I like how the article pointed out the biggest economic problem I see in post-industrial society - instead of almost everyone being a small business owner, we have huge corporations reaping massive profits, and poor replaceable corporate drones barely making ends meet.
That said, I completely disagree with the proposed solution of UBI and here's why. We humans have a rather nasty bug in our firmware: when we do not have to work, we turn tribal. We form cliques and our meaning of life becomes to bite, or at least to bark at the clique on the other side of the fence.
If you want some evidence, look at the correlation between cold climate (forcing people to do serious agriculture) and economic development in many countries. I also suspect that the recent spike of divisiveness and outrage in our society has something to do with people having more free time from lost jobs, and not desperately trying to learn a new marketable skill, because of the COVID-19 support.
Mind you, I'm not saying that COVID relief is bad, but I seriously suspect that the recent unrest is a preview of what the society would turn into if we eliminated the need for people to work.
I wish we could instead figure out a system for taxing scale or subordination levels. So that having a couple of owner-operated grocery stores in every neighborhood would become a viable alternative to centrally managed Walmart with armies of corporate zombies miserable at their jobs. Of course, it would reduce the overall efficiency, but I would happily pay an extra dollar to live in a society where people are putting their energy into producing objects of value and making others happy, than see endless infighting about who deserves that extra chunk off someone else's table more.
> I wish we could instead figure out a system for taxing scale or subordination levels. So that having a couple of owner-operated grocery stores in every neighborhood would become a viable alternative to centrally managed Walmart with armies of corporate zombies miserable at their jobs. Of course, it would reduce the overall efficiency, but I would happily pay an extra dollar to live in a society where people are putting their energy into producing objects of value and making others happy, than see endless infighting about who deserves that extra chunk off someone else's table more.
I think one solution is to end private land ownership. Put land ownership in the hand of local communities and let them lease out land (maybe based on money, idk, no reason for there not to be somewhat of a market). Let the communities create rules for land use, but one major rule should be that land can only be used by people within the community. No Walmarts coming in and using land.
Maybe an even better rule is that land can only be leased to the people who work it - and this means all people who work it. Meaning that you can only open a business on that land if all the workers will own a chunk of that business.
1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barrier for Apple for example to appear.
2) This (as well as the parent comment's) idea is similar to tariffs and trade wars. "Yeah, you are smart and efficient, but you work 200km from here? Fuck off."
3) It confines businesses to think small. Big projects would have to be handled by governments and entities that are exempt from locality laws. Sometimes there are good reasons to own large swaths of land in multiple locations, without being a trillion dollar company.
I feel like you are merely trying to make capitalism less efficient and hope that this would make it magically nicer to participate in. What was the main problem again?
> 1) What about IP? Companies that do not work with land, but tech, science and ideas. This scheme would not be a barrier for Apple for example to appear.
What about it? Apple still needs factories to build their products, wants offices, and needs datacenters. For any of these their workers need to get a (fair) share of Apple. Apple could respond by having workers work remotely, but I doubt many workers would take that deal if they could go somewhere else and be a co-owner.
> 2) This (as well as the parent comment's) idea is similar to tariffs and trade wars. "Yeah, you are smart and efficient, but you work 200km from here? Fuck off."
Yeah pretty much, for land use. How can you possible use land if you live 200km away?
> 3) It confines businesses to think small. Big projects would have to be handled by governments and entities that are exempt from locality laws. Sometimes there are good reasons to own large swaths of land in multiple locations, without being a trillion dollar company.
Maybe somewhat, but it's still possible for companies to do this. They just have to have workers own a (fair) share of the business. Say there is a Walmart, and they want to open a new store in another town. Sure, they can do that, if all of the employees at that new store get a fair share of Walmart ownership.
I have been a small business owner my entire adult life. I can appreciate the small corner stores. But Walmart wins in one way on predictability - as a consumer, I know generally what will be stocked and when it will be open. They have the scale to justify processes and systems that can be useful (ordering in from other stores, as an example).
But from the other side, a small business owner can be chained to their desk or counter. I'd bet that many small business owners are miserable too. If they aren't at a scale to have staff, when do they get a holiday or break? If they hire someone trustworthy enough to run a store for weeks on end, they often have to pay more than they typically pay themselves.
UBI is not a replacement for work - we do have to work under UBI. It just lessens the imminent need of working, affording a lot of people the ability to take more breaks from working to relax and recharge.
I agree that a permanent state of non-work is bad for society, but UBI is not advocating for that at all.
Well, if we don't want to make it permanent, why go for UBI at all, rather than improving unemployment insurance?
IMO, a much better solution would be to segregate subsidized housing between quiet people who are actually trying to study, and the abusers that make such places unlivable.
That said, I completely disagree with the proposed solution of UBI and here's why. We humans have a rather nasty bug in our firmware: when we do not have to work, we turn tribal. We form cliques and our meaning of life becomes to bite, or at least to bark at the clique on the other side of the fence.
If you want some evidence, look at the correlation between cold climate (forcing people to do serious agriculture) and economic development in many countries. I also suspect that the recent spike of divisiveness and outrage in our society has something to do with people having more free time from lost jobs, and not desperately trying to learn a new marketable skill, because of the COVID-19 support.
Mind you, I'm not saying that COVID relief is bad, but I seriously suspect that the recent unrest is a preview of what the society would turn into if we eliminated the need for people to work.
I wish we could instead figure out a system for taxing scale or subordination levels. So that having a couple of owner-operated grocery stores in every neighborhood would become a viable alternative to centrally managed Walmart with armies of corporate zombies miserable at their jobs. Of course, it would reduce the overall efficiency, but I would happily pay an extra dollar to live in a society where people are putting their energy into producing objects of value and making others happy, than see endless infighting about who deserves that extra chunk off someone else's table more.