6 ms·

The title says it all: Silicon Valley is arrogant, and it's success insulates itself from introspection. That's pretty much it. The rest of the article goes o

The title says it all: Silicon Valley is arrogant, and it's success insulates itself from introspection. That's pretty much it. The rest of the article goes off about how universal basic income is good, or bad, or liberating, or condescending. Then concludes saying "I sure sure stung SV where it hurts, huh? Now everybody suggest better ideas than UBI because I haven't got any but I still want to feel edgy and validated."

mason240 11y ago
Does the author not know that UBI is a pretty popular idea among people in the tech industry, or is he just trolling for clicks and self-validation? EDIT: I think I get it now, the author is a socialist type who is troubled by a capitalistic solution for post-labor society.
- ConfuciusSay02 11y ago
  Honest question, is UBI considered a capitalistic solution? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Richard Nixon hailed it as a conservative answer to poverty because instead of picking-and-choosing people who needed help and those who didn't, and measuring exactly how much help they needed (food stamps yes, welfare check no, housing voucher yes, and so on...), it simply provides for a standard of living that allows people to choose for themselves how to allocate it, instead of being determined by bean-counting bureaucrats.
  - mason240 11y ago
    I think the answer to that depends on whether or not you think the current economies of the US/Canada/Europe/Scandinavia are capitalist or not (I do, and am myself a capitalist). If so, then yes it is. We already tax income for redistribution programs - UBI is just a very large, very even redistribution programs. With UBI, the economy would still based on capitalism, using money, private ownership of capital and property, and using all those things to create profits (which would then be taxed). People will develop marketable skills to earn more money (which would be taxed). All this is the same as it is now.
  - dibujante 11y ago
    Yes. It does not interfere with private ownership or private economy whatsoever. The notion that wealth transfers are socialism / communism is a misunderstanding that has developed due to political rhetoric in the United States. By way of example, if you are trying to ensure that everyone gets a loaf of bread: a communist solution is taking over the bakery and ordering its workers to produce a loaf of bread for everyone. A capitalist solution is taxing the owners of the bakery and then transferring everyone money equal to the price of a loaf of bread. UBI is clearly in the latter camp.
- hmahncke 11y ago
  One author (Lenny Mendonca) is an ex-senior partner at McKinsey who worked with the finance industry. Pretty sure he's not an anti-capitalist.
adwf 11y ago
Yes, the author seems remarkably conflicted over UBI, I'm not sure he entirely understands what it entails. This is aptly demonstrated by his final paragraph where he asks the reader how we can redistribute the wealth from successful companies. Um, universal basic income? It is fundamentally redistributive. How does he think it's going to get funded? It's going to need 60-70% tax rates across the board.
- anonymousDan 11y ago
  If my reading is correct I think you missed his point. His claim is that most people wouldn't want to be placated with UBI in return for being denied an opportunity to earn their own way because all wealth creation capabilities are concentrated in the hands of the 'Silicon Valley elite'.
  - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    Which is an insanely single-minded view. Wealth is created in all sorts of ways. Culture can never be automated. Fashion is never finished. Food is never finished. Movies, music, art, dance, they are always in a state of transition from one trend to the next. And they make tons of cash.
  - adwf 11y ago
    Oh I agree with that a little, but that's another misunderstanding on his part. Basic income is meant as a minimum upon which you then build your own career. It's not really meant as welfare for the unemployed, that's just an added bonus. Instead of working a crappy job that you hate, you can afford to find a job that you love, even if it's lower pay. eg. If you're working for 15k units of money at a job you hate, under basic income you could keep on earning 15k + say 10k of UBI for total 25k. Or you could switch to 10k UBI + 5k salary at a job you love. The beauty of that system is that currently there are a whole class of jobs that really struggle to exist (like music/arts/etc.), because no-one can afford to work for only 5k a year. It also has an added benefit of improving those terrible jobs in the first place, as no boss can abuse his staff without them walking out (no unions needed!).
shopkins 11y ago
I didn't get that impression, but maybe that's because I'm not in the geographical area of the author's vitriol. About halfway through he makes a good point about Uber drivers not making much money from the job. He mentions hypothetically giving drivers equity in the company. I think the end of the article had a pretty clear call-to-action, without gloating. Personally it got me thinking about ways I could change services I've built to pay both myself and users creating content on it. Think about if you could make money by posting great photos on Instagram. Not many SV engineers might care, but for others, that could potentially provide a much-needed source of income and an alternative to the currently non-existent UBI.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  Of course Uber drivers make way more than cabbies in 80% of circumstances, but yes - let's attack the only free-market company in he mix. Two issues about the ownership: 1) They're being paid in transferable tokens which are redeemable for stock (ie, money) if they desire. 2) Uber isn't worth its valuation so they're better off with money.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > About halfway through he makes a good point about Uber drivers not making much money from the job. He mentions hypothetically giving drivers equity in the company. Which, if you think about it, clearly doesn't work. The driver already gets the large majority of the fare. It's just that the driver gets most of one fare whereas Uber gets a small slice of every fare so the driver makes $8 once and Uber makes $2 times a billion. Even if you gave every single share of the company to the drivers and left nothing for any other investors, they would only get the small remaining slice of the fare after whatever administrative overhead the company has. In other words they would get the equivalent of like a 10% raise. It doesn't fix anything. The fundamental problem is that the market is highly competitive so it drives down fares/wages. If you want to get paid more, you have to do some other kind of work. > Personally it got me thinking about ways I could change services I've built to pay both myself and users creating content on it. Think about if you could make money by posting great photos on Instagram. Which is exactly the same problem. When you post a picture on Instagram, Instagram on average makes a few cents. They're a billion dollar company because it's a few cents times a billion people. If you gave all the money to the people posting pictures they would still be making far less than minimum wage.

mason240 11y ago

Does the author not know that UBI is a pretty popular idea among people in the tech industry, or is he just trolling for clicks and self-validation? EDIT: I think I get it now, the author is a socialist type who is troubled by a capitalistic solution for post-labor society.

ConfuciusSay02 11y ago
Honest question, is UBI considered a capitalistic solution? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Richard Nixon hailed it as a conservative answer to poverty because instead of picking-and-choosing people who needed help and those who didn't, and measuring exactly how much help they needed (food stamps yes, welfare check no, housing voucher yes, and so on...), it simply provides for a standard of living that allows people to choose for themselves how to allocate it, instead of being determined by bean-counting bureaucrats.
- mason240 11y ago
  I think the answer to that depends on whether or not you think the current economies of the US/Canada/Europe/Scandinavia are capitalist or not (I do, and am myself a capitalist). If so, then yes it is. We already tax income for redistribution programs - UBI is just a very large, very even redistribution programs. With UBI, the economy would still based on capitalism, using money, private ownership of capital and property, and using all those things to create profits (which would then be taxed). People will develop marketable skills to earn more money (which would be taxed). All this is the same as it is now.
- dibujante 11y ago
  Yes. It does not interfere with private ownership or private economy whatsoever. The notion that wealth transfers are socialism / communism is a misunderstanding that has developed due to political rhetoric in the United States. By way of example, if you are trying to ensure that everyone gets a loaf of bread: a communist solution is taking over the bakery and ordering its workers to produce a loaf of bread for everyone. A capitalist solution is taxing the owners of the bakery and then transferring everyone money equal to the price of a loaf of bread. UBI is clearly in the latter camp.
hmahncke 11y ago
One author (Lenny Mendonca) is an ex-senior partner at McKinsey who worked with the finance industry. Pretty sure he's not an anti-capitalist.

adwf 11y ago

Yes, the author seems remarkably conflicted over UBI, I'm not sure he entirely understands what it entails. This is aptly demonstrated by his final paragraph where he asks the reader how we can redistribute the wealth from successful companies. Um, universal basic income? It is fundamentally redistributive. How does he think it's going to get funded? It's going to need 60-70% tax rates across the board.

anonymousDan 11y ago
If my reading is correct I think you missed his point. His claim is that most people wouldn't want to be placated with UBI in return for being denied an opportunity to earn their own way because all wealth creation capabilities are concentrated in the hands of the 'Silicon Valley elite'.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Which is an insanely single-minded view. Wealth is created in all sorts of ways. Culture can never be automated. Fashion is never finished. Food is never finished. Movies, music, art, dance, they are always in a state of transition from one trend to the next. And they make tons of cash.
- adwf 11y ago
  Oh I agree with that a little, but that's another misunderstanding on his part. Basic income is meant as a minimum upon which you then build your own career. It's not really meant as welfare for the unemployed, that's just an added bonus. Instead of working a crappy job that you hate, you can afford to find a job that you love, even if it's lower pay. eg. If you're working for 15k units of money at a job you hate, under basic income you could keep on earning 15k + say 10k of UBI for total 25k. Or you could switch to 10k UBI + 5k salary at a job you love. The beauty of that system is that currently there are a whole class of jobs that really struggle to exist (like music/arts/etc.), because no-one can afford to work for only 5k a year. It also has an added benefit of improving those terrible jobs in the first place, as no boss can abuse his staff without them walking out (no unions needed!).

shopkins 11y ago

I didn't get that impression, but maybe that's because I'm not in the geographical area of the author's vitriol. About halfway through he makes a good point about Uber drivers not making much money from the job. He mentions hypothetically giving drivers equity in the company. I think the end of the article had a pretty clear call-to-action, without gloating. Personally it got me thinking about ways I could change services I've built to pay both myself and users creating content on it. Think about if you could make money by posting great photos on Instagram. Not many SV engineers might care, but for others, that could potentially provide a much-needed source of income and an alternative to the currently non-existent UBI.

EdHominem 11y ago
Of course Uber drivers make way more than cabbies in 80% of circumstances, but yes - let's attack the only free-market company in he mix. Two issues about the ownership: 1) They're being paid in transferable tokens which are redeemable for stock (ie, money) if they desire. 2) Uber isn't worth its valuation so they're better off with money.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> About halfway through he makes a good point about Uber drivers not making much money from the job. He mentions hypothetically giving drivers equity in the company. Which, if you think about it, clearly doesn't work. The driver already gets the large majority of the fare. It's just that the driver gets most of one fare whereas Uber gets a small slice of every fare so the driver makes $8 once and Uber makes $2 times a billion. Even if you gave every single share of the company to the drivers and left nothing for any other investors, they would only get the small remaining slice of the fare after whatever administrative overhead the company has. In other words they would get the equivalent of like a 10% raise. It doesn't fix anything. The fundamental problem is that the market is highly competitive so it drives down fares/wages. If you want to get paid more, you have to do some other kind of work. > Personally it got me thinking about ways I could change services I've built to pay both myself and users creating content on it. Think about if you could make money by posting great photos on Instagram. Which is exactly the same problem. When you post a picture on Instagram, Instagram on average makes a few cents. They're a billion dollar company because it's a few cents times a billion people. If you gave all the money to the people posting pictures they would still be making far less than minimum wage.