Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech (fortune.com)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley. From a report: "Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said. Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on.
UBI has been getting more press lately and it's a little hard for me to see how it makes sense. It seems like welfare for everybody, regardless of need. IMHO it tries to solve the problem from the wrong direction. One of the most important things for human mental health is to have something to do. UBI does nothing to address that, and without opportunity the money will just be used for drugs far too often. Programs like the New Deal make a lot more sense. Paying people's expenses while they are in training also make sense. Blank checks require more personal responsibility than you can expect out of the population at large.
I read the internet for the articles.
... to let people starve in the streets, why not?
We run these patchworks of programmes to try to approximate the effects of universal basic income. Lost your job? Unemployment insurance. Chronically unemployed? Food assistance, welfare, etc. Homeless? Housing assistance / public housing / shelters. Too old to work? Pensions / social security, and in the US, Medicare. Too poor for health insurance in the US? Medicaid. Physically can't work? Disability. Job wouldn't pay enough to afford basic expenses? Minimum wage. On and on.
Isn't it about time that we just simply accept what we're trying to approximate, and just do it directly? Then scrap the patchwork of programmes that try to approximate it, and all of their overhead (ex: all of them), market distortion (ex: minimum wage), and perverse incentives (ex: trying not to earn too much to avoid losing benefits). People can reasonably differ about the amount that defines "basic needs", how much if any to boost people who "permanently can't work" vs. those who simply don't have a job for whatever reason, how to deal with dependents, etc. But it certainly simplifies the debate versus having a whole complex and inefficient patchwork to argue over.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
There is such a thing as free money, rich people are proof of it. Nobody's job is worth millions every year.
#DeleteFacebook
Europe is swinging back to the left. Okay, that means it is now near the centre again, but compared to the US that's still pretty far to the left. Macron's victory in France, and Merkel's likely victory in Germany being two examples.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
He should have finished school. That way he might have taken a basic economics class, which would have taught him that economies of scale adjust out all imposed constants. You can, for example, add X to everyone's income, and the price of everything will simply rise to adjust out X, returning the system to peak efficiency. This will make what money low income earners do make even less valuable, increasing poverty and shrinking the middle class.
Every economist with a shred of intellectual honesty will admit to this - imposed constant offsets like UBI, Minimum Wage, and the like, only increase poverty.
In what way are social parties collapsing? Scandinavia uses very socialist policies and they're some of the most prosperous and happy countries in the world. France just went for the more socialist choice, England looks set to do the same (if you ignore right wing polls).
Zuckerberg wants a universal income, he can hand over his own money to set the example.
What? He's not going to voluntarily give up his billions so others can have a basic income? How strange.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
And how do you do "millions of dollars worth of sales each year"? How can a single individual make so much money? There's a problem with that. Somebody in your supply chain is getting royally screwed so that you can get so much profit.
Your "hard earned" money is nothing of the sort. There's only 365 days in a year, 24 hours in each one. There's people out there working 60+ hours weeks and they'll never earn even a fraction of what you make.
That one person can earn that much is a problem. That you think it's "hard-earned" is another problem.
#DeleteFacebook
UBI solves entirely the wrong problem.
It might be better welfare than welfare but its not a solution to the more basic problems of employment and human behavior.
Once you have a class of folks who subsist on basic income they will be jealous of the things those who have profitable work have, and resentful they have no path the get them. One of two outcomes follows:
1) They vote themselves more income. Eventually walls are run up against. Maybe its the limits of productivity by the still productive + automation. Society simple does produce enough wealth to distribute even if workers don't quit first. Alternatively simple physics gets in the way, and we destroy the planet because we can't come up with a social rational why every tom dick and hary isn't entitled to super sonic flights to anywhere on the globe every weekend.
2) The idea of democracy is killed in its entirely. The folks the subsist on UBI are de-voiced and told to be happy in their apartment blocks and satisfied buying price controlled cheese. Eventually the capital owners or political rules start to ask themselves why put up with the rabble at all, and something much uglier happens.
I don't know the answer is but I know it isn't ubi
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
His entire $51 billion can only give the 150 million of Americans, who pay no income tax today, $340... Once. As you say, most of those working would be taxed extra to further comfort the idle.
Ergo, my reference to the gun point, which is how all taxes are collected...
So, of course, "UBI" and other attempts to forcibly "spread the wealth" to address the non-problem of "income inequality" are foolish and oppressive. But for the uber-rich like Zuckerberg to advance them without donating a sizeable chunk of their own wealth to the needy is, in addition to those two things, also hypocritical.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Speak for yourself. And if you had the baggers be checkers instead, you could have literally twice as many lanes open. So if you want to talk about "holding everyone up"....
And, FYI? Our checker counters have a divider where the groceries come out, and the checker can route groceries to either side. So a person doesn't need to be done bagging for them to start checking the next person's groceries.
But then again, it's that whole "rational solutions" thing that Americans are so allergic to.
You're treating a symptom while the disease rages on. The fish rots from the head. Why not cut off the head?
This is a classic billionaire, entitled, socialist idea. It's really easy to say "we should" or "you should" when you will never, ever want for anything in your life again. Mark wants to impress what he believes on everyone else because he thinks he's smarter. I have news Mark, you got lucky, that's it. You probably aren't as good of a programmers as I am but you had a flash in the pan idea and it stuck.
I make good money despite my lack of education but I know, with 100% certainty, that any new government program will eat more from my paycheck. Mark doesn't have to worry about that so he starts blathering about some crazy idea that in addition to costing people like me more every week, it will evaluate our currency just like raising the minimum wage does.
Everyone should work, that gives value to all money earned.
Why should the wealthy have to give up their money for others to not work?
Because guillotines are cheap and easy to build.
What would be fair then? 10x minimum wage? 100x? Should they be required to help promote the show? Should they be required to work for free at the singer's free shows in bars and coffee shops as she was building a fan base, before she got famous?
If the stadium show gets rained out and all the tickets have to be refunded, should the workers still get paid for the setup work they did? How much? 10x minimum wage? 100x?
Please answer: What would be fair?
You know, I am sure there are dozens of comments like this in this thread, basically saying "I bet he doesn't want to use his money for it!" You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
He wants other people's wealth to be "spread around" at gun-point...
As opposed to the current situation, where other people's wealth is concentrated to the few via starvation being the alternative.
Income inequality this large is inherently unstable. You either have to deal with it by spreading the wealth in a relatively controlled manner (something like taxes and UBI) or it will be dealt with via violent revolution. History shows zero alternatives.
The first solution is better the latter. Especially if you're one of the wealthy - your head remains attached to your body while your massive wealth remains pretty massive.
Facebook are one of a number of companies that have a habit of using exotic international tax vehicles to move profits from countries where corporation taxes are reasonable to countries where they are super-low.
Yeah, the existing system has some broken rules, and FB takes advantage of those rules. So what? Not taking advantage of them would be dumb, since all the competition is. That doesn't mean Zuckerberg can't call for better rules.
Note that in this case, the most sensible fix to the rules would be eliminating corporate income tax on foreign earnings (or, better yet, eliminate corporate income tax entirely), and instead making a series of changes to tax laws to increase the burden on wealthy owners of capital. Increase capital gains taxes, add some higher income tax brackets, add taxes on luxury items, remove deductions used primarily by the wealthy, etc.
However, all of that really is completely separate from whether UBI is a good idea. UBI could theoretically be implemented in a way that is fully revenue neutral, just replacing all of the existing means-tested welfare systems. Everyone not currently receiving welfare benefits would see their taxes go up by roughly the same amount as the UBI check they begin to receive, leaving their situation unchanged. It's not quite that simple, of course, but a well-designed UBI should not affect the majority of wage earners significantly.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Ergo, my reference to the gun point, which is how all taxes are collected...
Let me ask a question. When you receive your electric bill or winter gas bill or water/sewerage bill, do you call it a forced bill "at gun point" from the utility company? Or do you just pay it because you're paying your fair share of bills for what you used?
Taxes are just our bill for our fair share of government and government services. It pays for military defense, a court system to allow you to file greviences against neighbors businesses or even the government itself, roads and bridges and other infrastructure, inspectors that ensure our buildings are constructed to code and food is safe to eat, and way more than I can list here. You use plenty of government services every day and don't even realize, so yes, you need to pay your bills for those services.
Now you could argue that our taxes are not always used wisely. I'd personally love to see our taxes go more to domestic programs rather than more middle eastern wars. And you might argue government is wasteful, and sometimes it is. But then I have a news flash for you, have you ever worked at corporate? Corporations are *at least* as wasteful as government services in many circumstances, so it's not particularly unique to government. If you'd like to see changes and waste cut, contact your representative and vote against them next election if they do nothing, that's why we're a democratic republic, we can vote and change things. At least you can do that, with private corporate control you have absolutely no say about what the CEO does.
So, of course, "UBI" and other attempts to forcibly "spread the wealth" to address the non-problem of "income inequality" are foolish and oppressive.
If you've never been poor I suppose you don't understand inequality, so let me give you a brief overview. Income is a huge part of it, but not all. Neighborhoods gentrify and rent increases meaning you must leave your long time neighborhood since you can't find a better job, because you don't have free time between 60+ hours a week job at several stores or money to attend college to get new skills. You might ask why they don't just buy a house. Good question! When your income is that low, you don't have the credit necessary to buy. Except landlords need to make money off of you, so their rent is almost by definition *more* than a typical mortgage (it has to be more than the mortgage to make a profit, right?). So you have to pay a lot and need more jobs. Many jobs are not on bus routes in my area, so you need a car. You get a cheap one at a used car lot, but since your credit is low, you don't get the typical 2 or 3% interest middle class gets, you get 8 or 10% interest, again having to pay *more* than middle class. But it's used car so you can make small payments over time so you try to make it work out. Then you get to work and your boss tells you to go home. They found someone new, or just plain don't like you, and they fire you on the spot. They can do that in many states because "right to work" really means employers have the right to fire you at any moment. Or even if you're not fired, it's a slow day, so he sends you home. Now you're short a day of pay, and your bills are stretched thin, so you can't make the car payment until the next paycheck. Now you're late and have penalty interest, and they possibly come to repo your car if you wait too long and they don't want to work with you. Or, you decide to take a payday loan on your next paycheck so you can have the money now rather than waiting two more weeks, so you pay your bills, but your payday loan was at obnoxious 25%+ and has to be paid back immediately at the next paycheck, which of course you don't have, so you sink into more debt. Which means your credit score dips lower, you have to pay even higher interest rates, now you don't even qualify for car loans and even rental units star
And let's say you get your way and the guy checking tickets and pointing people toward the metal detector gets paid $5000-$10000 for his night's work. What's a fair way to award these easy, no-skill jobs to the population? Why should person A get the opportunity over person B? Because person A has connections? Person B is "getting screwed".
You want a government department to oversee who works where and who gets paid how much? If not, how do you keep unfairness from happening?
You do realize that by calling for government action that he knows will require taxing the hell out of the rich, he IS offering his money. Right?
"Taxing the hell out of the rich"!?!?
Bwaahaahaahaa!!
Good one, you almost had me thinking you were serious up to that point.
You can't raise taxes on rich corporations as they simply raise the prices customers must pay to compensate, effectively shifting the taxes onto their customers. You may as well simply raise individual income taxes.
So, what happens when so many people live on UBI that there aren't enough people working and earning money to tax to pay for UBI?
UBI/Mincome is a doomed-to-fail economic strategy. It's great until you run out of other people's money.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I like Mark's comments and ideas. We just have to separate the means, the ends, and the values.
Mark is describing the ends. It's a vision for a new social structure of the future. It has a lot going for it - if we ignore for a moment how we pay for it, everyone here (I hope) will agree that it would be a Great Thing if everyone had food, clothing, shelter, quality education, and good health care. That's a good basis for a great society. If we had the choice, why would we choose to have hunger and starvation, homelessness, under-education and people dying of preventable and curable problems?
But we have to pay for it. UBI was one idea to investigate (and that's pretty close to his wording). The global worth of mankind's output is growing - mathematically, the average standard of living of the world should continue to rise over time (I see no limit in sight).
Much, much more importantly - we also have to figure out a value system around it. Mark's ideal here is a safety net to let people climb higher. That's a great thing. It can also be viewed as a motivation to not climb at all. That's a terrible thing. All social programs struggle with this fundamental issue. It doesn't mean the goals are bad. It means that when society gives, some people give back, and some people take. The ideal society happens when everyone gives and everyone gives back. Society collapses when everyone takes and nobody gives back.
Giving to the poor and needy is risky. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine a higher society than one that invests in the poor and needy.
Side note: I see no better way to handle the moral issues here than in our own lives and our own homes. Do we give back when we take? Do we teach our children the value of work, progress, ambition, and selflessness? Are setting the right example ourselves and teaching others?
We can't have that utopian society unless we have utopian people to put in it.
Other side note: I'm a wealthy, small-government conservative who hates paying interest, taxes, and poorly managed, poorly used social programs. I also believe I have a responsibility to meaningfully help those who have a tougher hand to play than I do. And I struggle (a lot) to find good ways to meaningfully help.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.