An argument against Basic Income — and for other ideas

And, it's not just by anybody, it's by Douglas Rushkoff, known as a left-liberal, if I put a label on him, analyst of class and socioeconomic issues. Rushkoff's argument (the piece is three years old, but Medium, like Pocket, in its "roundup" emails, will pull up some old stuff) is that if Silicon Valley if for it, the rest of us probably should be agin it.

More specifically, he says they're pushing it within a current structure of late era hypercapitalism, as a block to larger economic reforms. 

I think this is particularly true of Scott Santens versions of BI, ones that want to cut or even get rid of current social net programs to feed the maw of Silicon Valley. Rushkoff, at least as much as Jaron Lanier, has long been distrustful of Silicon Valley, unlike Santens.

And, "we" who know enough know this about Santens, even if some Greens like Laura Palmer don't. (Here's one of my more recent pieces about the many ways Santens is wrong.)

What we REALLY should do, Rushkoff says, is promote universal basic ASSETS, first. The idea is described in more detail here.

Second, promote employee ownership. (That said, I'm not as sold on this as he is, knowing that Walmart did this way back when, but Rushikoff is really saying we need to look at multiple angles on income inequality.)

This Atlantic piece, talking about local elites, especially in smaller metro areas lording it over a "region," and how their elitism is based on ownership of assets even more than ownership of wealth, underscores exactly what Rushkoff is talking about.