#we need UBI and we need it now | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

China blocked Tumblr because of pornography and censorship problems in 2013.

#we need UBI and we need it now

thesocialgremlin · 3 months

Text

If I were in charge, first order of business is to taxe the super rich for a universal basic income.

Next, we're tying politicians wages to the average income of their riding. You can't represent people if you think yourself above people.

With that, we tie minimum wage to inflation and use it as a baseline to cap rent, utilities, insurances. Create a public record so nobody can rip you off.

End price gouging entirely. Enforce the retail/wholesale markup and investigate companies with suspicious profits. Tax businesses higher based on the CEO/Baseline staff pay gap - less than 30% are eligible for government grants, everything above gets taxed heavier with the highest gap.

No more super rich. Nobody needs that much money. Those people need to start investing in their companies and their people instead of making millions a day on the back of their workers.

Housing programs. Land allotments. You turn 25 years old, congratulations, here's a house and a plot of land. Do with it as you may, but you may not be allotted another plot for another 25 years if you squander it. Why's that?

You turn 50? Welcome to your retirement package? You want travel? You want crafts? You want a cottage in the woods? Ask and you get; you served your time, we've got you. Rest, enjoy the rest of your life. Spend your years doing what brings you peace. As long as you're not hurting anyone who doesn't want to be hurt, you good, boo.

3 notes · View notes

caernua · 5 months

Text

it is actually devastatingly ironic that ac valhalla told its main story about a woman refusing to bow down and lose control to the man who represents the past life she used to be even delivering the very powerful line “i will not be captive to another man’s gaudy design, my fate is my own” only for her to not receive a proper farewell bc ubisoft instead chose to make the big budget dlc based on the man who was her past life. thanks

#sucks for you i guess ubi now make eivor’s ending a proper dlc or meet my blade #you fucking bitches #i’m CONVINCED the writing team at some point at least had an inkling on how they wanted to finish eivor’s story #there’s no way what we got was what they planned #and yes i am aware darby left the company between the main game development and the ending development #so that was a factor too #.txt #i feel like they unintentionally told a feminist story and then shat all over it in proper ubisoft fashion #also if you’re trying to argue that that’s what they did by giving basim a game LMAO nope absolutely not #eivor didn’t need ‘the new game basim got’ she just needed a proper farewell

23 notes · View notes

scorittanius · 1 month

Text

Ouuuguh I want money and to not be poor but I can't get a fucking job bc the only ones available are customer service which I CAN'T FUCKING DO

#STOP I DON'T WANT TO WORK AT MCDONALD'S OR KMART #I CAN'T DO PEOPLE AND IF SOMEONE IS MEAN TO ME ONCE I'LL DIE #WE NEED UBI FOR EVERYONE OVER THE AGE OF 12 NOW!!!!! PLEASSE

0 notes

millionmovieproject · 10 months

Text

The argument is not about getting rid of AI and automation, if a computer can do a person's job, a person doesn't need to be wasting their life doing it. The issue is about taxing companies out the dick that fire their human workforce, and replace them with AI to chase the Capitalistic myth of infinite growth, then using it to pay for UBI and Universal Healthcare.

#ubi #universal healthcare #automation #ai #ai regulation #universal basic income #job loss #artificial intelligence #fuck capitalism #capitalism kills #we live in hell #socialism now #abolish capitalism #we need a people's union though #and labor unions need to fight for this #unions

1 note · View note

first-only · 1 year

Note

Personally, I don't adoptables are a bad thing. But I totally agree with the closed species thing, that always bugged me

the post youre referring to, albeit misdirected by further replies providing examples, is more about hypocrisy rather than specific practices being inherently bad

i reblogged it as critique of the double standards when it comes to copyright protection and laws, not as condemnation of things that i honestly dont really care too much about as ive never been into or close to them

for a community that was singing for the destruction of copyright, especially around DMCA laws and fan lawsuits, fandom, artistic, and progressive spaces seem to be calling for capital punishment, despite even their general prison abolition stances

not to even go into the gross "what is the tool u need to use to make Real Art and not degeneracy" arguments. theyve forgotten the debates over is digitally made art Real Art bc a computer was involved.

This is, again and again, about hypocrisy and double standards between different sources and creators and stances. Inconsistency in the personal world view and fundamental moral and ethical systems. People have always craved attention and validation via control and gatekeeping, have asked money for things that are more than legally questionable copyright-wise (modding games for example or fanart in general). The thin line has been tolerated by companies and praised by creators. Now it seems to be the reverse.

#ask #i guess im controversially coming out as pro-AI lol #it can never replace human-made art #industrialization is not destroying work places and financing #lack of ubi and reaccommodations for people in new technologies are destroying the social financing as we know it #the same way a fully automated factory with no need of human heavy lifters is a good thing ya know?#and the workers who used to get their paycheck there and now are not needed have to be paid in another way #not to chant ubi but i guess i am #and human made art will always be prized and praised higher #its an integration problem atm imo #well that and a general billionaires hogging all new tech and using it to make life actively worse problem lol

0 notes

reachartwork · 7 months

Note

How exactly do you advance AI ethically? Considering how much of the data sets that these tools use was sourced, wouldnt you have to start from scratch?

a: i don't agree with the assertion that "using someone else's images to train an ai" is inherently unethical - ai art is demonstrably "less copy-paste-y" for lack of a better word than collage, and nobody would argue that collage is illegal or ethically shady. i mean some people might but i don't think they're correct.

b: several people have done this alraedy - see, mitsua diffusion, et al.

c: this whole argument is a red herring. it is not long-term relevant adobe firefly is already built exclusively off images they have legal rights to. the dataset question is irrelevant to ethical ai use, because companies already have huge vaults full of media they can train on and do so effectively.

you can cheer all you want that the artist-job-eating-machine made by adobe or disney is ethically sourced, thank god! but it'll still eat everyone's jobs. that's what you need to be caring about.

the solution here obviously is unionization, fighting for increased labor rights for people who stand to be affected by ai (as the writer's guild demonstrated! they did it exactly right!), and fighting for UBI so that we can eventually decouple the act of creation from the act of survival at a fundamental level (so i can stop getting these sorts of dms).

if you're interested in actually advancing ai as a field and not devils advocating me you can also participate in the FOSS (free-and-open-source) ecosystem so that adobe and disney and openai can't develop a monopoly on black-box proprietary technology, and we can have a future where anyone can create any images they want, on their computer, for free, anywhere, instead of behind a paywall they can't control.

fun fact related to that last bit: remember when getty images sued stable diffusion and everybody cheered? yeah anyway they're releasing their own ai generator now. crazy how literally no large company has your interests in mind.

cheers

#ai art #ai art discourse #ai discourse #discourse #not art

2K notes · View notes

maxwellatoms · 6 months

Note

Do you think the new division of Cartoon Network Studios will end up exploiting and abusing AI to make new cartoons of their old properties?

I wouldn't put it past any studio to do this.

We're at the end of The Animation Industry As We Know It, so studios are going to do anything and everything they can to stay alive.

The way I see it is:

AI "art" isn't actually art. Art is created by humans to express ideas and emotions. Writing prompts allows a computer to interpret human ideas and emotions by taking other examples of those things and recombining them.

Just because something isn't art doesn't mean that humans can't understand it or find it beautiful. We passed a really fun prompt generation milestone about a year ago where everything looked like it was made by a Dadaist or someone on heavy psychedelics. Now we're at the Uncanny Valley stage. Soon, you won't be able to tell the difference.

It's not just drawings and paintings that are effected, but writing and film. It's every part of the entertainment industry. And the genie is out of the bottle. I've seen people saying that prompt-based image generators have "democratized" art. And I see where they're coming from. In ten years, I can easily see a future where anyone can sit down at their desk, have a short conversation with their computer, and have a ready-to-watch, custom movie with flawless special effects, passable story, and a solid three act structure. You want to replace Harrison Ford in Star Wars with your little brother and have Chewbacca make only fart sounds, and then they fly to Narnia and fistfight Batman? Done.

But, sadly, long before we reach that ten year mark, the bots will get hold of this stuff and absolutely lay waste to existing art industries. Sure, as a prompter I guess you can be proud of the hours or days you put into crafting your prompts, but you know what's better than a human at crafting prompts? Bots. Imagine bots cranking out hundreds of thousands of full-length feature films per minute. The noise level will squash almost any organic artist or AI prompter out of existence.

AI images trivialize real art. The whole point of a studio is to provide the money, labor, and space to create these big, complicated art projects. But if there are no big, complicated art projects, no creatives leading the charge, and no employees to pay... what the fuck do we need studios for? We won't, but their sheer wealth and power will leave them forcing themselves on us for the rest of our lives.

The near future will see studios clamp down on the tech in order to keep it in their own hands. Disney does tons of proprietary tech stuff, so I'm sure they're ahead of the game. Other studios will continue to seek mergers until they can merge with a content distribution platform. I've heard rumors of Comcast wanting to buy out either WB or Nick. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. The only winners of this game will be the two or three super-huge distribution platforms who can filter out enough of the spam (which they themselves are likely perpetuating) to provide a reasonable entertainment experience.

400,000 channels and nothing's on.

I do think that money will eventually make the "you can't copyright AI stuff" thing go away. There's also the attrition of "Oh, whoops! We accidentally put an AI actor in there and no one noticed for five years, so now it's cool."

One way or another, it's gonna be a wild ride. As the canary in the coal mine, I hope we can all get some UBI before I'm forced to move into the sewers and go full C.H.U.D.

#maxwell atoms #ai generated #prompters #c.h.u.d.

404 notes · View notes

daggersandarrows · 10 months

Text

god the longer i'm like. around and stuff and meet other adults, the more it really becomes clear to me that there is a person out there for Every Single Job who would do said job with extreme joy. and if they got UBI, with or without pay. there is a guy at my job who is sitting his exams to be a dental hygienist right now, and when i asked him what about it appealed to him, i was expecting the usual "well it pays a lot lol" or even that little "money doesn't hurt either haha" thrown in at the end of a speech with more of a pretense of doing a thing for the love of it.

this man. talked to me for the HOUR that we were closing. about how much he loves teeth. and taking care of people's teeth. and how important they are to him, and preventative care, and the anatomy of the human mouth. not ONCE did the money come up. he just fucking loves??? dental hygiene. me personally i'm like. god. could not. IMAGINE. but you know what!! he loves it. and i truly truly truly believe there are people out there who love love love doing just about every job you can imagine who would gladly do it for free for a lifetime, if they only knew they were secure in their basic needs.

#thane.txt

696 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 5 months

Text

Tech workers and gig workers need each other

Catch me in Miami! I'll be at Books and Books in Coral Gables on Jan 22 at 8PM.

We're living in the enshittocene, in which the forces of enshittification are turning everything from our cars to our streaming services to our dishwashers into thoroughly enshittifified piles of shit. Call it the Great Enshittening:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

How did we arrive at this juncture? Is it the end of the zero rate interest policy? Was it that the companies that formerly made useful things that we valued underwent a change in leadership that drove them to make things worse? Is Mercury in retrograde?

None of the above. There have been many junctures in which investors demanded higher returns from firms but were not able to force them to dramatically worsen their products. Moreover, the leaders now presiding over the rapid unscheduled disassembly of once-useful products are the same people who oversaw their golden age. As to Mercury? Well, I'm a Cancer, and as everyone knows, Cancers don't believe in astrology.

The Great Enshittening isn't precipitated by a change in how greedy and callous corporate leaders are. Rather, the change is in what those greedy, callous corporate leaders can get away with.

Capitalists hate capitalism. For a corporate executive, the fact that you have to make good things, please your customers, pay your workers, and beat the competition are all bugs, not features. The best business is one in which people simply pay you money without your having to do anything or worry that someday they'll stop. UBI for the investor class, in other words.

Douglas Rushkoff calls this "going meta." Don't sell things, provide a platform where people sell things. Don't provide a platform, invest in the platform. Don't invest in the platform, buy options on the platform. Don't buy options, buy derivatives of options.

A more precise analysis comes from economist Yanis Varoufakis, who calls this technofeudalism. Varoufakis draws our attention to the distinction between profits and rents. Profit is the income a capitalist receives from mobilizing workers to do something productive and then skimming off the surplus created by their labor.

By contrast, rent is income a feudalist derives from simply owning something that a capitalist or a worker needs in order to be productive. The entrepreneur who opens a coffee shop earns profits by creaming off the surplus value created by the baristas. The rentier who owns the building the coffee shop rents gets money simply for owning the building.

The coffee shop owner can never rest. At any moment, another coffee shop can open down the street and lure away their customers and their baristas. When that happens, the coffee shop goes bust and the owner is ruined. But not the landlord! After the coffee shop goes bust, the landlord's asset is more valuable – an empty storefront just down the street from the hottest coffee shop in town.

Capitalists hate capitalism. Faced with a choice of retaining their workers by paying them a fair wage and treating them well, or by saddling them with noncompetes that make it impossible to work for anyone else in the same field, and obligations to repay tens of thousands of dollars for "training" if they quit, bosses will take the latter every time. Go meta, baby.

Same for competition. Faced with the choice of competing to win the most customers with the best products, or merging so that customers have nowhere else to go, even the bitterest of rivals find it remarkably easy to intermarry until our corporations landscape is so interbred the dominant firms all have Habsburg jaws. Think: Facebook-Instagram. Disney-Fox. Microsoft-Activision:

https://locusmag.com/2021/07/cory-doctorow-tech-monopolies-and-the-insufficient-necessity-of-interoperability/

Enshittification has complex underlying dynamics and a reliable procession of stages, but the effect is quite straightforward: things are enshittified when they become worse for the people who use them and the suppliers who makes them, but nevertheless, the users keep using and the suppliers keep supplying.

There are four forces that stand in the way of enshittification, and as each of these forces grows weaker, enshittification proliferates.

The first and most important of these constraints is competition. Capitalists claim to love competition because it keeps firms sharp: they must constantly find ways to improve products and cut costs or be swept away by a superior alternative. There's a degree of truth here, but that's not the whole story.

For one thing, competition can "improve" things that we would rather see abolished. Critics of the GDPR, the EU's landmark privacy law, often point to the devastation that enforcing privacy law had on the European ad-tech industry, driving small firms out of business. But these firms were the most egregious privacy offenders, because they had the least to lose, lacking the dominant position of US-based Big Tech surveillance companies.

Having the least to lose, they were the most reckless with their privacy invasions – but they were also the least equipped to pay expensive enablers from giant corporate law firms to hold off European enforcers, and so they were obliterated. The resulting lack of competition is fine, as far as privacy goes: we don't want competition in the field of "who is most efficient at violating our human rights":

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/fighting-floc-and-fighting-monopoly-are-fully-compatible

But there's another benefit to competition: disorganization. A sector with hundreds of medium-sized, competing companies is a squabbling mob, incapable of agreeing on the site for an annual meeting. An industry dominated by a handful of firms is a cartel, handily capable of presenting a unified front to policy makers, and their commercial coziness provides them with vast war-chests they can use to suborn governments and capture their regulators:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/05/regulatory-capture/

Competition is the first constraint. When there's competition, corporate managers fear that you will respond to enshittification by defecting to a rival, costing them money. They don't care about your satisfaction, but they do care about your money, and competition hitches their ability to satisfy you to their ability to get paid by you.

Competition has been circling the drain for 40 years, as the "consumer welfare" theory of antitrust, hatched by Reagan's court sorcerers at the University of Chicago School of Economics, took hold. This theory insists that monopolies are evidence of "efficiency" – if everyone shops at one store, that's evidence that it's the best store, not evidence that they're cheating.

For 40 years, we've allowed companies to violate antitrust law by merging with major competitors, acquiring fledgling rivals, and using investor cash to sell below cost so that no one else can enter the market. This has produced the inbred industrial hulks of today, with five or fewer firms dominating everything from eyeglasses to banking, sea freight to professional wrestling:

https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/learn/monopoly-by-the-numbers

The endless and continuous weakening of competition has emboldened corporate enshittifiers, who operate on the logic of Lily Tomlin in her role as an AT&T spokeswoman: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company":

https://vimeo.com/355556831

But the drawdown of competition has also enabled regulatory capture, by converting cutthroat adversaries to kissing cousins. These companies have convinced their regulators not to enforce privacy, consumer protection or labor laws, provided that the gross violations of these laws are accomplished via apps.

This is where tech exceptionalism is warranted: while the bosses that run these companies aren't any nobler – or more wicked – than the Robber Barons of yore, they are equipped with a digital back-end for their businesses that let them change the rules of the game from moment to moment.

Think of labor law: as Veena Dubal writes, gig-work companies practice algorithmic wage discrimination, turning your paycheck into a slot machine that pays out more when you are more selective about which jobs you take, and which then docks your pay by tiny increments as you become less discriminating about answering the app's call:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

This is a plain violation of labor law, but the fiction that gig workers are contractors, combined with the opacity and speed of the wage discrimination back-end, lets the companies get away with it.

But the monsters who hatched this scam are no worse than their forebears, nor are they any smarter. Any black-hearted coal-boss memorialized in a Tennessee Ernie Ford song would have gladly practiced algorithmic wage discrimination – but there just weren't enough green-eyeshade accountants in the back office to change the payout from second to second.

I call this "twiddling" – turning the knobs on the back end to continuously adjust the business logic that the firm operates on:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Twiddling is everywhere, and it is only possible because "it's not a crime if we use an app" has been accepted by (captured) regulators. Think of Amazon's "pricing paradox," where deceptive search results – which Amazon makes $38b/year on – allow the company to offer lower prices, but charge higher ones:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

The first constraint on enshittification is competition – the fear that you'll lose money when a disgusted customer take their business elsewhere. The second constraint is regulation – the fear that a regulator's punishment will eat up all the expected gains from an enshittificatory move, or even exceed those gains, leading to a net loss.

But the less competition there is in a sector, the easier it is for the remaining companies to capture their regulators. Say goodbye to that second constraint.

But there's another constraint – another one that's unique to technology, and genuinely exceptional. That's self-help. Digital technology is infinitely flexible, which is why managers can twiddle the business logic and change the rules on a dime.

But it's a double-edged sword. Users can twiddle back. The universal nature of digital products means it's always technically possible to disenshittify the enshittified products in your world. Mercedes wants to charge you rent on your accelerator pedal via a monthly subscription? Just mod the car by toggling the "subscription paid" bit and get the accelerator for free:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

HP tricks you into installing a "security update" that sneakily disables your printer's ability to recognize and use third-party ink? Just roll back the operating system and you won't be forced to spend $10,000/gallon to print out your boarding passes and shopping lists:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Self-help – AKA "adversarial interoperability" – isn't just a way to override the greedy choices of corporate sadists. It's a way to hold those sadists in check. It's a constraint.

Imagine a boardroom where someone says, "I calculate that if we make our ads 25% more invasive and obnoxious, we can eke out 2% more in ad-revenue." If you think of a business as a transhuman colony organism that exists to maximize shareholder value, this is a no-brainer.

But now consider the rejoinder: "If we make our ads 25% more obnoxious, then 50% of our users will be motivated to type, 'how do I block ads?' into a search engine. When that happens, we don't merely lose out on the expected 2% of additional revenue – our income from those users falls to zero, forever."

Self-help is the third constraint on enshittification. But when competition fails, and regulatory capture ensues, companies don't just gain the ability to flout the law – they get to wield the law, too.

Tech firms have cultivated a thicket of laws, rules and regulations that make self-help measures very illegal. This thicket is better known as "IP," a term that is best understood as meaning "any policy that lets me control the conduct of my competitors, my customers and my critics":

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

To put an ad-blocker in an app, you have to reverse-engineer it. To do that, you'll have to decrypt and decompile it. That step is a felony under Section 1201 of the DMCA, carrying a five-year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine. Beyond that, ad-blocking an app would give rise to liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (a law inspired by the movie Wargames!), under "tortious interference" claims, under trademark, copyright and patent.

More than 50% of web users have installed an ad-blocker:

https://doc.searls.com/2023/11/11/how-is-the-worlds-biggest-boycott-doing/

But zero percent of app users have installed an ad-blocker, because they don't exist, because you'd go to prison if you made one. An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it.

This is why self-help, the third constraint, no longer applies. When a corporate sadist says, "let's make ads 25% more obnoxious to get 2% more revenue," no one says, "if we do that, our users will all install blockers." Instead, the response is, "let's make ads 100% more obnoxious and get an 8% revenue boost!"

https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/16/23763227/uber-video-advertising-ads-taxi-food-delivery-apps

Which brings me to the final constraint: workers.

Tech workers have historically enjoyed enormous bargaining power, thanks to a dire shortage of qualified personnel. While this allowed tech workers to command high salaries and cushy benefits, it also led many workers to conceive of themselves as entrepreneurs-in-waiting and not workers at all.

This made tech workers very exploitable: their bosses could sell them on the idea that they were doing something heroic, which warranted "extremely hardcore" expectations – working 16 hour days, sleeping under your desk, sacrificing your health, your family and your personal life to meet deadlines and ship products ("Real artists ship" – S. Jobs).

But the flip side of this appeal to heroism is that it only worked to the extent that it convinced workers to genuinely care about the things they made. When you miss you mother's funeral and pass on having kids in order to meet deadline and ship a product, the prospect of making that product worse is unthinkable.

Confronted by the moral injury of enshittifying a product you care about, and harming the users you see yourself as representing, many tech workers balked at the prospect. Because tech workers were scarce – and because there were plenty of employment prospects for workers who quit – they could actually prevent their bosses from making their products worse:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/moral-injury/#enshittification

But those days are behind us, too. Mass tech worker layoffs have gutted tech workers' confidence. When Google lays off 12,000 tech workers just months after a stock buyback that would have paid their wages for the next 27 years, they deliver two benefits to their shareholders. It's not just the short-term gains from the financial engineering – there's the long-term gain of gutting worker power and stripping away the final impediment to enshittification:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/10/the-proletarianization-of-tech-workers/

No matter how strong an individual tech worker's bargaining power was, it was always brittle. Long before googlers were being laid off in five-digit cohorts, they were working in an environment where harassment and predation were just part of the job. The 20,000+ googlers who walked off the job in 2018 were an important step towards replacing the system where each tech worker's power was limited to their moment-to-moment importance to their bosses' plans with a new system based on a collective identity.

Only through collective action and solidarity – unions – could tech workers hope to truly resist all the moral injuries of their bosses enshittification imperatives. No surprise then, that tech unions are on the rise:

https://abookapart.com/products/you-deserve-a-tech-union

But what is a little surprising – and very heartening! – is what happens when techies start to self-identify as workers: they come to understand that they share common cause with the other workers at the bottom of the tech stack. Think of Amazon's tech workers walking out in solidarity with Amazon's warehouse workers:

https://gizmodo.com/tech-workers-speak-out-in-support-of-amazon-warehouse-s-1842839301

Superficially, the bottom rank of the tech industry is as different from the tech workers at the top as you can imagine. Tech workers are formally employed, with stock options, health care and theme-park "campuses" with gyms and gourmet cafeterias.

The gig workers who pack, drive, deliver and support tech products aren't even employees – they're misclassified as contractors. They don't get free massages – they get AI bosses that monitor their eyeballs and dock their paychecks for peeing:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

Gig workers desperately need unions, but they also derive extraordinary benefits from self-help measures. When an app is your boss, another app can make all the difference to your working conditions. Take Para, an app that fights algorithmic wage discrimination by allowing gig workers to collectively and automatically refuse any job where the pay is below a certain threshold, forcing the algorithm to pay everyone more:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/tech-rights-are-workers-rights-doordash-edition

Para is fighting a grim legal and technical battle against companies like Doordash, whose margins depend on atomized workers with atomized apps, prohibited from countertwiddling. This is a surprisingly effective tactic: in Indonesia, gig workers co-ops create suites of "tuyul" apps that modify the behavior of their bosses' apps', unilaterally securing concessions that they lack the bargaining power to secure by other means:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/08/tuyul-apps/#gojek

Tuyul apps and other forms of countertwiddling aren't a substitute for unionization, they're an adjunct to it. The union negotiator whose rank-and-file are able to modify the apps that monitor and control their working conditions operates from a position of strength. "Please give my members more bathroom breaks" is a lot weaker than, "If you want my members to stop hacking their apps so they can piss when they need to, you're going to have to give them official bathroom breaks."

This is where solidarity between the high-paid tech workers at the keyboard and low-paid tech workers on the delivery bikes comes in. Together, they can wring more concessions from their bosses, sure. But unionized coders can give their unionized delivery riders the apps they need to countertwiddle and increase the bargaining leverage of all the workers in the union. And when unionized coders' bosses force them to put enshittifying anti-features in the apps they care about, unionized front-line workers can run counter-apps that disenshittify them.

Other sectors are already working through versions of this. The ouster of the old corrupt leadership of the Teamsters ushered in a new, radical era that produced historic wage and working condition gains for drivers and the abolition of the two-tier contract system that eventually destroys any union that tries it.

That change in leadership was possible because the Teamsters organized the Harvard Grad Students, and those Harvard kids memorized the union rulebook. At the historic conference where the old guard was abolished, it was teamwork between the union rank-and-file and the rules-lawyers from Harvard that turned the proceedings around:

https://theintercept.com/2023/04/07/deconstructed-union-dhl-teamsters-uaw/

We are deep into the enshittocene and it is terribly demoralizing. But by understanding the constraints that kept enshittification at bay, we can rebuild them, and shore them up. Labor organizing among all kinds of tech workers isn't just a way to get a better deal for those workers – it's key to the disenshittification of all our lives.

I'm Kickstarting the audiobook for The Bezzle, the sequel to Red Team Blues, narrated by @wilwheaton! You can pre-order the audiobook and ebook, DRM free, as well as the hardcover, signed or unsigned. There's also bundles with Red Team Blues in ebook, audio or paperback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/13/solidarity-forever/#tech-unions

#pluralistic #jennifer abruzzo #labor #tech unions #tech layoffs #enshittification #para #tuyul apps #solidarity #union density

244 notes · View notes

thesocialgremlin · 3 months

Text

I've been meaning to sit and write a proper post for a while. I am so exhausted with life. I'm so tired of being alive in this era. Why should I have to earn a living when I'm alive? Why am I slaving my life, my body, my hopes, my dreams, my relationships, everything and anything that ever mattered to me. Why indeed?

My dad slaved away, but at least he could sustain his wife and three kids. Meanwhile, most people my age have to put in the same effort, just so they can afford a roof to starve under. And why? All so some rich asshole can have more money than they can even conceive?

Since Covid "ended", the cost of life skyrocketed. I've been working in the retail industry, different places since then. Retail prices used to be cost plus 30, 35%. Now, it's cost plus 40, 50, 80% on lower priced items. And why?

I can assure the wages haven't changed. What has changed is record breaking numbers every fucking quarters. Management going off on extravagant meetings outside of this forsaken country. I'm trying so hard to survive, to get by, working for these people who waste wealth when their people desperately need it.

I'm so over it, my hands are shaking as I type. They could have their fancy meeting in a fancy hotel in the city. Instead, they flaunt hundreds of thousands to get their ass down South while leaving the baseline staff to handle affairs.

Mind you, affairs seem to run hella smoother without management than it would if even one or two of the baseline stepped out for a day.

We don't need them to do our job, but they need us to make their money. They tell us it's like a family, and they treat us like it; work hard, go above and beyond, all day, every day. Do it all, we'll give you a pat on the back. A freebie you never asked for to make you feel better. Anything but pay you and treat you with human dignity and respect. The same dignity and respect we DESERVE because we are ALIVE and we are PEOPLE.

The world is broken.

I never wished for anything extravagant; If I were living on my terms, I'd happily live in a small shack, working part time in a cafe, dedicating myself to all the writing and reading and researching and adventuring my soul craves.

Instead, I'm caught grinding my soul away. My life beating to the rhythm of a business shamelessly exploiting me. My hopes and dreams to live my own life wither as my government choses to wage war on vulnerable children instead of fixing any real problems.

All I wanted was to live a peaceful life and make art. I had no agenda but to live my life. Now, I have to fight for the life stolen from me, so the next generation may yet see a better world.

#Enough is enough #we are people #we deserve better #i hate it here #social justice #democracy #socialist revolution #my French blood demands heads start rolling #wealth redistribution #we need UBI and we need it now #it's not extreme to care for people

3 notes · View notes

bananonbinary · 6 months

Text

somewhat kicking a bees nest here, but hear me out-

"homemade and handcrafted goods should cost hundreds and even thousands of dollars" is why attaching a monetary value to esoteric concepts like "time" and "skill" (and, you know, "a human being") is a bad system.

now, before the pitchforks come out, i am not bitching because i want a handcrafted quilt for $20. i do recognize that it would be unbelievably unfair to the quilter. but like...doesn't that sound obscene? that we live in a system where things that used to be pretty mundane are now only available to the upper class, or the creator just fucking dies? where in order for someone to make anything artistic, they need to be independently wealthy or ONLY cater to wealthy people?

again, i am not suggesting that artists should sell me their shit at a horrific loss. im not really suggesting any solution at all here, we're between a bit of a rock and a hard place. but it feels really inherently fucked up to me that the only options are "Artists taken advantage of" and "only rich people get art."

anyways, UBI huh

#like i see these arguments about rising videogame and movie and tv costs as well #and like. yes! i do think those artists deserve a living wage!#but also its grotesque that that means only rich people have access to art #a ubi wouldnt solve EVERYTHING but it sure would make literally everything easier you know?#i hate the idea of art as career #not because i dont think its important #but because i feel like its TOO important to attach to that fucking carrot/stick you know?#whoever controls the money can control the art and that's real stupid. even if it IS how its always been.#but taking it further than that. i guess i hate 'career' meaning 'reason you get to live' in the FIRST place #so i dont hate artists that make it their career. that's fine.#but i think a society that forces you to attach a dollar value to everything you care about in order to live is very sick

207 notes · View notes

weaselle · 6 days

Text

@biggyb I wanted to answer you and then it became so much that i felt it needed to be it's own post.

So, if it was enacted on a large or ubiquitous scale, that is absolutely a concern, that if everybody had more money prices would just increase, rendering the UBI useless.

what would we do about that?

One the one hand that is basically already what happens anyway, which is why cost of living increases etc are a thing. And on the other hand there are a few mechanisms that can curb that, things like rent control laws.

But ultimately, personally, i believe the real answer is to remove the money aspect and provide the basic necessities directly.

When we say UBI we’re basically talking about the government giving us money (which has to come from somewhere, and that probably means some kind of progressive wealth tax, which is really just wealth redistribution at that point but whatever)

Anyway I believe it would be more effective for the government to provide those things directly (but not exclusively). I believe the baseline for society is everybody has free access to:

HEALTHCARE

All forms of healthcare (this is an important one, the very best we can do should be available to anyone who needs it, with no conditions, no barriers to entry like complicated paperwork, if you need health care you should get it, period.

INFORMATION

This means a free press, and education, true, but i also mean internet access, which at this point in our society i think is necessary for equality

NUTRITION

So, not just food, but a complete diet. This can still be very basic, little more than rice and beans, with medical exemption options of course, but it can be enough that it is the bare minimum food types, maybe rice beans and a couple types of dark green veggie and a couple types of vitamin C fruit. Possibly eggs or peanuts or something. Nothing fancy, just good quality ingredients that contain enough nutrition to keep you not only alive but fully healthy. And i think this should be provided in both raw ingredient form and cooked form.

CLOTHING

This one gets overlooked a lot, but kids need shoes, and struggling people need blankets and jackets, and everybody needs access to clothes, actually. Again, can be very basic, maybe government issued overalls, socks, jackets, blankets, and some kind of cheap tennis shoes would be most of it, but everybody needs access to clothes.

And finally HOUSING

So for example, the government would build apartment complexes that were just freely available to the public, first come first serve, you sign for it and the apartment is yours until you give it up or take another apartment.

We already have our government building and running public schools and libraries, we just need to upgrade those a bit. We already have governments building and running hospitals, we just need to do a lot more of that a lot better and get these private insurance companies to fuck off.

And then we just need to provide the clothes, open the Food Distribution Centers and build the housing.

Because then it won’t be money, so you don’t have to worry about the prices of everything going up because everybody has more income, which you are correct, is a concern. So just provide those things directly.

This is much less like taking money from the super wealthy and putting it into the bank accounts of everyone else, and much more the way taxes are supposed to work taking money from those that can spare it and using it to build a society that is better for everyone - even improving things for those super wealthy people (who now at the very least get to walk around safer from the sick and the homeless and the desperate - i mean violent crime alone would probably do whatever the opposite of sky-rocket is. Ground-dive.)

And people will still get jobs and spend money! Like, just because you provide government overalls, doesn’t mean people will stop wanting fashion brands. But now nobody will die of exposure from not having clothes. Same with everything, for example, the government school system is extremely developed, but there are still private schools, right?

That would be true of all this. If you gave everyone access to basic nutrition, there would still be steak houses and sushi restaurants and stuff. But now you could actually have the public boycott foods they felt were sourced unethically, or you could, say, regulate the fishing industry into sustainability even if that meant fish became so expensive that the average person could only eat fish once a year or whatever. Businesses might die from it, but no people would. Not even the people who used to own those businesses.

For my money, no money is where it’s at. But UBI would be a nice stepping stone.

What UBI experiments show us is that when you give people money and they DON’T get a job, but just exist at the minimum level, they are usually only doing so to accomplish something like go back to school for a degree or take care of a disabled or elderly loved one.

And the same would be true if we just provided everyone with the basics (except healthcare, everybody must get the best we have when it comes to healthcare, anything else is a moral failing that doesn’t bear contemplating)

but yeah, there would be people who would only wear government issued overalls, only live in government barracks, and only eat government rice and beans… but UBI experiments show us that it would be a small percentage of the population, and they'd only be doing it either to accomplish something worthy, or because they were in some way impaired. 90% of everyone else would still be out there getting jobs so they could move into a nice house and eat fish, but now with the security to quit if those jobs didn’t treat them well!

imo, THAT’s how you fix the economic issues surrounding UBI, you take the “income” out of the equation and you just straight up provide the Universal Basics themselves.

"but how would we build all these apartments and run these food distribution centers?"

well, this dovetails into my other favorite solution for the united states.

See, we spend a FUCKTON on the military, and we're just never going to make that stop happening, apparently.

So I say, we INCREASE the military. I say double it even.

And then we use them here, keeping them sharp and employed and trained etc by doing public works.

The military is already full of engineers and cooks and doctors and electricians and forklift operators and everything else.

So get them building apartments and running food distribution and supplementing hospital staffs etc.

All that stuff involves, logistics, and teamwork, and knowing how to run projects and accomplish missions, it's all good training even for the combat personnel, which is only 15% of the people in the military btw.

The rest are those other jobs i mentioned. So hire and train even more of them, and then deploy them here, repairing bridges and building hospitals and managing clothing warehouses and stuff.

anyway. Food for thought.

#ubi #sorry if this is a longer answer than you wanted #i do the words it's what i do #these are the things i think about

63 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 5 months

Note

Any thoughts/opinions on the idea of Universal Basic Income?

So I come out of MMT-adjacent circles that tend to focus on Job Guarantees over Universal Basic Income(s).

There is a certain amount of rivalry and bad blood between these two camps, as they see their projects as competing for the same policy "space" as solutions to poverty and unemployment. For example, back when I was on twitter I got into quite a few arguments with Matt Bruenig, who is a UBI advocate and quite hostile to Job Guarantees, and I was not the only MMTer/job guarantee advocate who mixed it up with Bruening and his supporters.

For my own part, I am not opposed to incomes policies in general. Certainly, I think we saw from COVID-era initiatives around Unemployment Insurance and the Child Tax Credit that incomes policies can be tremendously effective in stabilizing consumer demand, preventing eviction and homelessness, and especially in cutting poverty rates. Likewise, I think there is now pretty solid empirical evidence that the concerns about employment effects that were the bane of UBIs and Negative Income Tax (NIT) proposals from the 1970s onwards are baseless.

That being said, I think there are other critiques of UBI from the left that were raised by Hyman Minsky in the late 1960s and 1970s that (instead of focusing on employment effects and the ideological question of "dependency") center on the fiscal capacity of the state, the problem of inflation, and the inability of UBIs to solve the problem of lost labor-time, which remain open questions.

This is why I am skeptical of the more Georgist approach to UBI as panacea. To my mind, incomes policies are a partial solution to some socioeconomic problems that have some side effects; they need to be buttressed by complementary policies (including job guarantees) that can do things UBIs can't, while also dealing with UBI's side effects. In some sense, it shouldn't be very surprising that a belt-and-braces strategy is best, because that was the intended vision for a comprehensive New Deal order proposed by the National Resources Planning Board in 1942.

#public policy #economic policy #social policy #universal basic income #negative income tax #job guarantee #job guarantees #my day job #mmt #political economy #ubi #people must live by work #policy history

81 notes · View notes

tangibletechnomancy · 5 months

Text

The reason I keep stressing that The Problem Is Capitalism isn't because I think we should all just give up on doing damage control with the worst of the ways new tech is abused and wait until Capitalism Gets Overthrown and solves all our problems; I think that's an incredibly stupid strategy for anything and damage control matters a lot-

I keep stressing it because ~98% of the proposed "solutions" are at best time-honored losing bets (e.g., "unmake these technological advances! Shove those worms back in the can NOW!") and at worst actively making things worse (agreeing with corporations that use of new tech is Mindless Unskilled Labor not even worth minimum wage) or even indulging in blatant trad and/or fascist ideology abstracted by the computer (if you have accepted the premise that degenerate art is a real thing and a great replacement is possible, you are headed for some DARK places even if you truly believe you're not fighting any human - you're already dehumanizing the people operating the "robot" you hate so much by extension).

We don't need copyright to devastate transformative art, we don't need to shove worms back in a can, and we DEFINITELY don't need to attack random hobbyists as Fake Artists; we need unions and automation taxes. We don't need to clamor for Real Art over Degenerate Art, we need to recognize the work involved in art that's been devalued for decades. We need to, for example, stop shitting on CGI because it's "lazy" and start shitting on the conditions that MAKE it unfairly cheaper than practical effects - i.e., corporate greed combined with the idea that the computer just does it for you and CGI is a cop-out rather than an art that we've been hearing since 1982; we need to push for VFX artists to unionize and recognize them as artists. We need improved unemployment protection as a foot in the door that can be upgraded into UBI, paid for with said automation taxes. We need online privacy protections so we have more control over who has access to personal things in the first place, as far as we can have privacy in a public space at all, and we need to undo Facebook culture and start remembering, and reminding others, that public websites ARE public.

Does it suck that the easy way out is anywhere from impotent to actively detrimental? Yes. Does the fact that it sucks suddenly make it untrue? No!

#not art

79 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

riddiesdiddy

Riddie

the-agenladyfemjakarta-univ-blog

Untitled

love-sa-rang-blog

Historias de una otaku

goldstcrsfm

Untitled

hdfjsjkj

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆟