Why the Tech Elite Is Getting Behind Universal Basic Income

[PoliticAverse]

As if Silicon Valley hasn't given us enough already, it may have to start giving us all money. The first indication I got of this came one evening last summer, when I sat in on a meet-up of virtual-currency enthusiasts at a hackerspace a few miles from the Googleplex, in Mountain View, California. After one speaker enumerated the security problems of a promising successor to Bitcoin, the economics blogger Steve Randy Waldman got up to speak about "engineering economic security." Somewhere in his prefatory remarks he noted that he is an advocate of universal basic income—the idea that everyone should get a regular and substantial paycheck, no matter what. The currency hackers arrayed before him glanced up from their laptops at the thought of it, and afterward they didn't look back down. Though Waldman's talk was on an entirely different subject, basic income kept coming up during a Q&A period—the difficulties of implementing it and whether anyone would work ever again.

Around that time I had been hearing calls for basic income from more predictable sources on the East Coast—followers of the anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and the editors of the socialist magazine Jacobin, among others. The idea certainly has a leftist ring to it: an expansion of the social-welfare system to cover everyone. A hard-cash thank-you just for being alive. A way to quit the job you despise and—to take the haters' favorite example—surf.

Read the rest at: http://www.vice.com/read/something-for-everyone-0000546-v22n1

[Sherman A1]

1. At some point in the not too distant future

those with the cash and power will have a light bulb go off in their heads and figure out it is in their best interest to share a bit of the coin with all. Most likely it will not be a universal basic income as described, but simply an easing of their goofy 30+ year trickle down failure. If these "charming" folks had been a little less greedy, I believe that we all (including them) would be far, far, far better off.

It has gotten down to the point where simply from an economic standpoint we either don't need, want or can afford to support their construct of a never ending cycle of consumer based economic growth, which worked pretty well as the Baby Boom generation was passing through the system, building families and raising kids. Now as that group ages, they need less stuff (which is good as to often their jobs are gone, their pensions gone or under serious attack and their way of life threatened) and following generations will with lesser paying jobs be unable to support the cycle without some sharing of the economic pie, that the elites are keeping to themselves.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. posted to for later.

[bemildred]

3. There is no better way to make everybody more safe and secure than to

make sure nobody is ever involuntarily hungry, cold, scared, or homeless. And clearly it can be done for a small fraction of global economic output. And just as clearly the current high scarcity economics is very expensive to maintain, in blood and treasure, and it is really holding us back at this point. This is the sort of argument an engineer understands.

[unrepentant progress]

4. There's another factor I've never seen discussed

A UBI, as long as it's a living wage, would be the greatest boon to entrepreneurship in all of history. Think about it -- what would *you* do if you didn't have to worry about your new business failing, and not being able to feed yourself and family, or losing your home? I think I might just open that niche bookstore and cafe I've always dreamed about.

[bemildred]

5. Yeah, like that, but also much less need for cops, and other social services.

And lots better social health metrics because nobody is starving or desperate, they can wait, they are not compelled by need. And the people who want to work, who want to do things, they still will, but they will be able to do so much more creatively, and to demand much better working conditions. It's a win all around.

[unrepentant progress]

6. Yes. You could do away with all those picayune programs and legislation conservatives hate

Like the minimum wage. If you don't have to worry about food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities, then it becomes perfectly acceptable to take a job at $5/hour for beer money. That's one of the big reasons why even Milton Friedman supported a UBI in the form of a negative or reverse income tax.

Of course, if people don't have to worry about those things they're probably going to hold out for a decent wage unless the job is something which speaks to them on a personal or moral level. For instance, I doubt you could get away with paying sanitation workers and farm laborers poorly anymore. On the other hand, you might see more people willing to apprentice themselves to master craftsman or help inner city kids learn to read even if those jobs paid low wages.