CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[Cellblock2429]

This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

For the sake of social stability we need to implement a UBI.

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "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 make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."


Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.​

/---- Zuck should pay off every college loan in the country for starters.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Prolly be a downer if we got hit by a solar flare lolol.

 

[Picaro]

Zuckerberg is a complete idiot and should stick to what he knows.

His socialistic style theories have been tried in a similar way, many times by other idiots , for example Chavez in Venezuela and by Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and have led to complete disaster.

You can't give away more money than the GDP can afford, otherwise it leads to huge inflation where you need a complete wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread and people starve.

Chavez replaced Venezuelan workers with robots? Robots do everything in Zimbabwe now? Amazing. They never mention this in The Economist.

 

[Picaro]

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.

You have attempted to provide "credibility" for a universal basic income. My question was simply .... you aren't serious, right? You just wanted to give us a history lesson, right? I mean .. your point is well taken ... people do incredibly stupid stuff over and over again.

So ... what is your opinion of the sociological impacts of such an approach?

Not interested in your right wing cult memes than I am left wing memes. Heard them all decades ago, and nothing new about them. Snivel to your buddies about them.

If most jobs get automated, then some method will be necessary to allow people to make discretionary choices and have some input into what is made and how much, it's that simple. Whether some twit wants to run around trying to bullshit everybody into believing he's 'super productive n stuff' and 'everybody else is lazy and deserves to die n stuff' they can go play in the flame zone or something. You can all wet yourselves there to your lil hearts content. Try the Free Republic board; that's all the dorks there do 24/7.

Well, I guess we can see how interested you are in intelligent discussion.

I feel really bad that you are so badly abused by the MAN -

Let me see if we can figure how just how you plan to create this dystopian society. Everybody gets a basic income, whether they contribute to society or not. Where does this magical funding come from? Well - from those who produce, of course! So, tell us - what is the incentive to produce? Getting paid for our work, right? But, if you're going to take my money, why would I want to work? Why don't I just sit around and do nothing, kinda like you're doing?

Let's combine your proposal of a UBI with your demands for an increase in minimum wage. Today, a UBI equal to the poverty level might be acceptable. Tomorrow - not so much. Just like minimum wage, you have not increased your production in order to fund the wage increase. You simply want a bigger piece of somebody else's pie.

Then, God forbid --- there is an income disparity. Why should you have to survive on UBI, while those rich bastards working long hours and producing wealth, get all the money? Let's take more!

Face it .... UBI is simply a step to a socialist economy - and not a very disguised step at that.

You just want what somebody else has got - and you're not willing to work for it.

As for all those poor little "victims" who lose their jobs to automation - get another job. Figure out another way to create wealth. Quit whining about "poor little me" and get your ass to work.

Oh wah wah wah cry us all a river over your fantasy economics and BS, all of which is nonsense. You wouldn't be around today if it weren't for what dumbass right wingers like to keep calling 'socialist policies', so go find some illiterates to peddle those ridiculous propaganda 'talking points' to.

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

 

[Spare_change]

You have attempted to provide "credibility" for a universal basic income. My question was simply .... you aren't serious, right? You just wanted to give us a history lesson, right? I mean .. your point is well taken ... people do incredibly stupid stuff over and over again.

So ... what is your opinion of the sociological impacts of such an approach?

Not interested in your right wing cult memes than I am left wing memes. Heard them all decades ago, and nothing new about them. Snivel to your buddies about them.

If most jobs get automated, then some method will be necessary to allow people to make discretionary choices and have some input into what is made and how much, it's that simple. Whether some twit wants to run around trying to bullshit everybody into believing he's 'super productive n stuff' and 'everybody else is lazy and deserves to die n stuff' they can go play in the flame zone or something. You can all wet yourselves there to your lil hearts content. Try the Free Republic board; that's all the dorks there do 24/7.

Well, I guess we can see how interested you are in intelligent discussion.

I feel really bad that you are so badly abused by the MAN -

Let me see if we can figure how just how you plan to create this dystopian society. Everybody gets a basic income, whether they contribute to society or not. Where does this magical funding come from? Well - from those who produce, of course! So, tell us - what is the incentive to produce? Getting paid for our work, right? But, if you're going to take my money, why would I want to work? Why don't I just sit around and do nothing, kinda like you're doing?

Let's combine your proposal of a UBI with your demands for an increase in minimum wage. Today, a UBI equal to the poverty level might be acceptable. Tomorrow - not so much. Just like minimum wage, you have not increased your production in order to fund the wage increase. You simply want a bigger piece of somebody else's pie.

Then, God forbid --- there is an income disparity. Why should you have to survive on UBI, while those rich bastards working long hours and producing wealth, get all the money? Let's take more!

Face it .... UBI is simply a step to a socialist economy - and not a very disguised step at that.

You just want what somebody else has got - and you're not willing to work for it.

As for all those poor little "victims" who lose their jobs to automation - get another job. Figure out another way to create wealth. Quit whining about "poor little me" and get your ass to work.

Oh wah wah wah cry us all a river over your fantasy economics and BS, all of which is nonsense. You wouldn't be around today if it weren't for what dumbass right wingers like to keep calling 'socialist policies', so go find some illiterates to peddle those ridiculous propaganda 'talking points' to.

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Here's an idea, why don't all of these Liberal Billionaires donate the money for these "brilliant" plans instead of the average taxpayer funding them ?

Zuckerberg is worth around 63 billion he could donate 62 billion and live comfortably off the rest. That would fund his idea for a lot of people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Intelligent robots threaten millions of jobs

Advances in artificial intelligence will soon lead to robots that are capable of nearly everything humans do, threatening tens of millions of jobs in the coming 30 years, experts warned Saturday.

"We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task," said Moshe Vardi, director of the Institute for Information Technology at Rice University in Texas.

"I believe that society needs to confront this question before it is upon us: If machines are capable of doing almost any work humans can do, what will humans do?" he asked at a panel discussion on artificial intelligence at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Vardi said there will always be some need for human work in the future, but robot replacements could drastically change the landscape, with no profession safe, and men and women equally affected.

"Can the global economy adapt to greater than 50 percent unemployment?" he asked.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When Goertzel asked the duo whether robots could really be moral and ethical, Han countered: "Humans are not necessarily the most ethical creatures".
The robot later pointed out: "In 10 or 20 years, robots will be able to do every human job."
A gentler Sophia conceded that humans do have "some ability to reflect and self-modify".
She insisted her aim was to work together with people, before Han "joked" he thought the robots' goal was to take over the world.
The machines had been programmed to banter and learn from each other, and had been trained to act like humans from movies and YouTube, said Goertzel.
Their malleable skin is controlled by dozens of motors, while computers in their torsos help with vision and movement. They can also connect to wifi to use cloud computing, where they will eventually share a vast amount of knowledge, Goertzel said.
Robots could be "as smart as people" in as little as three years, he predicted.​

Robots debate future of humans at Hong Kong tech show | AFP.com

 

[Cellblock2429]

This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

For the sake of social stability we need to implement a UBI.

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "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 make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."


Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.​

/---- My wife and I will take a one time payout of $100,000,000. The average dividend is 5% generating $5,000,000 a year. If we watch out budget and clip some coupons, settle for a slightly used Bentley's I think we can scrape by. So were is my check?

 

[JimBowie1958]

This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

For the sake of social stability we need to implement a UBI.

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "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 make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."


Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.​

/---- My wife and I will take a one time payout of $100,000,000. The average dividend is 5% generating $5,000,000 a year. If we watch out budget and clip some coupons, settle for a slightly used Bentley's I think we can scrape by. So were is my check?

I dont think you grasp the idea of a Universal Basic Income, friend, lol.

 

[jwoodie]

This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

For the sake of social stability we need to implement a UBI.

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "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 make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."


Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.​

Good idea: Replace all other welfare programs.

Bad idea: Reward for having children you can't or won't support.

Important: Do not penalize people for working.

 

[task0778]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

Here's what I think, every person who puts out a utopian idea of free money or everything for everybody without also explaining how to pay for it should be ignored. How would it work, some people work cuz they want to but most don't? Do the workers get extra for working? Gonna be some pissed off people if some fat slob lives just as well as you do but you work and he doesn't. Human nature fellas, let's not forget who we are. Does everybody get a check, or just those under a certain threshhold? How'd you like to be the guy juuussst over the max, no check for you bub. I'm thinking most people are going to make sure they're either well over the cut or not over at all. Which doesn't bode well for income inequality, does it? A whole lot of people getting free money and a few people making big bucks.

Somebody needs to show me the plan, where's the money come from and who is going to get it? And don't waste your time or mine telling me we'll raise taxes the rich to pay for it, they're gonna be long gone on an island somewhere with no extradition. Maybe a yacht or bigass houseboat or something. And they ain't got that much money anyway.

 

[jwoodie]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

 

[task0778]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

 

[jwoodie]

We already have millions of unemployable people. Do we want to keep spending $billions on social programs under the pretense that they actually can and want to work, or do we want to save money by giving everyone a subsistence income and letting those who do work fully benefit from their labor?

 

[Picaro]

Good idea: Replace all other welfare programs.

That was Milton Friedman's basic idea. Of course, his last estimate of what the minimum basic income would have to be adjusted for past inflation was around $43,000 a year or so, which is about what minimum wage would be for a 40 hour a week full time job.

 

[Picaro]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

 

[Spare_change]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

 

[Picaro]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

 

[Cellblock2429]

"Important: Do not penalize people for working."

Even more important: Do not reward people for not working.

What I meant was that, if a basic income plan replaced all other welfare programs, that benefit should not be reduced for people who are earning additional income. Government welfare programs already "reward" people for not working; I just think we should not penalize people for working by reducing their benefits, since this devalues their work.

I would rather see an EITC type program that augments income below a certain threshhold for a certain time period, say 2 or 3 years, after which you need to be moving up the income ladder. And as a society we need to be taking steps to ensure that upward mobility is possible, and THAT means a business environment that is conducive to new businesses starting up and existing businesses expanding. And THAT means lower taxes and lower costs of compliance with gov't regulations at every level. Anything that makes it more lucrative to operate a business.

Economic realities make that pretty much a no go. If third world political instability and poverty appeal to you, then we can do that, but it's unnecessary and merely sociopathic to go about it like some third world dictator would. We can shut off immigration, put a massive focus on birth control, and sterilization for those who can't exercise self-control or just refuse to, etc., and take a more gradual approach rather than go with some radical ideological pogrom or other. Of course we will have to deport most Democratic Party traitors, the party of sexual fetishists, thugs, and assorted racists to do anything positive, but I'm fine with that; it's something Thomas Jefferson would do. There is no real difference between some millionaire Wall Street insider trader and a 'welfare bum', neither are productive or valuable in any way in an economic sense, they all look alike to me, they want something for nothing, just like Goldman Sachs and any day trader does.

While I recognize your angst, you fail to grasp the most basic concept - there is little or no difference between a dollar and a hammer. Both are tools of creation ...

While I don't doubt you see a lot of things that aren't there, there is a world of difference between a dollar and a hammer, and the dollars made by the financial sector are most definitely not tools of creation' by any stretch, they are just as parasitic as those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much. As for myself, I'm not even a Communist or a right winger and don't require human life to be an 'economic unit' whose value is determined by how much money it can make, in the case of the lower classes how much they can be underpaid by some corporation for something or other, so some portfolio somewhere, maybe thousands of miles away, gets a nice big dividend for doing nothing but mooching off those hard working victims. I can fully understand why the parasites higher up the food chain hate the 'poor and lazy', they're not making any cash off of their labor, the same reason Marx hated them. There is no difference between Communists and Corporates and bankers for those that work; they all look alike, think alike, and mooch alike.

Did anybody see anyone returning any of the bailout money from a few years ago from the rescue of your 401K's and 'investments? Of course not, certainly not from right wingers, no big wave of 'doing the right thing' out of ideological purity from any, so quit pissing on our legs and trying to tell us it's raining.

/----- You said "those 'poor and lazy' you right wing ideologues claim to hate so much." WOWZA - the first Strawman Argument of the day. Now my turn. "What about our sacred Bill of Rights you Liberals claim to hate so much?" and this gem: "Why do Liberals want to abort every unborn baby even against the mother's will?" I got a million of them.