CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[danielpalos]

Zuckerberg has a good idea.

Let's just get rid of money and make everything free.

We cant get rid of money, silly, how else would the government tax us?

But if it's free it doesn't cost anything right?

No, but the corporations that have replaced human labor with robotic labor will be making such windfall profits, they will be able to shoulder the entire burden while still making record profits.

/----/ But if there is no one with money to buy these things built by robots.....

unemployment compensation on an at-will basis for real persons!

 

[evenflow1969]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

 

[danielpalos]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

Tax artificial persons!

 

[evenflow1969]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

Tax artificial persons!

The people I know get pretty antsy if they have nothing to do. I would prefer they and I keep busy!

 

[danielpalos]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

Tax artificial persons!

The people I know get pretty antsy if they have nothing to do. I would prefer they and I keep busy!

With unemployment compensation for real persons simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, we could make better use of existing infrastructure. Commute times could be reduced by removing excess traffic during commute hours. People could be doing more things locally.

 

[task0778]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

 

[danielpalos]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

it means, no wars on anything if the right wing won't raise taxes to appropriates rates, to pay for them.

 

[evenflow1969]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

The current system will not work if the projections of job loss are correct! I just do not know what to do about it!

 

[danielpalos]

Not a new idea. First time I heard about something like this was when Milton Freedman came up with it; a bill was proposed to implement a plan like this in the late 1960's and early 1970's, with his support, but got tabled in committee by Scoop Jackson. The monetarists should like it, since it keeps cash recirculating around the domestic economy instead of going straight to the top .1% and just sitting there.

Friedman's last estimate of the basic income needed was around $40,000 a year per adult person, basically just shy of minimum wage adjusted for inflation as it stood in about 2008. All the other bureaucracies involved in welfare and the like would disappear , at least theoretically. Many people would still work anyway, they just won't have to put up with assholes who think their employees are their personal slaves 24/7 any more, and many could get out of the cities and live in smaller, better places. This later is a real threat to the race baiters like Sharpton and most Democrats, though, as half the "Hoods empty out and disperse, so don't expect the DNC to ever get behind it unless some scheme to keep ghettoes simmering cesspools is included. It would also require much stricter immigration and criminal illegal alien controls or it will collapse in a very short time just like every other social safety net and public school systems have. Limiting it to those who can show 4 or 5 previous generations of living here is also desirable.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

The current system will not work if the projections of job loss are correct! I just do not know what to do about it!

capital merely needs to circulate to create a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve that problem, of a lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor.

 

[evenflow1969]

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

The current system will not work if the projections of job loss are correct! I just do not know what to do about it!

capital merely needs to circulate to create a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve that problem, of a lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor.

I personaly think we are fucked! We do not have the fortitude nor willingness to make the changes needed for what is just around the corner! The job loss projections are disturbing at best add that into the current political climate and you have the perfect storm!

 

[danielpalos]

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

The current system will not work if the projections of job loss are correct! I just do not know what to do about it!

capital merely needs to circulate to create a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve that problem, of a lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor.

I personaly think we are fucked! We do not have the fortitude nor willingness to make the changes needed for what is just around the corner! The job loss projections are disturbing at best add that into the current political climate and you have the perfect storm!

shouldn't we, vote the rascals out?

 

[task0778]

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

So, fewer jobs means less revenue to pay for UBI, right? I just don't see how the numbers add up, $40 grand a year for every adult? There's how many adults in this country, like 150 million? Will we include the illegals too? That's a heckuva lot of money that we ain't got.

The current system will not work if the projections of job loss are correct! I just do not know what to do about it!

capital merely needs to circulate to create a positive multiplier effect on our economy.

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve that problem, of a lack of full employment of resources in the market for labor.

I personaly think we are fucked! We do not have the fortitude nor willingness to make the changes needed for what is just around the corner! The job loss projections are disturbing at best add that into the current political climate and you have the perfect storm!

shouldn't we, vote the rascals out?

They're all rascals.

Edit: this was in response to a post that has been since deleted. The post referred to one political party as rascals, I pointed out that IMHO they're all rascals.

Has anyone in this thread mentioned the incentive to work, or maybe not work? Give a person the means to a decent living, will they get a job if they don't have to? Some won't, let's not kid ourselves. And is that a good thing for our society?

 

[Circe]

Good thread topic. The idea of "Basic" has only been around as long as this U.S. society has been so rich. Both William Gibson and James S.A.Corey have written scifi with characters on Basic income. They don't do much with their lives if they stay on Basic, mostly sit around watching TV and doing substance abuse.

I see some problems. 1. Overpopulation: that's another thing people on Basic might do, reproduce. We're already wildly overpopulated on this planet and that would not help. We could still do it, but it would have to go along with populallltion control: nobody on Basic gets more than one child, fool-proof contraception would be necessary, preferably sterilization.
2. Would we STAY rich enough to keep giving away so much money and resources to non-productive people? One disaster and total societal chaos. People already expect that now --- the preppers. There is no reason to assume that everything would always be well and all be well and all be very well ---- it never has been before, after all. Plagues and wars and famines happen, and then what to do with all the people on Basic when there isn't any more?

 

[irosie91]

Good thread topic. The idea of "Basic" has only been around as long as this U.S. society has been so rich. Both William Gibson and James S.A.Corey have written scifi with characters on Basic income. They don't do much with their lives if they stay on Basic, mostly sit around watching TV and doing substance abuse.

I see some problems. 1. Overpopulation: that's another thing people on Basic might do, reproduce. We're already wildly overpopulated on this planet and that would not help. We could still do it, but it would have to go along with populallltion control: nobody on Basic gets more than one child, fool-proof contraception would be necessary, preferably sterilization.
2. Would we STAY rich enough to keep giving away so much money and resources to non-productive people? One disaster and total societal chaos. People already expect that now --- the preppers. There is no reason to assume that everything would always be well and all be well and all be very well ---- it never has been before, after all. Plagues and wars and famines happen, and then what to do with all the people on Basic when there isn't any more?

Basic is actually older than RICH USA. It exists in the bible-------the "poor" were entitled to
"GLEANERS RIGHTS"----------which was eating off the corners of tilled fields and----re gleaning
after the harvest. grim but better than nothing

 

[Circe]

Basic is actually older than RICH USA. It exists in the bible-------the "poor" were entitled to
"GLEANERS RIGHTS"----------which was eating off the corners of tilled fields and----re gleaning
after the harvest. grim but better than nothing

Ruth and Naomi, right. The first romance novel, I always thought.

 

[irosie91]

Basic is actually older than RICH USA. It exists in the bible-------the "poor" were entitled to
"GLEANERS RIGHTS"----------which was eating off the corners of tilled fields and----re gleaning
after the harvest. grim but better than nothing

Ruth and Naomi, right. The first romance novel, I always thought.

yes---but I think that the rules are detailed in ----"LEVITICUS"?------ask hashev.
There are a whole bunch of rules about getting free agricultural stuff---very very
basic

 

[Spare_change]

You don't SERIOUSLY believe all that, do you?

Believe all of what? The history is accurate, so is the commentary. I prefer different schemes, but this is a thread about minimum incomes, and so that's what I'm discussing.

The amount of jobs being taken over by machines is scary and some thing will have to be done. I just do not know what!

Tax artificial persons!

The people I know get pretty antsy if they have nothing to do. I would prefer they and I keep busy!

With unemployment compensation for real persons simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, we could make better use of existing infrastructure. Commute times could be reduced by removing excess traffic during commute hours. People could be doing more things locally.

Sell me some of that shit you're smoking !!!

That's some serious stuff!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Zuckerberg is all for Socialist programs...until FACEBOOK and his salary gets mentioned.

 

[Circe]

Zuckerberg is all for Socialist programs...until FACEBOOK and his salary gets mentioned.

It's not about redistribution of Zuckerberg's money, really --- it's a way for him to keep it safely and avoid the tumbrils rolling toward Madame Guillotine. A lot of people have figured out that there is an underclass, mostly black, in this country that can never become employable in a technological society. Right now they live mostly on a combination of welfare and crime and drug trafficking. They riot regularly and rioting is very dangerous for the country and the cities it happens in.

It's not a leftist idea: it's profoundly conservative in a way, relegating really incompetent people to government care, much as the aborigines are under permanent government care in Australia.

It's what the Paris Mob wanted during the French Revolution, but that was because the economy had been demolished and that is an impossible basis for such government welfare. The government would have loved to do it and stopped the killing, but they didn't have the money or food.

The basic problems with the idea are what about disaster and how to control the population: if poor people just breed more and more and more eventually giving them all a living allowance becomes unsustainable, obviously. If the poor on Basic were an ever-declining proportion of the population, it might be doable, if there were no big war or disaster, though there always is.

 

[task0778]

" It's not a leftist idea: it's profoundly conservative in a way, relegating really incompetent people to government care, much as the aborigines are under permanent government care in Australia. "

I'm pretty sure this is a modern liberal idea, big gov't taking care of most people and in the process controlling them. A conservative position is less gov't where you are more responsible for yourself.