Mark Zuckerberg again defends government giving people free money

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/05/mark-zuckerberg-talks-basic-income-after-alaska-trip.html

by tgragnato • 9 years ago

27 36 9 years ago

lawless1233• 9 years ago

A basic income will be necessary for capitalism to survive full automation of our society. It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich.

tqkxzugoaupvwqr• 9 years ago

It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich.

This seems to be a great pitch for convincing rich people to help introduce basic income. Basic income is in their best self-interest. If no one has money to buy their stuff, they’ll stop being rich!

ZeroGravitas2• 9 years ago

I believe this is the original pitch that Bismarck used to introduce the modern welfare state, though it was more about not having your family dragged into the street and shot by revolutionaries who didn't believe your claim to be the God given ruler of the country.

TausAmmer• 9 years ago

Automation can take care of owners, food, clothing, resources, education. You preserve some exceptional people that improve automation. Why do you need other people around?

lawless1233• 9 years ago

Why do you need other people around?

They might wonder the same about the owners. The French Revolution didn't work out well for the owners.

Anderkent• 9 years ago

In a purely selfish model, because when people are made completely redundant, they riot. And because (fortunately) the automate-everything folk are not who makes the laws.

In a actual human model, because the point of technology is to make human lives better, and not just to get more technology.

ZeroGravitas2• 9 years ago

You can see this in action today with "the resource curse". If you can get mega rich by digging stuff out of the ground then you only need enough modern society to support that activity. If you can get foreign engineers then you can let your country rot while you fly around in your personal jumbo jet.

mr_luc• 9 years ago

I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent.

The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income.

It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock.

'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough!

The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection.

Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor.

Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.

stupidcar• 9 years ago

I don't believe social conservatives will ever accept genuine universal income, even in the face of major economic disruption caused by automation. Firstly, because it is too contrary to their instinctive ideas of fairness, secondly because it is too tempting to use it as method of social control, and thirdly because there will always be a minority that misspend their assured income, which will require an additional welfare system to help them out.

I think it's more likely we'll see a large expansion of existing welfare and food-stamp systems into a system of universal basic rationing. Probably they'll be some kind of parallel, digital pseudo-currency, in the form of spendable credits. They'll be limited to certain categories of goods, and luxury brands and most entertainment products will be banned.

I think you'll also see a requirement to do some form of "work", even artificial and meaningless tasks, in order to qualify. This is already how the system works in the UK, for example. In order to access the UK's welfare system, you are basically required to seek work, any work, no matter how menial or pointless. There is a "workfare" system whereby you work, unpaid, for commercial companies, doing things like stacking shelves for low-quality retailers, in order to get access to your welfare payments.

mattmanser2• 9 years ago

And there's a backlash forming about this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5168192/

I signed on once as I was between contracts and it seemed like it'd be stupid not to.

Soul destroying and utterly ridiculous bureaucracy that's feels like it's meant to humiliate you rather than get you a job.

And that was like 8 years ago, it's got worse.

Ultimately, as automation drives more people out of work, the voting base for a radical change for wealth distribution will grow and the social conservative base will shrink.

DoofusOfDeath• 9 years ago

I'm socially conservative, and I agree with parts of your statement, at least regarding myself.

"Fairness" will be a sticking point. It's not reasonable that some people should have to work, so that others may voluntarily sit idle.

But my other reasons for opposing universal income are different than what you listed:

(1) I suspect universal income makes inaccurate assumptions about human nature. I think that without a need to work, a large fraction of people will choose not to. I doubt universal income could sustain that.

(2) Our population keeps on growing, but our planet stays the same size. Unless this changes, we'll see increasing competition for food and living space. The fraction of the economy spent on UBI would continue to increase due to inflation of those costs.

If I turn out to be mistaken about (1) and (2), then I'd be more open to UBI.

majewsky5• 9 years ago

there will always be a minority that misspend their assured income, which will require an additional welfare system to help them out

Does it? I mean, I cannot imagine any desirable way in which welfare could be administered that cannot be misspent. If you give starving people money, they can technically buy something other than food. If you give them food stamps or actual food instead, they can trade that for money to spend on useless junk.

The only alternatives are to admit them to closed therapy, if the cause of their misspending is an addiction or other mental illness, or to force-feed them, which I would not want because it defies my concept of human dignity.

JumpCrisscross2• 9 years ago

It's really the only way the rich will be able to stay rich.

Why? If the means of production and warfare run without labour, what do you need population for? Ignore ethics for a second. The rich can be plenty rich buying and selling to and from each other, exclusively, if their guns and butter churn out without workers.

lawless1233• 9 years ago

In that case the world will eventually consist of a single person a basement dweller in his cave playing games on planet populated by robots just to serve him/her.

Once the rich dispose of the surplus to requirements workers they would turn on each other.

ekianjo2• 9 years ago

Full automation is way farther than what people think. Already in early 20th century peoPle were dreaming of robots to do all menial tasks yet one century later still not even close to that.

seaknoll2• 9 years ago

The issue is not whether people will become lazy if they get free money. If jobs are going to disappear they'll disappear, fewer people will be able to work unless somehow the workforce disappears too. The real question is how will we handle it when those jobs do disappear.

My gut tells me that Europe will embrace shorter work weeks and basic income, but in the US where we love to see people being punished for perceived failure to pull oneself up by bootstraps and other moral failures, and to promote businesses over the welfare of citizens, we'll find a way to justify laborers fighting over peanuts.

JumpCrisscross2• 9 years ago

The only solutions are to subsidise or quarantine peoples' existences. The former means basic income (or something like it). The latter means erecting borders between the rich and the poor.

We sort of do the latter today, between rich countries and poor ones. Extending the analogy to e.g. America versus not-America, or New York City and the Bay Area versus Middle America, or any other configuration seems conceivable.

seaknoll2• 9 years ago

Absolutely these things could be decided on a local level vs. nationwide. Pretty consistent with my speculation that the federal government shouldn't be relied upon to protect a basic standard of living.

naturalgradient• 9 years ago

I have always thought there is an optimistic version and a pessimistic version of this.

The optimistic version is that technology creates enough wealth to provide a basic income for everyone when the value of most human labour is diminished. The interesting part here is who 'everyone' is, because in our imagination it rarely includes impoverished countries.

The pessimistic version is that technology could already create enough value for everyone, but what it really does is it increases inequality.

The value of automation might be captured by few large companies and a technological elite in a few countries, which have no incentive to support the rest of humanity other than to avoid a bloodbath. Combine this with vastly increasing populations in developing countries and resource scarcity + climate change in various regions causing mass migration movements, I just do not see how this can really workout peacefully.

If people have seen the movie Elysium, I always feel that this is already happening, just that Europe and the US are Elysium, and it is only about to get worse.

arethuza• 9 years ago

Although it does have some problems, I rather like Elysium - the ending makes me think of how something like the Culture could get started.

huffmsa• 9 years ago

The first description you have there is the plot of WALL-E / Karl Marx. Eventually, humans will be obsolete as units of production.

Not necessarily a bad thing.

ekianjo2• 9 years ago

Production is not what most people do already now. Nothing new.

bko2• 9 years ago

"When you're losing money, your mentality is largely about survival. But when you're profitable, you're confident about your future and you look for opportunities to invest and grow further. Alaska's economy has historically created this winning mentality, which has led to this basic income. That may be a lesson for the rest of the country as well."

Is this true? My impression is that many of the problems in regards to young people having trouble in the labor market have to do with the fact that for the most part they are more free than their parents to pursue their interests rather than "survival". This is due in part to their parents being more wealthy and they have the luxury to pursue majors that don't pay well. Also, the safety net extends after they graduate. For instance, 40% of Americans under 35 live with their parents or relatives [0].

And the problem runs deeper than that. Low labor participation rates are not something that should be a policy objective. From my anecdotal experience, those people not participating in the workforce are rarely living meaningful happy lives.

[0] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-li...

mattmanser2• 9 years ago

Seems like you're cherry picking your arguments, as the article you linked to directly contradicts your impression.

bko2• 9 years ago

But the bigger issue may be the triple whammy of low wages, student debt and rapidly escalating rents.

Student debt is a luxury. There are plenty of affordable colleges and universities. Many just choose to go to expensive options and they are able to do so due to subsidized student loan rates (also a luxury) and support from relatively wealthy parents. In regards to mortgages being unattainable due to housing appreciation, I think that is only half the story. The other half is that mortgage rates are at near historic lows. Yes, homes were cheaper in the 50s-90s but mortgage rates were ~6-18% at that time. This makes a huge difference in home affordability. For instance, a 30 year 100k mortgage at 8% and 4% interest have mortgage payments of $733 vs $477, respectively.

[0] http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortg...

b3lvedere• 9 years ago

It's totally true. Your brain goes into survival mode almost 24/7 if you can't make ends meet. It is immensly time consuming and gives a lot of stress.

Though it can be fun to get as much as possible optimized results with as less as possible investment (time and/or money).

mercer• 9 years ago

Is this true? My impression is that many of the problems in regards to young people having trouble in the labor market have to do with the fact that for the most part they are more free than their parents to pursue their interests rather than "survival".

I live in one of the world's richer countries (The Netherlands) and anecdotally I'd say it's both true and not true.

It's true in the sense that most people I know in the 20-35 range, usually non-STEM university bachelor's and sometimes master's, struggle to get by.

They live in shared flats (kamers, WG's), often spend a sizable chunk of their time doing menial jobs to survive, and I'd say many of them manage on a student-level income (which I'd say is quite a bit below median income, possibly poverty-level). There's often quite a bit of depression or general malaise about this situation, as they'd prefer to work full-time, make a little more money, have a little more stability and have some sense of progress (whether in the sense of meaning or promotion), and in some cases would like to have children but feel they are not stable enough to start a family. I'd say this is significantly worse than at least the past generation (or two?).

On the other hand, some of this seems to be by choice: they'd rather 'organically' operate in survival mode over just taking a job that, after a year or so of menial and pointless busywork, possibly but not certainly provides a promotion to something more meaningful. They go for a 10 euro Spotify and a 10 euro Netflix account, and a shared flat in the city, over a more financially prudent non-city, non-mass-and-convenient-entertainment situation in part by choice: how would they really know if this makes them happier than, say, a more rural alternative?

Some of the latter could just be a case of 'making the best of a shitty deal', but I get the impression that, at least for this generation, it's to a significant degree ideological.

Ultimately all that only makes the whole situation seem worse to me, on balance.

Things are generally shitty for young people, even if you account for 'shifts in thinking' (that confuse the older generations), but somehow there's little collective action to make things better. If you want to change things, the 'accepted' avenues are self-employment or starting/joining a startup, completely disregarding civil society or political activism, and, to a degree, the idea of doing something collectively rather than following only the exact and singular configuration of your particular self.

hankhill• 9 years ago

What kind of garbage title is this? Mods, please fix the title to make sense (or at least copy the article title)

majewsky5• 9 years ago

There are multiple titles apparently. I just opened the article, and the <title> says "Marc Zuckerberg talks basic income after Alaska trip", but the <h1 class="title"> says "Mark Zuckerberg again defends government giving people free money", which is the current submission title. I guess that title A-B-tested better. :/

jrx• 9 years ago

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I really see the basic income as a strong force for increasing the inequality, leading to society stagnation and disallowing any social mobility effectively setting in stone current power structures.

I don't think we can ever say that the "jobs are gone". There are always things that people can do that are beneficial to the society but they can be either a) not profitable in the current economic framework or b) require highly skilled workforce that is currently not available on the job market.

If a) is the case, that means we are not really yet in the post scarcity world and need to first work more on providing "basic" goods so that we can afford having these less essential ones.

If b) is the case that means we need to put more resources into educating and training people. There is a sentiment that modern day universities are not worth the cost, but I highly disagree with that - society is only as good as people are educated and the more knowledge and highly developed skills people have the more they can participate in the economy.

In the world of the future, the "easy" jobs will be gone, but there will still be lots of things to do for smart, educated and skilled people. The only problem is that learning process and guiding a young human from newborn to such person is a costly process to the society. Providing basic income of barely "survival minimum" disincentives people to take that cost and participate in the economy. Until we have the AI that is better than humans at doing basic research, there is still a ton of things to do for humans, and I don't see anything good with excluding parts of the society from the process.

Mark Zuckerberg again defends government giving people free money

Related Stories