CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.

There is nothing simple about poverty. Thus, the answer to "solving" it - is not simple.
There will never be a "solution" for poverty, in the same sense that people die everyday of lung cancer voluntarily.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.

There is nothing simple about poverty. Thus, the answer to "solving" it - is not simple.
There will never be a "solution" for poverty, in the same sense that people die everyday of lung cancer voluntarily.

Solving for a simple poverty of money solves simple poverty for those for whom, solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

We already have means tested welfare for the rest.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.

There is nothing simple about poverty. Thus, the answer to "solving" it - is not simple.
There will never be a "solution" for poverty, in the same sense that people die everyday of lung cancer voluntarily.

Solving for a simple poverty of money solves simple poverty for those for whom, solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

We already have means tested welfare for the rest.

Regardless of how convoluted you want to phrase it, no decent society is going to accept giving large numbers of people something for nothing. Supporting their laziness and refusal to contribute to that society.
A society that is decent enough to care about poverty, is also decent enough to not accept that people should receive money for doing nothing indefinitely

 

[JimBowie1958]

there is no linkage; the UBI is not a welfare program.

But then your own link says it replaces welfare?

Yes it would be a replacement for welfare as everyone is guaranteed a minimum income so there is no need for welfare. It would pay more than Social Security, so it would also replace SocSec.

These programs are so inefficient it would make more sense to just give money directly to all Americans rather than continuing these programs.

But sense there is no means test it is not welfare. You dont get more if you are 'poor'. People would get more than the poverty level, in theory, so there wont be any poor people.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

there is no linkage; the UBI is not a welfare program.

But then your own link says it replaces welfare?

Yes it would be a replacement for welfare as everyone is guaranteed a minimum income so there is no need for welfare. It would pay more than Social Security, so it would also replace SocSec.

These programs are so inefficient it would make more sense to just give money directly to all Americans rather than continuing these programs.

But sense there is no means test it is not welfare. You dont get more if you are 'poor'. People would get more than the poverty level, in theory, so there wont be any poor people.

No matter, any plan regardless of how well it is disguised, if it includes paying money to people who do nothing to earn it - will never work. Ever. Never has and never will. Ever. ....Ever.
The elitist intellectuals love to sit around and think of grand ways to organize society...it doesn't work that way.

Edit:...for "sit around and think of grand ways to reorganize society"....read...reword and rephrase failed methods that have fantastically failed in the past simply because they can't get around to accepting reality.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving simple poverty should be the goal of a social safety net under our form of capitalism.

There is nothing simple about poverty. Thus, the answer to "solving" it - is not simple.
There will never be a "solution" for poverty, in the same sense that people die everyday of lung cancer voluntarily.

Solving for a simple poverty of money solves simple poverty for those for whom, solving for a simple poverty of money, may be enough.

We already have means tested welfare for the rest.

Regardless of how convoluted you want to phrase it, no decent society is going to accept giving large numbers of people something for nothing. Supporting their laziness and refusal to contribute to that society.
A society that is decent enough to care about poverty, is also decent enough to not accept that people should receive money for doing nothing indefinitely

Abolish capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. No Person should be getting it for free.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no linkage; the UBI is not a welfare program.

But then your own link says it replaces welfare?

Yes it would be a replacement for welfare as everyone is guaranteed a minimum income so there is no need for welfare. It would pay more than Social Security, so it would also replace SocSec.

These programs are so inefficient it would make more sense to just give money directly to all Americans rather than continuing these programs.

But sense there is no means test it is not welfare. You dont get more if you are 'poor'. People would get more than the poverty level, in theory, so there wont be any poor people.

No matter, any plan regardless of how well it is disguised, if it includes paying money to people who do nothing to earn it - will never work. Ever. Never has and never will. Ever. ....Ever.
The elitist intellectuals love to sit around and think of grand ways to organize society...it doesn't work that way.

Edit:...for "sit around and think of grand ways to reorganize society"....read...reword and rephrase failed methods that have fantastically failed in the past simply because they can't get around to accepting reality.

Why do you care what others do or don't do for their money? Jealous.

 

[Circe]

I read that Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon and is one of the richest persons in the world, also is in favor of a "basic" income for all. I think that's because globalism has knocked out the ability of America to provide jobs for people who aren't very smart. Bangladesh and such have taken menial manufacturing jobs; the black market jobs such as prostitution and drug trading are a net negative for society. It's an interesting point and comes up in scifi --- people on "basic" because there is no way the world can employ them. Gibson shows such a society in Count Zero, and James S.A. Corey in The Expanse scifi novels show much of overpopulated Earth on basic income, no jobs. It's so far shown as a bad thing: these people know they are a throwaway population.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I read that Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon and is one of the richest persons in the world, also is in favor of a "basic" income for all. I think that's because globalism has knocked out the ability of America to provide jobs for people who aren't very smart. Bangladesh and such have taken menial manufacturing jobs; the black market jobs such as prostitution and drug trading are a net negative for society. It's an interesting point and comes up in scifi --- people on "basic" because there is no way the world can employ them. Gibson shows such a society in Count Zero, and James S.A. Corey in The Expanse scifi novels show much of overpopulated Earth on basic income, no jobs. It's so far shown as a bad thing: these people know they are a throwaway population.

Your touching on another topic there, and one that will become increasingly difficult to deal with - excess population. With outsourcing/technology it takes less people to provide the needs and wants of the population, so what do you do with the "uneeded".
Fascinating topic. There have been several threads here over the years on this.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I read that Jeff Bezos, who started Amazon and is one of the richest persons in the world, also is in favor of a "basic" income for all. I think that's because globalism has knocked out the ability of America to provide jobs for people who aren't very smart. Bangladesh and such have taken menial manufacturing jobs; the black market jobs such as prostitution and drug trading are a net negative for society. It's an interesting point and comes up in scifi --- people on "basic" because there is no way the world can employ them. Gibson shows such a society in Count Zero, and James S.A. Corey in The Expanse scifi novels show much of overpopulated Earth on basic income, no jobs. It's so far shown as a bad thing: these people know they are a throwaway population.

Your touching on another topic there, and one that will become increasingly difficult to deal with - excess population. With outsourcing/technology it takes less people to provide the needs and wants of the population, so what do you do with the "uneeded".
Fascinating topic. There have been several threads here over the years on this.

With outsourcing/technology it takes less people to provide the needs and wants of the population, so what do you do with the "uneeded".

Adopt a Social Darwinist set of policies, and let them perish or do what makes the most sense to do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Adopt a Social Darwinist set of policies, and let them perish or do what makes the most sense to do.

So 85% of the population dies?

I doubt you mean that.

Jobs are already being lost in various sectors to automation alone, but once androids are sold for $2000 each and can do anything due to strong AI, no one's job is safe.

Robots Are Coming for Jobs of as Many as 800 Million Worldwide

As many as 800 million workers worldwide may lose their jobs to robots and automation by 2030, equivalent to more than a fifth of today’s global labor force.


That’s according to a new report covering 46 nations and more than 800 occupations by the research arm of McKinsey & Co.


The consulting company said Wednesday that both developed and emerging countries will be impacted. Machine operators, fast-food workers and back-office employees are among those who will be most affected if automation spreads quickly through the workplace....​

Even the US is predicted to see 70 million jobs taken by robots over the next twelve years.

I think it will be much worse than that as the robotics tech will advance twice as fast as the experts predict, as is the norm for tech prognostics.

Even lawyers, scientists, doctors and engineers are vulnerable to job loss due to Strong AI.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Adopt a Social Darwinist set of policies, and let them perish or do what makes the most sense to do.

So 85% of the population dies?

I doubt you mean that.

Jobs are already being lost in various sectors to automation alone, but once androids are sold for $2000 each and can do anything due to strong AI, no one's job is safe.

Robots Are Coming for Jobs of as Many as 800 Million Worldwide

As many as 800 million workers worldwide may lose their jobs to robots and automation by 2030, equivalent to more than a fifth of today’s global labor force.


That’s according to a new report covering 46 nations and more than 800 occupations by the research arm of McKinsey & Co.


The consulting company said Wednesday that both developed and emerging countries will be impacted. Machine operators, fast-food workers and back-office employees are among those who will be most affected if automation spreads quickly through the workplace....​

Even the US is predicted to see 70 million jobs taken by robots over the next twelve years.

I think it will be much worse than that as the robotics tech will advance twice as fast as the experts predict, as is the norm for tech prognostics.

Even lawyers, scientists, doctors and engineers are vulnerable to job loss due to Strong AI.

So 85% of the population dies?

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving for a simple poverty of money can only be Good for any economy based on Capitalism.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Adopt a Social Darwinist set of policies, and let them perish or do what makes the most sense to do.

So 85% of the population dies?

I doubt you mean that.

Jobs are already being lost in various sectors to automation alone, but once androids are sold for $2000 each and can do anything due to strong AI, no one's job is safe.

Robots Are Coming for Jobs of as Many as 800 Million Worldwide

As many as 800 million workers worldwide may lose their jobs to robots and automation by 2030, equivalent to more than a fifth of today’s global labor force.


That’s according to a new report covering 46 nations and more than 800 occupations by the research arm of McKinsey & Co.


The consulting company said Wednesday that both developed and emerging countries will be impacted. Machine operators, fast-food workers and back-office employees are among those who will be most affected if automation spreads quickly through the workplace....​

Even the US is predicted to see 70 million jobs taken by robots over the next twelve years.

I think it will be much worse than that as the robotics tech will advance twice as fast as the experts predict, as is the norm for tech prognostics.

Even lawyers, scientists, doctors and engineers are vulnerable to job loss due to Strong AI.

So 85% of the population dies?

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

No, I don't.

Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.

BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Adopt a Social Darwinist set of policies, and let them perish or do what makes the most sense to do.

So 85% of the population dies?

I doubt you mean that.

Jobs are already being lost in various sectors to automation alone, but once androids are sold for $2000 each and can do anything due to strong AI, no one's job is safe.

Robots Are Coming for Jobs of as Many as 800 Million Worldwide

As many as 800 million workers worldwide may lose their jobs to robots and automation by 2030, equivalent to more than a fifth of today’s global labor force.


That’s according to a new report covering 46 nations and more than 800 occupations by the research arm of McKinsey & Co.


The consulting company said Wednesday that both developed and emerging countries will be impacted. Machine operators, fast-food workers and back-office employees are among those who will be most affected if automation spreads quickly through the workplace....​

Even the US is predicted to see 70 million jobs taken by robots over the next twelve years.

I think it will be much worse than that as the robotics tech will advance twice as fast as the experts predict, as is the norm for tech prognostics.

Even lawyers, scientists, doctors and engineers are vulnerable to job loss due to Strong AI.

So 85% of the population dies?

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

No, I don't.

Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.

BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.

No, I don't.

Well, maybe I do, but not on the basis of the net implications of the "chess" rebuttal you provided.

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

Present a better rationale than that, and I'll consider rethinking the solution approach I shared.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

No, I don't.

Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.

There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.

There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.

BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.

All that rhetorical poop aside, in todays economy, having a job is the difference between keeping ones home and family secure vrs living on the street.

I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.

Good day sir.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

No, I don't.

Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.

There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.

There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.

BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.

All that rhetorical poop aside, in todays economy, having a job is the difference between keeping ones home and family secure vrs living on the street.

I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.

Good day sir.

There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.

There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.

Your assertions/expectations about whether producers/capitalists will purchase capital rather than labor in order to produce their outputs ignores the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage. Those concepts apply every bit as much to whether one will produce cups rather than plates as it does to whether one will use labor or capital to produce the "cups" or "plates."

• Comparative Advantage and Absolute Advantage

To see some examples of how those concepts play out even now, watch an Ovation Network program called Style Factory. Time and time again, what you'll observe is that in the "rag trade," even though it is possible to build machines that can perform pretty much any task, producers do not use machines to perform every task.

I observe another "rag trade" example when I buy a suit. Is it possible to build and implement a machine that suit producers might use to take my measurements? Sure it is. Do tailors use such machines? No. Why not? The answer is found in applying the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage to whether to buy labor or capital. No matter how much such a machine costs, it's not worth it to do so. Maybe there will someday be a tailor who has a high enough volume that s/he will find it economically sound to purchase a machine to do that, but I doubt it. Could there come a time when common be "walk-up" measurement stations where people go in, let the machine take their measurements and send them to a production facility that in turn produces the garment and mails it to the customer? Maybe, but that day is a long way off, if it even arrives.

Ultimately, however, the question of the role of robots comes down to one thing: there is no basis for thinking robots will obtain person status such they can be capitalists, owners of businesses and other productive organizations. It should come as a shock to nobody that being a capitalist is what will matter for when our nation was founded, everything about the model the Founders envisioned and implemented was geared to favor the owners of business. (The current and hotly debated GOP tax bill is yet another manifestation of the very same notions.) Quite simply, if one cannot find a way to be a business owner and thrive as such, yes, one will likely be among those who perish.

I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.

I have compassion, but its nature apparently differs from what you may wish it were.

 

[task0778]

I don't think 85% (or more) of the population is that inept, but if it be so that 85% are, well then, yes.

So that is your threshold; beat the AI or be declared inept?

Then Gary Kasperov is inept at chess, for Gawds sake.

You seriously need to rethunk your grok here, dude.

No, I don't.

Absurd is the notion that if one is not supreme, one is therefore inept. With regard to any endeavor and in any community, there is always someone who's the best at it and scads of others who, though not the best, add value to the pursuit and are thus not inept.

There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.

There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.

BTW, there's a huge gap between "loosing one's job" and "perishing." Even now, were the matter of who has a job and who does not so binary as you've implied with your chess model, very few people would today have a job.

All that rhetorical poop aside, in todays economy, having a job is the difference between keeping ones home and family secure vrs living on the street.

I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.

Good day sir.

There is no respite here for the competent or the inept as people will be far more expensive than robotic labor.

There is a need for the community of working class people to see to our interests, and damn anyone that gets in our way.

Your assertions/expectations about whether producers/capitalists will purchase capital rather than labor in order to produce their outputs ignores the concepts of comparative and absolute advantage. Those concepts apply every bit as much to whether one will produce cups rather than plates as it does to whether one will use labor or capital to produce the "cups" or "plates."

• Comparative Advantage and Absolute Advantage

To see some examples of how those concepts play out even now, watch an Ovation Network program called Style Factory. Time and time again, what you'll observe is that in the "rag trade," even though it is possible to build machines that can perform pretty much any task, producers do not use machines to perform every task.

I observe another "rag trade" example when I buy a suit. Is it possible to build and implement a machine that suit producers might use to take my measurements? Sure it is. Do tailors use such machines? No. Why not? The answer is found in applying the concepts of absolute and comparative advantage to whether to buy labor or capital. No matter how much such a machine costs, it's not worth it to do so. Maybe there will someday be a tailor who has a high enough volume that s/he will find it economically sound to purchase a machine to do that, but I doubt it. Could there come a time when common be "walk-up" measurement stations where people go in, let the machine take their measurements and send them to a production facility that in turn produces the garment and mails it to the customer? Maybe, but that day is a long way off, if it even arrives.

Ultimately, however, the question of the role of robots comes down to one thing: there is no basis for thinking robots will obtain person status such they can be capitalists, owners of businesses and other productive organizations. It should come as a shock to nobody that being a capitalist is what will matter for when our nation was founded, everything about the model the Founders envisioned and implemented was geared to favor the owners of business. (The current and hotly debated GOP tax bill is yet another manifestation of the very same notions.) Quite simply, if one cannot find a way to be a business owner and thrive as such, yes, one will likely be among those who perish.

I thought you had some compassion and I am very disappointed to see you do not.

I have compassion, but its nature apparently differs from what you may wish it were.

If you have no business owners then you have no employees, at least in the private sector. Or maybe you are advocating for the socialist/communist society where the gov't owns and runs everything. Which maybe sounds nice in theory but has never worked out well in reality.

So those who are not business owners will perish? Who's going to do the work then?