
Universal Basic Income Is Silicon Valley’s Latest Scam - ProAm
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
======
m0llusk
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.

~~~
burnallofit
Care to compare market caps of those ultrasound manufacturers with that of
Uber?

~~~
askafriend
Care to compare the global market size of transportation versus specialized
medical devices?

Yours is a bad faith comparison unless you do this.

------
bwanab
In the article:

\-------------------

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.

~~~
murph-almighty
That may have been edited, as I read "Johnson".

------
DecayingOrganic
This article seems to make the argument:

Premise 1: There's this big problem of inequality

Premise 2: UBI is not a perfect solution for solving this inequality

 _Therefore, probably,_

Conclusion: We should reject this solution

This is called Nirvana fallacy [0], also known as the perfect solution
fallacy. For example: "Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to
die in car crashes."

[0]:
[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nirvana_fallacy](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nirvana_fallacy)

------
jiveturkey
He's not wrong.

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.

~~~
spir
I think the core lesson of this article isn't whether the author's right or
I'm right (below), but rather that a lack of rigor and specificity should set
off alarm bells in our head and evoke the questions "how does he know that?"
and "what does that really mean?"

About the subject matter:

My understanding is that, in general, software's winner-take-all economics has
joined forces with globalization, robotics, and machine learning to usher in a
historically unprecedented era of extremely high competitive pressure. As a
result, a growing population of tens of millions of Americans aren't that
competitive in the economy, which is Really Bad.

The author says UBI "showers the cash down on the people so they can continue
to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with
that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.
Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives
to living lives as passive consumers."

To me, this is not a rigorous or convincing argument that UBI will exacerbate
the challenges of our modern economy. Or that UBI will have the effects he
claims. Or that those effects are well-defined and make sense at all.

------
clydesdale

      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.

------
icodestuff
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.

~~~
throwaway234287
> what's to stop UBI recipients from buying shares of those companies to
> effect the same thing?

I guess they could, but even at best that would still only slightly mitigate
the effects of the increasing inequality. Since stocks are a way of making
money with money [1], what you could buy with UBI (or, more realistically, the
much much smaller slice that's left after living expenses [2]) is obviously
much less than what someone with either more to invest or directly benefiting
from the company is getting.

[1] That is, for the purposes of this argument. Sure they're also a way of
funding new endeavors etc.

[2] And that slice of dispensable income is also, generally speaking, much
smaller for those with low income than those with high income, both absolutely
and relatively.

------
commandlinefan
> their loyal vassals, the software developers

And there it is - the fashionable people striking back against the geeks who
were supposed to grow up and lead lonely, miserable, solitary existences but
who have inexplicably found themselves in positions of relative importance.
And the popular “in crowd” will do whatever they can to keep that from
continuing.

------
jameslk
> 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.

~~~
Terr_
> 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.

~~~
yuhong
The current debt-based economy is already encouraging concentration of dollars
at the top already.

------
djanogo
UBI : Corporations sign up middle class to pay the poor?

------
reubeniv
UBI sounds great, I even caught myself thinking how good it'd be, I'd only
need a small amount saved and I can take a year out and focus on personal
projects, which would be amazing, and then I thought I'm not special, lots of
other people probably have the same idea, and if enough people act on it in
UBI will fail horribly, which is why I don't think it'll work, but I guess
we'll see.

------
ksec
We don't need UBI, out of all the basic needs, we need affordable housing.
Clothes and Food are easy to come by.

------
blueadept111
People waiting for UBI can get in the same line as the people waiting for the
singularity.

~~~
jmcgough
Except UBI is something we can actually implement if we want to do so.

~~~
TomMarius
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.

~~~
gdhbcc
There is no reason why you can't implement UBI today, using the exact same
money you're spending right now in direct money transfers from social
security.

I did the math using ocde and national statistics institute data for my
country (portugal), this was a couple of years ago, so I used 2014 data. I
calculated that using only the existing expenses in Pensions, unemployment
benefits, social insertion benefits, etc... you could sustain a UBI between
300 and 380 euros per month, enough to survive in a small town while sharing a
flat. This might seem bad, but the only people who would receive less money
compared to the existing distribution would be the 20% of the population with
highest income, every one else would benefit from the change in distribution,
even if you were to have no other benefit from less bureaucracy, etc...

~~~
TomMarius
What about people that need more from the social system due to their
illnesses, disabilities, being veterans, etc? What about families - maternity
pay (that is per child on top of other benefits)? And yeah, Portugal... what
about the United States, a place with the most homeless people? What about
Africa? South-east Asia?

How do you motivate people to contribute to the social system when they know
they will get a flat, low rate they're getting anyways? What motivates a high
income individual (the group that pays it all) to not move away?

There are a few places where it might be possible. _Very few rich places._
Saying that we could have UBI today implies it'd work around the world, at
least in first world countries - especially in a thread about USA. This is
like saying that the whole world can speak Czech because 10 million czechs do.

How do you solve the problem that if someone gets free money monthly, their
work has to be worth enough so it is worthwhile to work, even if it is part
time, and thus their products are more expensive, including basic necessities,
and negating almost all effect of UBI? Are you aware that this would push
prices of food and housing way above what it costs today, relatively speaking?
This problem would be solved with automation but we're not even near there and
yet you're saying that we could do it today, how?

How do you solve immigration that would necessarily happen and increase costs?
Would you quit the EU?

Also consider that there might be much better (more cost effective and easier
done) solutions to the problem of homelessness that do not demotivate anyone.

~~~
gdhbcc
Ok this is a lot to go through so let me take it step by step.

In regards to whether or not it works in the US, or other countries that is
something i didnt calculate and quite frankly don't really care about. My goal
when checking the data was simply to see if it was both feasible and
beneficial in my own country (portugal), so I didn't bother to check the data
for other countries.

That being said the primary reason why it is so readily and clearly a better
system than the existent is that there is a very large discrepancy between the
high income and low and medium income in terms of how many cash benefits they
get. For reference, in Portugal around 46% of all cash benefits expenses go to
the 20% of the population with the highest income, the next quintile (the 20%
poorest) receives only 18%. This, if I recall correctly, is not the case in
the US, there the distribution is not so eschewed and so the social benefits
to simply changing the distribution is not nearly as convincing.

Now in regards to special cases that you mentioned, then indeed, there will
definitely be some amount of people who will be harmed by the change, however
we do have universal healthcare and it is quite good, so those people will
always be a small minority. There is definitely something to research there,
and we should definitely quantify just how many people will be affected,
however we cannot justify harming 80% of the population just because we might
harm a handful of outliers, that is in my view socially irresponsible.

As for the motivation issue you mentioned, the fact of the matter is that the
existing system already has those same issues, the only difference is a matter
of intensity, which can be measured and the tax rates and expenditures
adjusted accordingly.

In regards to the matters of inflation, I don't see how any meaningful
inflation can occur, for the simple fact that all my calculations assumed the
exact same amount of spending as it currently exists. Yes, some specific parts
of the economy (particularly in low cost housing/food) might see some
inflation, due to the fact that people now have a roof over their head/food to
eat, but the amount of homeless in portugal as is, is quite low, and there is
no famine, so I cannot imagine that there will be significant changes in total
consumption.

As for motivation, it seems to me that not having a welfare cliff would go a
long way to reducing unemployment (around 8% today, and around 16% at around
the time I researched )

------
jacinabox
Means change, but the ends remain the same.

------
anon49124
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](https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8)

------
Google2018
Wealth redistribution never works. Universal Basic Income is just another
idealistic idea that will never work in the real world.

The actual solution is wealth creation. And you can only get wealth creation
through de-regulations, lowering the taxes, bringing jobs back and companies
back into the United States, better education, and skill training programs,
etc.

