Mark Zuckerberg doubles down on universal basic income after a trip to Alaska
businessinsider.de
businessinsider.de
He is not doing a good job, tbh, and if anything it's just further solidifying the perspective that he is an out of touch creepo
Just print and distribute that article to ruin any campaign of his.
So I guess the Romans were socialists then with their aquaducts.
I'm pretty sure UBI and healthcare fit into the spectrum.
"A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society."
*Outrageous meaning really unsustainable economically.
I'm not sure you understand UBI.
Sanders could barely win cause they call him a socialist.
Now with RNC threatening to take about ACA/Obamacare, single payer is easier to swallow for people who are afraid of new things or uninformed.
UBI is such a new and radical idea compare to single payer. I doubt he'll win with UBI stance.
Also I wouldn't vote for him. He got not political experiences. Donald Trump and Arnold are terrible politicians that are very ineffective compare to their predecessors, both have no political experiences at all. You can't run a government as a company.
And a company only exists as long as it has money. Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt. It's awesome to consider social programs like UBI, single payer, etc, but unless it's fiscally sustainable, we're stealing from our future generations. And that would be among the most horrific things a generation can do to another.
> Our current government has a tremendous amount of debt.
That's a talking point the Republican always bring up even after the second election of Clinton and we had a surplus.
Even Bush Sr had to raise the taxes because of his war debt.
Bush Jr and Donald we're in debt with Trickle Down.
The republican party, to me, is the ones that are pushing for running like a company. Recent Democrat runs it as if it's a government. An example is Clinton forgiving a foreign country debts, raising 50 million in vaccine, I doubt any company would do that while managing a surplus and bombing the middle east for Bin Laden.
This is on top of knowing the key players that you've built relationship with while in politics.
You can't just go in as President and just boss those people around. All of them have some sort of agenda they want and you have to know them well enough to compromise and get them on board with a bill.
Clinton passed the bill of rights for healthcare. Bush close the donut loop hole and Obama got ACA. These aren't some running a company kind of move. Since ACA is in place Republican have failed to bring it down.
But what people keep on making it as if it's simple as running a company. Making it easier for CEO person with no politic experiences run and become president.
It's as easy as running a company.
Mark Zuckerberg only makes $1 in income from Facebook.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-only-makes-1-...
But, before you go feeling sorry for Zuckerberg because he is working for free - for the good of the people, read the next set of articles... It appears that he has set himself up to NEVER pay any tax for the rest of his life.
* http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/opinion/mccaffery-zuckerberg-t...
* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax...
It appears that the rest of us will be carrying the burden of UBI if it ever goes through.
You’re currently working in a call center making $9 an hour. You have no degree and marketable skills. Then you find out you’re now eligible for a paycheck that is equal to or more than you currently earn. What do you do?
These people will find that they suddenly live a much better quality of life.
Some people will decide they want a quality of life even higher. With a lack of skills elsewhere, they may choose to continue their work, making $9/hr more than they would on UBI alone.
If you think that no one would do this, if they could live on $9/hr before (even meager, miserly conditions), it would be the equivalent of erasing their previous cost of living with some cash on the side. Yes, they wouldn't work the same soul crushing job they had before. We'll see equally huge shifts in how we work, and how much is automated.
For some people who didn't, perhaps they would now have the critical need to work remove and go to college, and develop those marketable or degree level skills and contribute far more.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13622341 has some order-of-magnitude figuring I did a while ago. It suggests (to me) that the maximum UBI that might be achievable is more in the range of $500/mo/adult.
If you're working 160 hours/month at $9/hr, your UBI will make you feel a little more secure, a little less likely to take a never-ending river of shit from your boss, but it's not going to let you quit your job and play Call of Duty all the rest of your days.
If you had the opportunity to go to college and get a trade or degree for a better one this is a good move.
With the other half of the day I'd then relax, hang out, perhaps study if that was my desire.
How much does the first person to do any work charge?
This is a misunderstanding. Under UBI, everybody receives the same monthly UBI. The size of the UBI does not depend on income.
> ..] while your taxes will skyrocket to pay for all of the new UBI spending.
Well, yes. Of course. Somehow this has to be paid for. But this will more probably be paid for by taxing corporations and shareholders instead of labour. For example by using the ~$2.0tn of US companies cash reserves.
This is not a good thing. It will discourage investment in the US.
>For example by using the ~$2.0tn of US companies cash reserves.
Corporations have trillions in debt. They need the cash reserves as a cushion to absorb potential losses from a future economic crisis. The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves.
Central economic planning like this, which just assumes "don't worry this will be fine as we take X from Y and spend it on Z" is so reckless. There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, and if you're not thinking hard about what they may be, you're going to overlook them.
Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies but on the cycle of consumption and production. If you have no consumers, there is no reason to produce. If you have no reason to produce, you need no employees. Less people with jobs mean less consumers. And so on.
You see, these humongous cash reserves are actually harmful to the economy. Because they are tied up and not circulating, these cash reserves slow down the flow of money. They impede the cycle of consumption and production.
> There are always grave negative unintended consequences from forcibly redistributing other people's income/wealth, [...]
And there have been incredible good consequences from forcibly redistributing money from the wealthy. Just look at the Central European States, or the Scandinavian countries. They have very high taxes, highest standards of living for everybody, socialized health care. And very vibrant economies.
It depends on a huge number of factors. One event that can destabilize an economy is cascading debt defaults that cause mass bankruptcy.
At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on economics are not right, and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences.
>And very vibrant economies
With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s. Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model in the 1960s and 70s, Scandinavian countries have seen stagnant wage growth for the last 40 years, and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income.
Of course always consider the possibility that my hypothesis to might be wrong. But I thank you for that advise and will keep it it mind.
> [..] and that forcibly redistributing huge amounts of privately owned income and savings in order to spur hyper-consumerism may cause severe negative unintended consequences.
I think you misunderstand the premise of UBI. UBI is not intended to allow for hyper-consumerism. It's purpose is to guarantee a basic standard of living.
> With the exception of oil-rich Norway, Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant since they adopted large-scale welfare programs in the late 1960s.
What makes you think that the Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant?
> Just like the US and other advanced economies that shifted massively to the social democratic economic model [...]
I really don't see the US as an example of a massive shift to a social democratic model. The USA has no socialized health care, has no socialized retirement scheme, very limited public education, no socialized child care and certainly no socialized care for the elderly. I could go on, but really; the U.S. of A. is no social democracy.
And yes; wages in the US have stagnated as well!
> and have seen more market oriented economies close the massive gap that used to exist between them and Scandinavian countries in life expectancy, quality of life, per capita wealth and per capita income.
If we consider the U.S. as an example of a more market-oriented economy, I don't see them closing that gap. Be it health care, life expectancy, median standard of living, quality of life or gross national happiness - the U.S. of A. seriously lags in all these areas.
Happy to hear your thoughts!
>I think you misunderstand the premise of UBI. UBI is not intended to allow for hyper-consumerism.
I was referring to your argument for redistributive basic income, where you imply that the consumption-boosting impact of basic income would boost economic stability.
>What makes you think that the Scandinavian countries have been economically stagnant?
GDP and wage growth rates.
>I really don't see the US as an example of a massive shift to a social democratic model. The USA has no socialized health care, has no socialized retirement scheme, very limited public education, no socialized child care and certainly no socialized care for the elderly. I could go on, but really; the U.S. of A. is no social democracy.
The only accurate points in this paragraph are the US not having universal healthcare or universal socialized childcare.
The US has a publicly funded retirement scheme (Social Security) and spends more public money per capita than almost any other country in the world on education.
While it lacks universal healthcare, it spends extensively on its public healthcare spending, which covers the elderly, through Medicare, and the poor, through Medicaid.
Moreover, social welfare increased 4.8 percent per year on average, between 1972 and 2011 [1]. This represents a massive shift to the social democratic economic model.
And it's not just the US. Almost all advanced economies underwent this transition over the last 40 years, and it has been associated with stagnating wage growth and less economic dynamism.
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-...
What you're describing is welfare, not UBI. The whole point of actual UBI is that you give everyone the same amount, irrespective of income.