Doctrow argues that nascent tech unionization (which we’re closer to having now than ever before) combined with bipartisan fear (and consequent regulation) either directly or via agencies like the FTC and FCC can help to curb Big Tech’s power, and the enshittification that it has wrought.
I know this is naive, but sometimes I wish we’d be bolder in brainstorming alternative ways the economy could work.
Imagine, for example, the IRS would send a yearly, mandatory “happiness questionnaire” to all employees of a company (compare the “world happiness report”). This questionnaire then would have a major influence on how much taxes the company has to pay, so much that it’s cheaper to make employees happy and content than to squeeze them for every ounce of labor they can give.
Or an official switch to 6 hour days, except to get those 2 hours less, you have to use them for growing your own food. Shorter workdays, more time with family, more self-reliance. And a strong motivation for cities to provide more green spaces and community gardens.
Very naive ideas with lots of problems, yes, but I wish we wouldn’t have the concept of revenue generation so thoroughly encrusted in our heads as the guiding principle of all we do and dream of.
Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. Most policies don’t that the effects you think it would have.
With the happiness questionnaire, how is the overall happiness of the employees of the companies calculated, just a straight up average? So if the company made sure the really shitty stuff was compartmentalized to a very small portion of the employees, then they would be rewarded? If it’s determined by the least happy employees, a company could fire the least happy employees and be rewarded.
Growing your own food only really works for people that aren’t living in high density housing. So that policy would encourage people to move to low density housing which would have a negative environmental impact.
A lot of times these kinds of far out economic ideas simply won’t have the intended impact (dismal science, sorry!) and really only distract from needed economic policies that are known to work but aren’t being implemented. Universal Basic Income is often promoted, but would actually mean companies like Walmart don’t have to pay their employees more. This distracts from a push to increase minimum wage which companies like Walmart do not want. And of course a lot of problems would be solved by simply raising taxes on the wealthy.
Should we really be exploring experimental economic policies when we can’t even implement the economic policies that have been proven to work?
How about we focus on tax the rich, raise minimum wage. Once those are implemented then we can brainstorm other ideas.
Agreed, companies will try to game any such regulations (just like tax laws, labor laws and such, those just had a lot of time to mature). The “free-time-for-gardening” program, too, would make city dwellers without access to community gardens balk and maybe fake gardens with rubber plants would become a thing to claim that gardening time without gardening :)
Regarding UBI, the counter argument is that if companies like Walmart paid scraps for hard work, it would allow people to simply leave. Same for cleaning sewers or emptying trash bins. It could be an instrument that adjusts economic rewards away from “how much revenue does the worker generate” towards “how bearable is the work.”
I believe we should do both. This “waiting for the right moment” or “focus on one thing only” can be a fallacy, imho, that leads to well polished counters from reactionaries and less motivation in supporters.
Leave for what? another minimum wage job? UBI is just a subsidy for corporations. Businessmen like Andrew Yang promoted it to confuse the discussion around increasing minimum wage. And it worked… minimum wage was not increased.
There is such a thing as political capital. Bernie Sanders has the right idea, keep talking about the 1%, keep talking about raising taxes on the wealthy, keep talking about raising minimum wage to build support for these policies.
It will inspire more opposition. “See this is what those hippies want, are you going to vote for that?”
Having people divided on various single issue groups that want different policies means no on gets anything. Taxing the rich and raising minimum wage is boring because it works. Experiments are fun because you don’t know whether it will work or not. But when an economic policy doesn’t work, it negatively impacts people’s lives.
It’s feasible to get people to agree on taxing the rich. It’s feasible to get people to agree to increase minimum wage. But if we’re busy debating planting gardens or whatever, we aren’t going to debating the things that we can win on.
Leave for nothing if UBI is high enough. Otherwise, couch-surf. Temporarily move to a shared house. Or just have a few months extra to hunt for a job without getting evicted.
I think we just have to disagree on whether a vast cloud of progressive ideas or total focus on one or two realistic ideas is better.
My belief is that it helps. That opposition is good. Let them waste all their ammo, let them help spread the message, let them get the impression that there are so many progressive demands that it shifts the general tone. Some ideas or aspects of ideas will stick, even with the opposition.
And while they’re fighting hippie space pirates, we’ll pass an automatic minimum wage adjustment. Progressives have been on the defense far too long. I want a new 1968 :)
The problem with UBI is it isn’t going to address a lot problems around people being unable to work because of physical or mental health issues. You need a welfare system to addresses those issues.
So with higher minimum wage, an unemployment insurance program, and a welfare system, what’s the point of UBI? It doesn’t fulfill the needs that existing systems do when properly funded and updated for inflation. It’s really just a subsidy to companies that don’t want to pay their employees well. This is why guys like Andrew Yang want it. And there’s a lot of people out there that want it because who doesn’t want to get a monthly check from the government? And people are generally attracted to these “one weird trick to fix the economy, economists hate him!” kind of policies.
But the reality is that economics isn’t simple, there are no quick fixes. There are people with different needs so there needs to be different programs to fulfill those needs. Someone with a health condition isn’t going to survive off of a small amount of money and couch surfing. Someone who has a well paying job and lives in a place that has high rent or mortgage payments then suddenly finds themself unemployed isn’t going to be able to pay their bills with UBI.
So UBI is just an excuse to scrap necessary welfare programs, and not raise minimum wage. Couch surfing isn’t a solution to housing problems. There’s only so many couches and eventually you end up with homelessness.
Send the questionaire to anyone who gets a w2 from that company. Set multiple factors to determine over all taxes paid. A good average could reduce your taxes by x%, but too many very unhappy outliers could raise it back up by even more.
Edit: over all though, your comment is spot on
Haven’t seen such BS. Similar event happened in my country when 12 hours work day was 1917ed to 8 hours with help of French technology called “La Révolution”. The rest is history.
From this
And sometimes this
To this
Don’t see many gardens on that apartment building. So if people want to get that hours off per day for gardening, they’ll have to move out of the apartment building, won’t they?
It’s just an example for a wild idea that might inspire people. But… Wikipedia “Community Gardening”
It’s a pretty popular concept in the UK. Takes less space than parks, is a great place to meet like-minded people, reduce food costs and the community aspect means you can even go on vacation since its a group of people caring for the plants.