• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    If Intel had trotted out Chip and then announced it would be creating a universal basic income scheme based on the savings the company was amassing by using Chip, then I’d be clapping along with the audience. As it stands, it just seems like bad taste during a difficult time.

    I’m not sure the author of the article has a realistic understanding of Intel’s role or ability to affect change public policy.

    • Daggity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not a great place to be. Intel and other major corporations buy political influence. Politicians act in the best interests of their benefactors, and for most, that’s not the voters. I don’t think it’s practical either, but maybe there’s some use in including these kinds of political ideas when these things happen, as a reminder that they wield political influence.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      It’s true that Intel probably shouldn’t be handing out UBI, but if companies want to promote how much they don’t need people’s labor anymore, then that should be taken into consideration in policy making.

      Somewhere along the line we lost one of the basic things underpinning our current economic structure – that corporations are supposedly better at allocating, distributing, and utilizing resources than a centrally planned economy with a governmental overlord. It sure sounds to me like Intel and other companies that are handing out pink slips for every bit of thing they automate cannot find anything to do with the human resources they’ve got.

      To put it more simply, corporations aren’t allowed to exist purely because they “make money”. One of their primary functions is to employ people.