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.

  • cygon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • cygon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.”

        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.

        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.

        • I think having more space hippie ideas will inspire many more people than boring minimum wage or tax increase fights, so it may well recruit more people and thus bring more pressure towards better labor.
        • I also think it would help overwhelm counter-messaging. Imagine think tanks would have to counter a hundred wild ideas rather and being able to fine tune messaging against the small number of what we have now.
        • Symbiosis: if everyone has two or three inspiring wild ideas floating in their heads, it shifts views in general. And beliefs that support a sexy solar punk utopia will also be applicable to boring labor reform ideas.
        • With the whole climate situation and resource scarcity (like oil and rare earths), de-growth is coming eventually. For the current system, that would likely mean an endless great depression. Brainstorming crazy ideas for a less consumerist type of economy may well be a boon.
      • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        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

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        So that policy would encourage people to move to low density housing

        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