6 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg again defends government giving people free money

27 points by tgragnato 9y ago

seaknoll 9y 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.
- JumpCrisscross 9y 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.
  - seaknoll 9y 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.
lawless123 9y 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.
- TausAmmer 9y 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?
  - lawless123 9y 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.
    - maeln 9y ago
      It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
      - majewsky 9y ago
        > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.
  - Anderkent 9y 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.
naturalgradient 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    Production is not what most people do already now. Nothing new.
bko 9y 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-living-with-their-parents-is-40-percent-a-75-year-high/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-li...
- mattmanser 9y ago
  Seems like you're cherry picking your arguments, as the article you linked to directly contradicts your impression.
  - bko 9y 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/mortgage-vs-10-year-rates1.jpg http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortg...
hankhill 9y ago
What kind of garbage title is this? Mods, please fix the title to make sense (or at least copy the article title)
- majewsky 9y 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 9y 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.

27 points by tgragnato 9y 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.

JumpCrisscross 9y 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.
- seaknoll 9y 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.

lawless123 9y 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.

TausAmmer 9y 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?
- lawless123 9y 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.
  - maeln 9y ago
    It actually did work out great for owners. The French Revolution was not the perfect "people" revolution that a lot of people think it is. The people who mostly gain from it were the bourgeois who were really restrained under the royality. That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      > That's why one of the first right of the Declaration of Human Right is the right to possess. Wherein by "first", you mean "17th article" (or 30). https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Huma... EDIT: Ah, I forgot about the context of the French Revolution, so I looked at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_M... of August 1789. The right to property is actually the last article in that one, so the original point remains debunked.
- Anderkent 9y 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.

naturalgradient 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  Production is not what most people do already now. Nothing new.

bko 9y 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-living-with-their-parents-is-40-percent-a-75-year-high/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/percentage-of-young-americans-li...

mattmanser 9y ago
Seems like you're cherry picking your arguments, as the article you linked to directly contradicts your impression.
- bko 9y 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/mortgage-vs-10-year-rates1.jpg http://blog.lucidrealty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mortg...

hankhill 9y ago

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

majewsky 9y 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 9y 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.