|
It’s not surprising that the old idea of universal basic income (UBI) would find a new foothold in Silicon Valley. Technological optimism is rooted in the region’s DNA. The technologists and entrepreneurs see rapid progress in their world, not stagnation. It’s easy for them to imagine a near–future where smart machines displace lots of workers — or at least create a society where employment is more volatile. And since the techies are bright people who know their industry’s history, it’s also easy for them to imagine a neo-Luddite backlash. It’s an “all of this happened before and will happen again” kind of thing.
Thankfully, a quick Google search provides an elegant, economist-approved solution that’s pro-progress: Give people money. Left-leaning techies like the expanded safety net, right-leaning see UBI as replacing the traditional welfare state. It just seems like a really smart idea that a society governed by the best and brightest would implement. Right along with building more high-density housing and auctioning immigration visas.
But Silicon Valley may be having second thoughts now that UBI advocate and Democratic presidential candidate has brought it to the Democratic presidential debate stage. In a new Buzzfeed piece, “Andrew Yang Injected Silicon Valley’s Favorite Economic Idea Into The Democratic Debate. Silicon Valley Isn’t So Happy About That,” reporter Alex Kantrowitz rounds up some dissenters who worry that UBI would encourage the 99 percent to vote themselves ever richer benefits. “You’re creating a slippery slide transfer straight into socialism,” Kantrowitz quotes tech investor Naval Ravikant as saying.
That isn’t the only quote from a UBI critic, but overall there’s little in the piece that suggests skeptical sentiment is pervasive or gaining momentum. Which is too bad if true. UBI is an elegant idea that wouldn’t look nearly as elegant after the American political machines spit it out the other side. Then there’s the (good) chance that what “all of this happened before and will happen again” might really mean is that advancing technology again disrupts labor markets but workers eventually adapt and prosper. If so, policy should focus on supporting that adaptation rather than writing off the possibility.
UBI is an elegant idea that wouldn’t look nearly as elegant after the American political machines spit it out the other side.
|
