DragonI

Feudalism and the “Algorithmic Economy” – Basic income – Medium

Using AI and algorithms to return to feudal economic models

medium.com|Thaddeus Howze

In this essay, I posit something I call the “Algorithmic Economy” though it is often called the “Sharing Economy” or the “On-Demand Economy” by economists and other writers on this subject.

I prefer the “Algorithmic Economy” because it speaks to the creeping effects on decisions being made by companies and organizations, which not only include automation used in factories, but the development of apps and programs which use algorithms to direct, control and manage Human behavior.

Welcome to the Algorithmic Economy, a future which uses machines to determine how effective you can be and how little they can pay you in the process.

There are no unions in this economy. There are no bosses to complain to. There are no people you can ask for redress. Because in this economy, the people doing the labor are considered the least important part of the machine and it’s best if they never communicate with someone living if it can be helped.

As programmers using design-thinking engage computers to map, monitor and control Human endeavors, it is becoming more prevalent that computers are effectively in charge of Human behaviors utilizing a number of algorithms (programmed behaviors and decisions made by programmers to elicit a desired response from Humans or there programs) to enrich corporations using such technology such as Lyft, Uber, TaskRabbit and many other such “on-demand” driven businesses.

With recent laws being created, it will be possible to extract your data from an ISP and create profiles allowing advertisers to send information directly to you, no matter where you are.

Their goal is to create a workforce bound by their economic debt to the system, forced to take whatever work they can find, while being paid as little for that work as possible, understanding ultimately, the creation of an indentured workforce is not only the result but an expected one, keeping society enfeebled and unable to create opportunities for further development.

For most older workers, their opportunities lie with older exploitive corporations such as Walmart, known for its low pay and older workforce, or at the hands of the aforementioned Uber, who has, at least in the Bay Area, has a much older, and more minority workforce.

If Uber’s programmers are smart enough to recognize how those numbers and gamification ensure their own prosperity, they are also aware that drivers earn less, stay with the company for less time and will eventually leave the company once they understand how they are being exploited.

People without money can’t improve themselves or their communities. People who exploit those people don’t help with those communities either, creating a vacuum effect, taking money from communities without ever returning an equal or greater amount of money to those areas, ensuring the slow and inexorable decline of society over time.

Do a bit of research on the subject of the On-Demand economy. While prognostications promote the idea it is good for investors, almost no mention of the people doing the work and their eventual fates are ever mentioned. Here is an amazing collection of essays on the On-Demand economy which point out the future of this industry and what it means to the modern workforce.

Is Uber The Root Of All Evil?

It is a truth universally acknowledged, in the enlightened liberal semi-socialist California circles in which I often move, that Uber is evil.

techcrunch.com|Jon Evans

What’s more, my friends are far from alone. For instance: that well-known liberal socialist Peter Thiel has called Uber “without question the most ethically challenged company in Silicon Valley.”

And yet. Allow me to humbly propose that the pendulum has perhaps swung too far into backlash. Allow me to suggest that “Uber is evil / represents the worst of capitalism!” is not just wrong, but actually dangerous. Allow me to submit that perhaps Uber is the lesser of two evils.

...

But at the same time, being a servant-as-a-service is helping to keep a lot of heads above water. “More than a third of respondents said informal work helped them offset the effects of the recession either very much or somewhat,” to quote Bloomberg. What’s more, the fundamental problem the precariat faces is not that the on-demand economy exists; it’s that technology has made whole classes of workers easily replaceable — or, like Uber’s drivers, eventually completely obsolete. If your skills aren’t hard to replace, then you too may well eventually join the precariat. That has nothing to do with on-demand vs. full-time.