Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg Doubles Down On Universal Basic Income, Calls It a 'Bipartisan Issue' (cnbc.com)
Mark Zuckerberg praised the Alaska Permanent Fund and used it as another platform to lobby for universal basic income, as he did during his commencement address to Harvard in May. The Alaska Permanent Fund was established in 1976 as the Alaska pipeline construction neared completion. According to CNBC, the "goal was to share the oil riches with future generations." From the report: Zuckerberg says the state's cash handout program "provides some good lessons for the rest of the country." The dividend averages $1000 (or more) per person. "That can be especially meaningful if your family has five or six people," says Zuckerberg in a post he wrote about the payment. "This is a novel approach to basic income in a few ways. First, it's funded by natural resources rather than raising taxes. Second, it comes from conservative principles of smaller government, rather than progressive principles of a larger safety net," says Zuckerberg. "This shows basic income is a bipartisan idea." Fundamentally, Zuckerberg says people think and work differently when they have their basic needs met. "Seeing how Alaska put this dividend in place reminded me of a lesson I learned early at Facebook: organizations think profoundly differently when they're profitable than when they're in debt. When you're losing money, your mentality is largely about survival," says Zuckerberg. "But when you're profitable, you're confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest and grow further. Alaska's economy has historically created this winning mentality, which has led to this basic income. That may be a lesson for the rest of the country as well."
If your only criteria for being bipartisan is that the plan conforms to both conservative and liberal ideals, then this wouldn't a problem. But when Obama basically copied previous conservative proposals in order to reach a bipartisan deal, he met with resistance just because it was proposed by a Democrat.
As long as liberals think Universal Basic Income is a good idea, they are going to need strong super majorities to get it through the legislative process because the other side will block literally anything that even smells liberal in origin.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No, there's fundamental differences in philosophy behind those who want their lives dependent on the government and those that don't.
That's a simplistic, Ayn Randian view of the world that a 13 year old would have. Life ain't that simple, kiddo.
I don't respond to AC's.
As we automate more and more people out of work, as ownership of those automated facilities concentrates more and more, we MUST switch to UBI or admit we're making almost the entire population redundant. This isn't weavers destroying Jacquard looms - computers and robots are on the threshold of obliterating general labor as a way to make even a subsistence living.
And if we decide the general population is redundant, how long until someone who is in the 'have' group decides the 'have nots' need to starve to death or be killed off before they storm the gates looking for their share?
The problem is that while much of the rest of the world is at least slightly socialist already, the USA is still paranoid about communism and resists social programs even if they're dying as a result - the Republican support for repealing socialized healthcare being a textbook example.
So UBI may not fly in the USA until past the time when its needed, and then we will get to see if the masses die off before they revolt.
That's not what UBI is. And most humans will NOT want to stay at what qualifies for UBI housing. Either it's a single room with shared toilet, living space and kitchen, or it's a barracks style bunk beds with a foot locker for your personal stuff. That's what UBI provides. Sure, if you're lazy, you might be happy with shared living quarters, but most people want at least their own personal bathroom, which requires more money. Where's that money come from? Working, of course.
But instead of having to be forced to work as a janitor just to live, as you do today, perhaps you can work as a craftsman - whittling wood or something, who makes enough money to not only afford a better location, but doing what they love. And of course, paying taxes.
And people may be lazy, but they also are not lazy. Think of it this way - why do people do things for recreation instead of staying in bed all day on the weekend? They run, they do exercise, they do hobbies, etc. When instead they could be sitting on the couch watching TV with a beer in their hands?
Hell, even with UBI, most people like where they live, so they'll continue to work at their present jobs. Those who are unhappy will likely quit and find more satisfying jobs, not being stuck in a job just to make the mortgage payment and otherwise live. Others may take a pay cut to work less hours because they're not forced to work long hours just to survive, and use the spare time for things they may enjoy more, including raising kids.
No, UBI is not a utopia, but it's far from a disaster. There's a reason why people want to house the homeless and give them healthcare - it's cheaper to do so than for them to live on the streets and incur increased policing costs and healthcare costs. Hell, jailing someone costs over $100K a year. And those without healthcare use ER, the most expensive form of medical treatment available. It's far cheaper for them to be able to access a regular doctor and do proactive treatment than reactive treatment in an ER.
And if there's some idiot homeless person who spent all their UBI money on drugs, well, you can't really feel sorry for them anymore. Lock 'em up, I guess if they can't take care of themselves properly.
Despite what you think of CEOs, their responsibility puts dinner on the plates of every employee at the company.
No he doesn't. Market demand does, which the employees fulfull, and could do so equally for any other individual with the skills of a McDonald's manager. The manager then siphons off the value created by them at an absurdly disproportionate level.
Look at, say, the management of Google or Microsoft, ostensibly with the very best executives around. How many completely off-the-mark products and services have they advanced, to be discontinued as a business failure later?
I challenge you to name anything a CEO does fundamentally more insightfully than a McDonald's crew manager, or taking ideas gleanable from reading Slashdot or any other technically competent publication, putting the ideas on a dartboard, and throwing darts. Don't let me give the impression that I'm saying the CEO's ideas are of equal number or quality to random Slashdot readers, though. The CEO is inferior on both counts.
Inequality of opportunity (having money is an automatic win in any business competition regarding anything over those who don't), and old boys' networks is why they're there. That's mostly it. Don't get the impression I'm some leftist decrying capitalism, though. It works better than the alternatives. But to elevate it to a idealized meritocracy is just leaving the realm of reality entirely for a self-serving fiction.
A basic income should allow a worker to tell his or her employer where to get off if they mistreat their workers, and take their labour elsewhere. Surely the libertarian dream?
A basic income means that employers need only pay small wages in order to attract workers, in fact, no minimum wage would be necessary.
Small businesses could start up and workers take a risk by joining the business for stock instead of pay and still afford to live.
Many more people could try that business they always thought about but couldn't risk their family's future on.
Of course the massive wealth inequality we have today would have to go, because the money necessary for a basic income is in the hands of the billionaires and the hands of the big corps.
We know there is enough money in total, because we are always being told that if everyone works hard enough they can all have nice houses, pensions etc. implying that there is sufficient money for said.
Unfortunately a basic income is also a big boon to rapacious capitalist types:) because now they can ramp up the prices of things since poor people who previously didn't have money, now do, and also the cost of housing will shoot up. Inflation then reduces the basic income to less than what is needed to live. Price control is necessary for basic needs and utilities. Not so libertarian! :)
Experiments in basic income prove little unless they are on the scale of an actual nation state and there is tight control of immigration, for example no EU state could try this while the unemployed of every other EU state can just pop over and claim it! The EU as a whole could though if it managed to get a grip on all that tax avoidance.
I'm a lefty, I love the idea of a basic income, I believe that if it worked it would markedly increase the freedom of all those current 'wage slaves' who know they are never going to be a CEO because, well, how many CEOs can there be? But the necessary changes in the behaviour of people and businesses, and the alterations to tax codes and housing policy might very well be too big a change to institute at once; and like an unstable equilibrium, I fear that a basic income would fail rapidly if there aren't some strict controls in place, and those with the 'active consent' of the vast majority of the population.
snake
People in poverty:
1. have more illnesses which cost more money
2. have more need of social service, which costs more money
3. are more likely to be involved in the justice system (crimes, etc) which costs more money
4. keeping people in prison cost 5-6 times the cost of any benefit each year.
5. People in poverty are more likely to have children who will also be in poverty
The economics just don't stack up.
That's not what UBI is. And most humans will NOT want to stay at what qualifies for UBI housing.
Universal Basic Income isn't forcing people into tenements or housing camps, universal basic income is a system where every citizen, regardless of employment status revives a basic income. If you want more than the basic income, you can go out and work for it. UBI isn't providing basic services, it's providing a basic income. Trying to provide the same system piecemeal is wasteful and inefficient. The amount the US wastes trying to maintain dehumanising programs for welfare is astounding, and all of this so some constipated angry old conservative can feel better.
No, UBI is not a utopia, but it's far from a disaster.
. This, UBI is what we envision will be required when most of the basic jobs are automated. Not just manufacturing and services but soft AI is starting to threaten jobs that are based on understanding rules and patterns like accounting and legal services. The problem wont be that people aren't unwilling to work, it will be a lack of opportunities.
And if there's some idiot homeless person who spent all their UBI money on drugs, well, you can't really feel sorry for them anymore. Lock 'em up
I'm sorry, but that is a very stupid suggestion.
The minimum wage in the UK is less than £15,000, to keep one prisoner locked up for a year is £65,0000. We'd end up spending more money trying to keep them incarcerated instead of trying to help them get clean. If you take that £45,000 per year and put it into a rehabilitation program there is a chance that next year, you wont have to pay that extra amount. Incarceration for minor crimes increases recidivism.
The answer to petty crime is never harsher sentencing, the answer is removing the motivation to commit it. This goes double for drug abuse, if you penalise someone for a bad habit they wont stop, they'll just become sneakier about it. If you send them to prison for it, they'll just learn even more bad habits.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.