding new government services, #3 cannot be supplemented because it's what individuals choose to provide. As for #1, we all agree that income supplementation is or will become necessary, but in what form? If the income provided is by UBI, then UBA ends up being exactly the same as UBI. If the income is provided by some other means, what makes that means better than UBI?
In effect, the only difference between UBI and UBA is in the clarity of thinking. UBI identifies concrete problems (inequality is rising, some people are likely to end up without any marketable skills, government aid programs are inefficient) and proposes a concrete solution to all of them, with clear benefits and downsides that can be rationally debated. With UBA, in contrast, the thinking is a muddle and the only consistent idea is that capitalism is oppressive so we must look at the world in *some* way that is not capitalism. The 3 components have little in common, and seem lumped together only to provide the illusion that attempts (like UBI) to solve concrete problems are insufficient. As for the actual difficult problems that UBI tries to address, UBA doesn't bother to think about - it has no opinion on whether UBI or welfare or something else is best. Similarly, it does not provide any concrete suggestions for improving #2 or #3, the two other things it claims are
Bottom line: UBA and this article don't seriously attempt to solve any problems, all they do is try to divide the world into Marxist oppressors and oppressed, and sling insults like "slaveowners" at anyone who isn't sufficiently oppressed. This is not a recipe for anything positive in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, it does not provide any concrete suggestions for improving #2 or #3, the two other things it claims are
...necessary for livelihood.
Wish you could edit comments here until the moment that they have been replied to or modded...
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, it does not provide any concrete suggestions for improving #2 or #3, the two other things it claims are
...necessary for livelihood.
Wish you could edit comments here until the moment that they have been replied to or modded...
Would be nice! So, maybe reply to your post, copy & insert original post to comment box - with fix - and pre-pend "Ignore previous post, please!"?
What level of UBI? (Score:2)
We can imagine an UBI that empower workers. If the level is high enough that you can tell employers you are not interested by their projects, the story becomes different. But that requires a huge amount of money.
Nothing impossible, but the scale is about socializing the whole labor market: Companies would pay an UBI fund to get the UBI paid workers abroad. The more a company pays, the more workers it can employ, but it still have to convince workers their project is worth it. Of course, this is a completel
Desperation (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Somebody doesn't understand UBI. (Score:5, Interesting)
The premise is nonsense. UBI is a means of distributing wealth in a economy where the marginal cost of producing goods and services approaches zero. It's a means to offer a transition into post-scarcity economy and a means to keep the ones at the lowest position in the pyramid at bay, because any other option would be more expensive. Rather having people who's jobs have been taken by robots grab kalashnikovs and start taking what they want society will chose to give them UBI. Those societies that will not do so when time is due will fail. UBI raises the bottom to which one can sick to something resembling a frugal but dignified life.
Uber and other shared economy services is just a transition from "private owned cars" to "robot cars used as a commodity" by transition over something that resembles taxis but really is nothing other than people doing lowly work that will be replaced by robots within 10 years. The main part about Uber is nothing but a piece of software anyway. I expect something like Waymo cars becoming attached to the Uber API or something like that within the next 5 years.
The Uber drivers of today will then get UBI. Where they don't, they will cause trouble, understandably.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Somebody doesn't understand UBI. (Score:4, Insightful)
UBI money has to come from somewhere. taxes or just more borrowing?/p?
all the money (Score:3)
once all the money is collected by those at the top, is it game over, or will they find a way to get more? if at that point they "let" UBI start, where will that money come from?
logistical utility = political agency (Score:3)
This has been true for the last 50,000 years in human society.
If you render yourself logistically irrelevant... your political agency will wither to a similar irrelevance.
I strongly encourage those attracted to the idea of something for nothing to appreciate that a society that doesn't need you... won't miss you.
And whilst the current society for a lot of reasons won't push that line... probably not throughout all your life times... it may well in your children's or grand children's life times.
The agency we have now is a result of past generations logistical utility to the society. Go through the periods of time and find periods where people had more or less agency and you'll find that people had more personal logistical utility to the society.
The two variables correlate very strongly.
If you render yourself a net drain on society... then society will not prioritize your concerns. And if a situation comes up where the society can solve a problem by giving you less... it will... because there's no negative consequence to giving you less.
if you were doing something then giving you less would have a negative effect on whatever you were providing. But if you provide nothing... then there's no downside to shaving that to the bone.
I say all this as a father loves his children... as brother cares for his brothers... etc etc... Don't fall into this, people. It is a death pact.
This happened because we like the outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
To read the original post carefully, he is saying that the progress of capitalism has left us slaves to a small number of corporate overlords. I have to say, that's true.
We let this happen because we enjoy having Amazon figure out what we want to buy, and make it easy for us to pull the trigger. Same with Uber. It's not really that bad, and also not that different from what is historically normal.
Now, enslaving overlords aren't what they used to be. They have learned a lot of lessons from historical episodes like the French Revolution, the mass unemployment in Britain of the 1920s, the early Great Depression in the US, and many others. The lesson is captured in what someone upthread referred to as "pitchforkiness," and others refer to as the frog-in-hot-water syndrome: Don't let the slaves get too uncomfortable.
It's incredibly good to be in the quiet ruling class of a prosperous, hopeful world. It really sucks to be the unquestioned despot of masses of people who feel that life is going the wrong way for them. Talk to billionaires and centi-millionaires (which I do), and you'll realize they totally get this.
What is happening now is that the lessons of noblesse oblige are steadily being unlearned by the newest class of oligarchs, who like most people 35 and younger, are astonishingly ignorant of history. I actually date this movement to the Enron blowup, and the less-celebrated concomitant event, the destruction of its auditor Arthur Andersen & Co. I remember boardroom conversations at that time about the significance of this episode: that the relatively few people with true power have lost any ethical sense, and we all had better start getting it back.
Guess what? We haven't, and it's gotten much worse since then.
In terms of basic economics, this is showing up as deflation. Not in the textbook monetary sense, but in the fact (mentioned by many posters here) that it's getting noticeably harder for ordinary middle-class people to afford many economic goods that were easily within reach in more prosperous times. This is a really big and separate topic (it intersects with the disastrous aftermath of the 2008 GFC). But for present purposes it represents the lever by which the truly powerful are exerting their control.
The extreme example of this is the situation in Silicon Valley. You'd think the C programmers making $240K/year and the data scientists literally making up to a million, have it made in the shade. So why are they constantly obsessing over real estate? They have plenty of money, but there's not enough for them to buy with it. That's a new kind of deflation (which many people mistake for inflation), and something like it is happening across all sectors of the economy, and in nearly every country. That's what we have to be worried about, because our economic overlords aren't doing anything about it.
Among many other more important things, this led to the rise of Donald Trump, who achieved nothing more (or less) than recognizing it and giving it a name. We're rather lucky that he's a feckless idiot. A more capable individual, more plugged into the true economic power structure of Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Tencent, Alibaba, etc., could wreak tremendous harm.
Re: Where does the money come from (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right, instead we should reward them for being liars (PR) or sociopaths (CEOs) or just plain old gun dealers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why is it not evil to take someones money if the government does it? Because you voted for it? Why can't people just rob the banks? They have insurance for that, no one is a victim right? It's just money!
You are evil, just like the liars and sociopaths you are complaining about... you just happen to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. The desire to take something that was not yours be it through direct violence at your own hand or through indirect violence by voting that another take it for you is
Re: Where does the money come from (Score:5, Informative)
No one is taking your money, your paying taxes to have an environment where you can work and earn money. Don't like paying taxes, well it is easy to stop working and paying them. You can also move to a country without taxes such as Somalia or a country with low taxes such as Saudi Arabia and enjoy the freedom that not paying taxes brings.
Do you complain about the grocery store demanding money to allow you to walk out with groceries?
Here, let me help you with that. (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism is theft, plain and simple. Profit is a tax on the labor of others. You should not reward people just because they can fog a mirror while being rich.
Re:Here, let me help you with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Profit is a tax on the labor of others.
Then work for yourself. Learn a skill and put an ad on Craigslist. I hired a plumber from Craigslist last month for $70 an hour. Everyone else was either too busy or charging even more. There is plenty of opportunity for anyone willing to show up on time and do the work.
Re: (Score:3)
slippery slope fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see how well your capitalist dreams work out when every highway in the country is a toll road and the owners can not only charge anything they want, they can also refuse any traffic they want.
Capitalism has been built on a socialist foundation. Without that foundation, it would have crumbled to dust almost as soon as it started.
Re:Here, let me help you with that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every road and highway in the US is already a toll road, via the gas taxes collected (which, nominally, are supposed to pay for the roads - but rarely are dedicated to that purpose). In California, the State makes ~$0.50 per gallon; with about 15 billion gallons of gas purchased annually, that's around $7.5 billion in tax revenue, which is well above CalTrans (and local municipality) spending on road repair. Gas taxes are the tolls we pay to maintain the road - it's just often that the pot of money is raided for non-road use [latimes.com] and thus poverty is claimed when it's time to raise more taxes/tolls for roads.
In 2014, about $324 billion (page 5-18) was spent [dot.gov] on all transportation initiatives by local, State, and Federal agencies. This includes transit as well as roads. Those same Governmental agencies collected about $355.1 billion (page 5-21), making transportation more than self-sufficient - if it was all spent on transportation.
The Federal Government made $39 billion in gas and road taxes alone, even through it spent just $33 billion total on all transportation (a large portion of which went to transit). Of that $39 billion in revenue from roads, the Federal Government spent just $3.2 billion supporting roads.
Far from "capitalist roads killing you with tolls", we're already being excessively tolled by the Government - it's just done a gallon at a time.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the wages are part of the greater operating costs. Profit is simply what is left over from all of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Here, let me help you with that. (Score:3)
Ever heard of a monopoly? Ever heard of endlessly-renewing "intellectual property"? These are literally forcing you to pay for something you don't want, or pay more for something you do want, enforced by the power of the government.
Well sure, I would LIKE to be able to pay one penny for a new car, but that requires me finding someone that will sell it for that price. The fact that I'm unable to find a car for that price doesn't mean I'm being "forced to pay more"; I have the option of not buying. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything, except maybe Obama forcing you to but health insurance.
You want an example of forcing someone to pay more at gunpoint? What do you call it when a pharmaceutical company decides to jack up the price of some life-saving drug by thousands of dollars per dose even though the patent has run out.
I call it a dick move, but they're still not forcing you to buy anything. Go manufacture your own if you're not happy with their price. The pate
Re:Where does the money come from (Score:5, Insightful)
UBI is a safety net without the expensive part of qualifying people for different welfare programs. Nothing more or less. It's a more efficient form of welfare, where the costs of the UBI are recovered with higher income and/or sales taxes as incomes increase.
Also, people who don't feel as poor tend to be more mobile. If you're making $10/hr at Mickey Dee's at 40hr/week, you're too busy surviving to go back to school or look for vocational training to better yourself. Take away the immediate need for as much income, and people end up with more options -- this will end up making people MORE productive in the long run.
It's a bit more than a safety net (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, lots of folks don't _want_ the poor to have options. I worked for a fast food joint in the 90s and the owner had figured out one of her managers' husband was using the insurance for life saving meds. This was before Obamacare did away with pre-existing condition denials so she was completely trapped at that job. Literally a death sentence for her husband if she ever left. As soon as the owner found out she jacked the manager's hours up to 60+/week (salaried of course). This went on until her husband eventually succumbed to his illness and she quit soon after.
The ruling class are well aware of the value of desperation and happy to exploit it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it doesn't, at least not if set up sensibly. We have a big enough per capita GDP to have everyone above the poverty line, and the human labor being wasted in the complex administration of these programs can be utilized in a more productive way.
Yes, it will be paid out to a wider base, but the average citizen will paying in roughly what they get out, so it's a wash. And we'll get oodles of extra productivity and reduced costs from people being able to afford to take care of themselves, as well as th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wish i had mod points, and that you were not posting as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strange Coincidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to Capitalism, which in it's modern form mostly consists of idle rich skimming all the profit off of the labor of the masses,
The Uber argument is specious (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, Uber can die in a fire for all I care. But unless, for some bizarre reason, UBI recipients are required to give some percentage of their income specifically to Uber, dropping that company into this discussion is so disconnected from the topic at hand that it doesn’t even deserve to be called a straw man.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Informative)
> This left-wing screen (which is not news, let alone news for nerds) ignores that companies don't "extract" value from a market.
Except that's exactly what they do: It's called "Profit." Profit is the extracted value in excess of the materials and labor the thing they sold cost. The fact that you are willing to pay in excess of what something is materially worth because its convenient doesn't mean it's not extracting value from you. Just the opposite, in fact.
Note this is not necessarily a bad thing; That profit can be applied to other things, and so the extracted value ultimately recycled back into the economy. It's when people take that extracted value and remove it from the economy that we have a problem...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring that both sides in the transaction gain from a voluntary exchange. I gain value from paying someone to do something for me because I value my time, or whatever is involved more than I value what I'm paying them to do it. Look up consumer surplus, for example.
The amount of profit for both sides is minimized by the amount of competition for what they are providing.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Interesting)
You're ignoring that both sides in the transaction gain from a voluntary exchange.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are gaining equally from that transaction. Indeed, chances are pretty good that the corporate entity is gaining a whole lot more from the transaction than the consumer is.
Unfortunately, for many transactions the consumer has little choice. We don't get to choose to simply not eat, for example (and most working people don't really have the option of spending half their day fishing).
What the article writer seems to miss in my mind is that UBI needs to go hand-in-hand with a reasonable minimum wage. UBI shouldn't be a way for government to simply provide cheaper labour for corporate entities -- that's simply corporate welfare. UBI needs to be balanced with a reasonable minimum wage to prevent these sorts of abuses.
Yaz
Re: uber is all most Enslavement with others left (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, chances are pretty good that the corporate entity is gaining a whole lot more from the transaction than the consumer is.
Nonsense. If I buy a pair of socks from amazon, I gain a hell of a lot of value; I save the many hours of labour which would be required for me to go out and sheer a sheep, turn the wool into yarn or thread, and then weave the yarn into a pair of socks. Whereas Amazon gains maybe a dollar.
That fact that amazon might sell 10 million pairs of socks and get 10 million dollars of "value" as a result doesn't change the fact that in each individual transaction the consumer benefits far more than the seller. This is the very foundation of trade. The whole point of buying stuff is that you get more value from buying it than from producing it yourself. If the seller ends up richer than you it's not because he's getting more value from your transaction; it's because he's conducting a hell of a lot more transactions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You've got to be kidding. There are often many alternatives to a given kind of transportation: walk, run, own bike, rent bike, horse, hitchhike, motorcycle, moped, bus, subway, *move to closer location*, decide that the trip wasn't worth whatever they're charging, etc
Because your alternatives are so practical for most people after decades of fucking up our cities due to zoning.
"Hmm...I can't afford an Uber....I know! I'll buy a horse!! Or dig my own subway!!"
Re: (Score:3)
Consolidation of the Production of Value (Score:5, Insightful)
This is similar to what happened at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution: Instead of 10 farmers being minimally productive and all eking out a living, one farmer could become highly productive, obtain dollars for the things of value he's producing, and the other farmers go out of business. This has continued till the present day, where we have mega-farms and agribusiness, and few smaller (though still large) farms.
Automation and centralized purchasing centers (web sites) are similarly consolidating value. As a company is able to replace more and more workers with machinery, it does not require assistance in the creation of things that people value. The company - the management - is able to keep it all for itself. Instead of a store requiring 100 people to generate 20 million a year in value, it now only requires 10.
It's the "Consolidation of the Production of Value."
Initially, there's tremendous dislocation. People gotta eat and have shelter and clothes everyday. But it can take decades for new sectors to form which can make use of the displaced workers.
I too started feeling pitchforky when I read the summary. There is, in fact, a tremendous amount of psychopathic malfeasance at the top levels of the economy and government. But, we need to understand what's going on, in order to fairly and justly address it, in order to provide the greatest standard of living for the most people.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Insightful)
That's... beyond untrue. Lot's of government programs produce values that are many times the amount spent on them.
Re: (Score:3)
We would like to see numbers supporting your claims. It does not bode well that your exposition starts with "My guess..."
Re: (Score:3)
I was with you till you veered into the "guvmint evil" screed. Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us? Other than roads. And clean water. And and and...
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, all that is true in a competitive market. The thing, is the first you learn at Business School is that competitive markets are for suckers. What you really want is a monopoly, and there's plenty of ways to achieve one. Patents, network effects, regulation, brand recognition, high cost of entry to the market - there are lots of ways to achieve a monopoly, or at least a near monopoly.
There are plenty of companies that are value extractors. Healthcare, telecommunications, pharmaceutical and finance are r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You load sixteen tons and what do you get Another day older and deeper in debt Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store"
Presentism; noun. An uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
Guess what? What you complain about has nothing to do with capitalism. Poverty is the DEFAULT state for humanity, with the average person working 12-16 hour days 6 days a week just to survive. Capitalism in those days merely inherited what existed before it. Technology was primitive, productivity was low and therefore wages were low. It was through
Re: (Score:3)
You will find NOBODY protesting poverty in 1700 for the same reason you won't find people protesting old age today. What's the point in protesting something that there is no solution to?
I find SENS Research Foundation [wikipedia.org] attempting to find solutions.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironic. California indian's are reported to have spent 4 hours a day meeting their needs, and in a virtual paradise.
Re: uber is all most Enslavement with others left (Score:5, Insightful)
"Poverty is the DEFAULT state for humanity, with the average person working 12-16 hour days 6 days a week just to survive."
Oh my brother, you are woefully misinformed about history.
The horrific living conditions you describe are typical of the urban proletariat in the mid-19th century. 19th century capitalism can be seen as one of the all-time nadirs of human civilization. Such conditions were not at all typical of previous eras in European history. Peasants, serfs, and even most literal slaves in antiquity did not work nearly so much nor in such bad conditions.
The brutal living conditions of this new urban proletariat - a social grouping that had not existed a hundred years prior - appalled men of all classes. It directly inspired movements of anti-capitalist resistance such as communism, socialism, and the corporatist forbearers of fascism.
You might enjoy reading _The Great Transformation_ by Karl Polanyi for a detailed history of the development of capitalism and it's attendant poverty, squalor, & misery. Note that Polanyi would probably be described as "rightist" in contemporary American politics, illustrating again the bogusness of the left/right dichotomy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Quite so, but modern capitalists love to use the 19th Century 'dark satanic mills' as the bar to measure everything to prove no matter how badly you are being treated now, you should be grateful to the "job creators".
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:4, Insightful)
FYI people didn't work 12-16 hours on a farm on a regular basis, the industrial revolution made people work longer hours than before.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma... [mit.edu]
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog... [adamsmith.org]
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:4)
Yeah...except what Wally World does is bleed the people making the products they sell dry until they have to be made in sweatshops to produce a product at the price Wally World wants...Huffy ring any bells?
I hear this line of BS from anti walmart and anti-corp. crowed all the time. But what we never hear from you is the follow through or the alternatives. The popular version is that of a 8 year old child putting together a $100 sneakers for a few dollars a day. What you never mention is the alternatives for that child. Instead you sit there on your high horse passing out judgement from on high.
Here are the options for that child putting together those sneakers Lets see they can go in to the sex trade, where a add deal of them wind up. Getting used dozens of times a day for nothing more than scraps. Then again they could just simply starve on the streets, or any number options, most of them not better than the sex trade.
Most of them are glad to have that job for a few dollars a day. The options for them are far worse.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the better option is for these 8-year-olds not to exist in the first place because the parents had access to condoms, IUDs, hormone treatment, or other means of birth control.
Re: (Score:3)
Typical answer that I would expect from you people. You always are the first to pass blame but never one to actually suggest something useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Certain parts of of the "religious right" along with a great many others are a bunch god damn idiots. Sorry I bit your head off earlier. I actually do understand what you are trying to say.
Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. In a ideal world it would be but we have to work with what we have. Societies and religious "right" don't change over night. So many people don't really understand how many problems are caused by dogma.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh go fuck yourself. At least I'm actually doing something. How many kids do you sponsor? I"m willing to bet its 0. You sit around behind your computer screen passing out judgement on everyone else. How about getting off your ass and doing something instead of bitching about what every else is doing?
Re: (Score:3)
Really? You don't say? I know you really don't understand this but in many ways you are part of the problem. You probably are not even aware of it.
You say things things, education, welfare, and assured housing like they are an option. You base your answers on a western point of view. Where the ideal of being "poor" means you might have to live in government housing or eat from a soup kitchen. You really have no concept of poverty. Having nothing.
In these places there is no welfare, no hope of edu
Re: (Score:3)
This is not subsistence survival. Living on the streets, picking through trash for your food is. The jobs these factories bring is a entry point. $2 a day may not sound like much by western standards but in many of these countries it is a living wage. That is what these people need, not more hand outs.
As more money comes into the community then while the parents work children can go to school. There will be enough money for this to happen. As more money comes in to the community then there will be
Re: (Score:3)
Redistribution of land & productive capital. =)
Doesn't work. It has been tried many times in history. You only have to look at places in Africa to see the results. Communism never works. It looks good on paper and sounds good in theory but it has never worked on a large scale in real life.
Re:uber is all most Enslavement with others left h (Score:5, Insightful)