Universal Basic Income is our future, at least according to Mark Zuckerberg
As I was watching CNBC this morning, a special segment caught my attention.
It was about Mark Zuckerberg and his thoughts on a Universal Basic Income.
Zuckerberg was giving his Commencement Speech at Harvard University yesterday where he touched on economics, the US health care system, the need to modernize democracy, and the need for a Universal Basic Income.
Especially as technology is looking to replace an astounding number of jobs in the not too distant future.
What is a Universal Basic Income?
Wikipedia defines it as follows:
"Universal Basic Income is a form of social security in which all citizens or residents of a country regularly receive an unconditional sum of money, either from a government or some other public institution, in addition to any income received from elsewhere."
Basically it sounds like it is a payment that everyone receives in order to cover their very basic needs and leaves them free to shift their focus to their interests and dreams.
Zuckerber's comments echoed that of other Silicon Valley bigwigs. Sam Altman (for example) has been another Universal Basic Income proponent for some time.
If you do not recall, Sam Altman is the one that is spearheading a Universal Basic Income experiment in Oakland, CA.
Basically, the experiment was to give 100 families $1500 per month starting in January and then see what happens.
You can read more about it here:
Dan Larimer ( @dan and @dantheman) has also commented extensively on Universal Basic Income and I recommend reading a couple of his pieces if you are interested in the subject. They are very well done.
https://steemit.com/basicincome/@dantheman/how-to-allocate-the-worlds-resources-fairly
https://steemit.com/basicincome/@dantheman/what-would-a-legitimate-basic-income-buy
https://steemit.com/basicincome/@dantheman/universal-basic-income-and-social-restitution
Zuckerberg specifically had this to say regarding a Universal Basic Income at the Commencement Speech yesterday:
"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract."
"We should have a society that measures progress not be economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideals like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
Zuckerberg went on to say that one of the main reasons that he was able to build Facebook was because he knew that he had a safety net if Facebook were to fail. He was able to continue on with the project without a fear of failing.
Other people out there might not have that same opportunity. They may need to take low paying jobs to support their households instead of learning how to code or chase other dreams that truly could be world changing.
A Universal Basic Income could provide the cushion they need, Zuckerberg concluded.
There are pros and cons to the Basic Income argument.
On the one hand, Zuckerberg and Altman (among others) argue that it would free people up to really contribute meaningful contributions to our society. Technological advancements could accelerate at an even faster pace. Not to mention what it could mean to people's quality of life.
On the other hand, there are others that argue giving everyone a Basic Income would just have an inflationary effect that basically offsets any gains they would receive.
There is also the argument that a lot of people would take that money and do nothing meaningful with it. They would stay at home all day and smoke weed on the couch.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two sides. That is why Altman's experiment is so important. We will get a real world example of how people might act.
The experiment is looking to go from 100 people to over 1000 in the very near future which will give us an even better real world example.
What do you guys think?
In a world with a growing population, expanding technology, and a decreasing job supply, is a Universal Basic Income the answer?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below.
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
Image Sources:
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-basic-income-harvard-speech-2017-5
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10860830/y-combinator-basic-income
http://www.kickassfacts.com/universal-basic-income-infographic/
Follow me: @jrcornel
Is Mark really a Ghoul as the internet is showing it to the World?... @jrcornel, any thoughts?
I can't say one way or another if he is a ghoul or not. It depends on what you mean by ghoul and under what context. But if you mean "Why does Mark get so much hatred? Zuckerberg gets a lot of criticism over his pro surveillance leanings and incentives. He's argued that people are more honest when they are being watched and that creeps people out.
To me, that is a privacy breah.
And i referred to him as Ghoul cos there is so many conspiracy theory against him.
We already have universal income, its call do something productive and you will get paid for it. Anything other than that is call welfare. wake up people, no one should be getting something for nothing.
Well said! How could the economy be doing so well that we still need monthly income from the government. Im working and at the same time thinking like... Ok, you can give me an extra 2 grand a month. I do know there will be a lot that comes with that. 2 eggs and 2 strips of bacon will probably be 10 bucks. Smh.
You are correct. This is a scam. It is 'you give others your stuff ' marketed as 'we give you free stuff'
Affirmative!
For a super majority of people, their only capital they own is their ability to work. When that ability to work is lost by injury or disease, society has decided to provide a safety net called welfare to assist these people. Now a new threat is starting to rise. This new threat is automation. Automation reduces the value of this "ability to work capital."
If with accelerating automation the value of this type of capital is significantly reduced. What kind of capital should we replace it with?
I don't like Facebook and M. Zuckerberg a lot, but in this case I fully agree. As productivity due to automation and digitalization will increase more and more, we simply have to accustom to the fact (and I actually appreciate it!) that not everyone has to (and can) work in every life phase. Thus there must be a solution to secure a minimum living standard for everybody.
I don't fear that the majority of people are satisfied with their basic income and stop working forever, because they want to earn more money than that to realize their aims in life ...
Quite simple logic. Prices will move up from the current floor so you are where you started.
And yes. Most people will just be leeches. Never underestimate human laziness.
Every single billionaire advocates for basic income out of sheer ignorance. Bill Gates does the same. It would be very hard to exist because value is based on demand and supply. You can't just give things away. It is a very naive perception of economics. These guys have everything and just preach utopia for PR image shilling.
Do you have a better suggestion to address the imminent job market issue following the automation and robotic revolution? Or, are you in the camp that thinks this time isn't any different from past advancements in technology, that somehow everyone is going to be some kind of social media manager?
Provided that this time is different, what do you really think will happen if there isn't a solution like a UBI? I can tell you what will happen, absolute riots and caos - that's what.
There is no "imminent market issue". Since the industrial revolution more and more jobs were created and life became better as technology progressed.
I don't know why so many people believe that automation will create problems? Do you guys watch too many sci-fi movies?
Ofcource this is not different than past times. It's not like we have developed A.I robots that can do our jobs either. I don't know where all this hype is coming from really.
Why is it that every-time no free shit is given people will riot? Riots and chaos don't happen in capitalist societies. hey happen in socialist places like Venezuela where you get your free shit...in line.
seriously guys. think about it a bit more. and try not to interpret sci-fi scenarios and Hollywood movies in the wrong way. Also look around you and try to imagine how far we are from your so called "coming automation".
I hate sci-fi. I also do NOT think life will be worse with automation. To the contrary, I think it will be great. The entire purpose of innovation is to make people's lives easier. It's not so far fetched to think that we can achieve a point in time where we reach a general equilibrium or even an excess of energy, the main driving force of economies.
I'm glad that you're taking a patronizing standpoint though instead of backing up your assertions with rational thought.
Oh also, provided that you're wrong and automation does have a significant impact on the job market, such that there isn't enough jobs for people to work, there will be riots, b/c the haves and have-nots will be further polarized. But you seem so confident in your assumptions.
I don't see the reason for basic income and even if I do there is no way you can pull this off without inflation. There is no such thing as free money. If value is just given away, it will accumulate in the economy and living costs will climb up. a new base will be created. So why are we still talking about this?
It is far fetched because everything around you, including the very universe itself is based on inequality and different dynamics. If things come into an equilibrium, aka value being spread equally across all things then everything collapses. When everything has the same value then nothing has value.
I did back them up twice. You make vague unfounded assumptions and you got served accordingly. no harsh feelings.
Inflation is created by pumping more money into the economy. I don't think a UBI is achieved by printing more money.
The universe is limited, and there will be limits. However, I do think we can extract more than enough power resources from renewables to sustain human requirements. There will be other limitations, like food and water, etc. That's something that will continue human intervention and continue to create inequality. I don't see any way around this at the moment, unless the human population declines.
We can just disagree, that's fine. I'm not looking at this as rainbows and unicorns in some kind of perfect fairy tale land. I'm simply saying that there won't be enough jobs for the majority of people, there won't be the need. Will they find other purposes and create value in the world - yes. But, it won't come in the form of a paycheck from a company, because companies will be able to optimize their operations to the point where these people aren't needed.
Can you tell me what these people are going to do when they're not working in factories or driving vehicles for logistics? I'm really curious.
I'm not sure on which side of the UBI argument I fall on, but I did want to question one part of your response kyriacos- I understand there is no such thing as free money but doesn't the government already give out free money to some folk in the form of food stamps, medicare, medicaid, housing vouchers, etc..?
they get those from taxes. With the UBI even a CEO that earns 500k a year will get the same stipend as someone who is living in the streets.
So if everyone is getting the same money, then no one is getting any money. Come on guys. Is not THAT hard. logic 101
This might give you an idea of where the other side's coming from.
Waw ...awesome video
I totally agree
Traditional jobs are likely going to decline with more automation. Other non-traditional jobs though very well could replace them. For example... what you and I are doing right now talking Steemit. I made more on steemit this year without going FULL throttle (though I've been very active) than I have many other years of my life. I made possibly close to half what I made in my paying job. So this has potential, and it is not the only INFORMATION/INTERNET space opportunity that is likely to rise.
Many traditional jobs may go away. They may also come back. A lot of it actually depends on the market.
Steemit is much like anything else though, where a few make money. It could be a full-time job for some, but it's not going to employ the masses. Also, if Steemit is incredibly popular it's going to cannibalize other social platforms.
I don't really see Steemit providing a mass of net jobs to the workforce. I do, however, see blockchain solutions contributing more to the sharing economy though. And that can have more of an equalizing effect on the flow of money, at least temporarily. But, like with anything, there always tends to be those that rise to the top 1% and then everyone else making little. You can already see this with mining in BTC.
I don't disagree with your assessment here. I just don't think it's going to provide enough to offset the losses.
I agree... I was just using it as an example of how historically new never before seen opportunities tend to replace those that were lost.
I'm in that camp and still very concerned. Not that I think UBI would be an actual solution these issues.
Unnecessary strawman.
I'm also very interested in the possibilty of establishing a form of basic income that isn't based on taxation. If theft can be avoided, then there might be ways to ensure a certain level of income to pay for essential living expenses without distorting markets by state force.
It's never gonna be as easy as these people think though. They're UBI is little more than outright legalized theft.
did come across one interesting idea for a "universal income" that's based in actual work that anyone can do. it involved a crypto "governance" model, where the new currency is mined by randomly selecting biometrically-confirmed users instead of having mining conglomerates wasting energy repeating fruitless tasks. Mining could even be performed on something as simple as a cell phone. The key being that technology will be the great unifier, and as anyone and everyone will soon be able to "afford" at least a low-end smart phone, those resources can be used to perform, well, certainly more efficient work than is currently being performed with bitcoin and other POW crypto-currencies. This is the whitepaper on it:
https://github.com/the-laughing-monkey/cicada-platform
Interestingly, Cicada may make for a perfect fit with @Dan's upcoming EOS platform:
EOS Highlights and Favorites from Ethereal and Consensus 2017
golem ["will?"] do this as well. the scenario about the mining is still sci-fi. heck it is like asking today someone to mind btc on their cellphone. the tasks won't be so easy to accomplish — and if they are — the rewards will be minimal.
something like "watch an ad and earn 0.01 cents" that we have today. again. it is not wise to speculate with "what ifs" when we already have technology and innovation and still weren't be able to implement BUI.
The problem is not technological. it is economic. it has to do with how humans perceive and create value. As long as people want to remain individuals with unique characteristics BUI cannot happen. it is against evolution itself. this is the same reason why communism failed and why we revert back to awesome capitalism. we like the pyramid. we like the A sexy instead of B. we are selfish and want to propagate OUR genes. This is what all comes down to. human nature.
"Prices will move up from the current floor so you are where you started". Unless you have hyper-productivity generated by automation and advanced robotics.
No. Other job sectors like "social media manager" and "online content evaluator" will be created. Advance Robotics and automation will not change the current system. They will only enhance and expand it in different directions.
Hyper-productivity will still raise prices since there will be higher demand. it doesn't change anything.
Unless those goods are priced in something other than Federal Reserve Notes. Not to mention when the people are able to print goods without the necessity of money. Technology WILL change the current system. The current system is obsolete.
what i mean by system is demand and supply. capitalism. how value is created. it doesn't matter who issues the money. money represents value. if you give some for free to everybody then eventually everything will rise from that point on. basic logic.
Or more specifically you'll never be giving the people anything of tangible value because the government can't actually add value. It "creates value" only through the coercive process of redistribution while also taking a vig for their "efforts." You can't take $10 away from a man and then give him back $12 and then propose to do that for everybody @automaton and I don't mean to be mocking as if that were an obvious conclusion.
Nonetheless, scarcity is a real attribute that pertains to certain parts of our reality. You can deny its existence but it's not actually missing from your life. When you want another potato chip at the end of the bag or whatever the proper analogy is-- you have that scarcity thing. If there wasn't a counting system to keep track of how many chips and Ferraris everybody was going through, we'd eventually have a lot more consumption than production. It's a nice idea to want more free things, but somebody has to create those thing, even if it means creating robot parts or robot algorithms. Land, earth and materials will not assemble itself and magically do all of things for us. Surely, nobody here would expect anything to that extent.
I have never suggested Government give anyone anything. I'm actually against it. I'm talking about putting the means of production in the hands of the many. By giving the people the means of production they can produce what they need without the need of Govt or Banks. Maybe you don't see it yet..but you will soon..
The majority of people who contributed early cultural or scientific breakthroughs to western society came from privileged backgrounds where they had no need to work. This was overwhelmingly the case from ancient Greece through to the 19th century.
I don't think advocating for universal basic income is the same as expecting a utopia, thats just making a straw man assumptions about the motivations behind such an idea. Also 'this won't result in a utopia' is not a rational argument against universal basic income.
There's a notion in the western world that making people's lives easier in anyway will compromise their character or destroy society. This is an extremely unexamined assumption that most people make without realising and originates from the the barbaric and extreme forms of christianity that dominate our early history, it's our cultural interpretation of how original sin operates in society. Give women the vote and they will turn into beligerent man beating barren she-beasts, free the slaves and they will drink themselves to death because they have no supervision, banish capital punishment and everyone will murder whoever they lay eyes on because there is no strong deterrent not to, raise minimun wages and society will fall, teach the unwashed masses to read and society will fall. Time and time again it is the negative and uncharitable projection of what happens after society lifts it's standards that has proven to be naive. History is unquestionably in favor of universal basic income. I do think your concerns about inflation are valid but as with any other major social reform, people will figure out how to make the fundamental changes necessary to preserve their new expectations and values intact. It will probably just be rocky for a generation or two and then take a viable form.
It's not ignorance. They are trying to turn you into a serf, so they can control every aspect of your life by issuing sheets of paper.
If my 'basic' income was on the same scale as Zukerberg's, I'd be happy with that.
Many people are already getting what amounts to a basic income now in the form of state benefit however this causes discontent and resentment in those funding them through their taxes.
If we all knew we would get a sizeable contribution towards our living expenses it would certainly mean we could devote more time and energy to matters outside mere finance. There's a lot to be said of riches beyond money.
I can honestly not oversee what would happen if universal basic income would be implemented. I really do think that there would be many people who would then feel free to pursue their dreams. Some of who would probably indeed give us brilliant new ideas.
Having the need to work a job you hate, just to provide for your family really crushes a spirit and any hope of anything genious coming out of such a person is basically gone.
This is also what would probably happen. I think it would be a mix. But then again, that mix already exists. There are already people living off of government pay (atleast here in the Netherlands) and basically all they do is sit on their couch and drink beer. Or they are a pain in the ass to the neighbourhood. I don't think there would necessarily be more of those people with basic income.
In order for one to consume without production, another must produce without consumption. UBI is just buying political power by promising to rob your neighbors on your behalf.
Yes, that is a good point. Though I guess with UBI, the whole idea would be that this other producing individual would be a computer or a robot of some sort. Atleast that's the only way I can understand this being an option to consider.
Unless you do it without Govt interference. Bots will produce but they will not consume.
Bots require construction costs, energy sources, and maintenance along with human decisions on production and human design. AI can't replace any of that in the foreseeable future.
Great points. Perhaps there is no system that would completely eliminate human nature?! ;)
Exactly! I don't think there is any way of making a complete society productive. Atleast not if you're into the whole free will thing... which I think most people are kind of big on.
Good article. As with any idea there are some WHAT IFs and potential bad things that could happen. Yet that causes stagnation and we try nothing new if we simply give in to those fears. So I have no problem with testing UBI but the problem I have is that if it FAILS we see a tendency of governments not BACKING up, they simple double, or triple down and the problems get worse.
Here is the only MIGHT HAPPEN negative thing that currently is in my mind about UBI, and I am sure I could come up with others if I thought long and hard and played the "Devil's Advocate" role. So I'll just talk about one.
My fear here is that this like ANY guaranteed payout the government has involved in would simply alter the market. The market could adjust overtime so the payout from UBI becomes the defacto new $0. It could all be consumed and still require you to work to survive. This is what typically happens with Minimum Wage increases. UBI in a sense is like minimum wage on steroids. It gives people a minimum wage whether they have a job or not.
I see the reasons this might be needed, as automation, and other things make it apparent that in the future there may be a great shortage of obvious jobs. The hope with UBI is we can eat and pay our basic bills, and we can then seek out and create new jobs of our own just by our activities.
Yet, what if the market adjusts and takes advantage of that guaranteed cash.
This is what has happened with the healthcare industry, with the guaranteed student loan program and its effect on higher education quality and cost, etc.
If UBI kicks in could we expect a great price increase from a great many other areas so they can tap into that guaranteed money?
Like I said. I am not against TRYING it and seeing what happens. I also don't think we should always stagnate against change due to FEAR of the WHAT IFs. Yet, I did think it was worth discussing this concern.
This is welfare, it will not work in Finland; it has not worked in America. https://steemit.com/kr/@zeropointtruth/how-mark-nwo-cuckerberg-is-banking-on-suberviance
I personally am not a fan of the government doing much of anything. My utopia is a world where we don't need government.
I didn't argue my points from this perspective though.
I simply played Devil's Advocate for what I think could happen if it came to pass.
Absolutely, I gathered that from your post, which I thought was excellently stated. My comment served to back the underlying claim. Furthermore, government is an attempt at creating utopia. Government puts the means of a monopoly of legal violence into the hands of a few, (some elected and most not) with the ideolistic ambition that this will create a stable regional power; in which trade can commence, unmolested. However, this is a fundamental fallacy because government survives principally though the regulation and taxation (molestation) of citizens' voluntary interactions. There is not need for a state because state functions can and are arbitrated by and between private entities (ie companies and individuals) without mandate of power or the use of aggression or monopoly of force. For more check this out
The Jones Plantation
Yep, I am very familiar with this. I also saw that video not long after Larken created it.
Though I also have a realization. For Anarcho-Capitalism to work a large portion of the population would need some different education. We teach very little critical thinking. It is mostly lead by emotion and people have no concepts of Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Red Herrings, and other common fallacies.
I tend to lean towards Anarcho-Capitalism myself but I realize that if we flipped a switch and tried to do that today it would fail miserably. It would not fail due to it being a flawed idea.
It would fail due to most of the population not understanding critical thinking, and lacking understanding of self responsibility.
So as much as I'd like that type of environment and it is my ultimate goal at the moment. I do not see it as WORKING today.
Thus, I tend to focus on the critical thinking angle. That is the windmill which I've chosen to tilt. If I can get more people thinking differently then perhaps some day we can get them there. I've even had a little dialog about this before here on steemit with Larken.
My goal is the same. I just have chosen to fight where I see myself making the most difference. That is not bludgeoning them with the concepts until they agree with me. Instead I choose to engage on a critical thinking level, and hopefully inspire people to think, research, learn and eventually understand the Anarchism/Voluntaryism concepts better.
Those concepts cannot work without a population capable of critical thinking. It'd fall apart fairly rapidly.
Yes, crack work, crack goy, crack work crack
Voluntarism does NOT require critical thought. It requires nothing and that is the best part, it is in effect today. Government needs a populace to hold it together, the mere act of voluntary exchange does not. It is government that subverts the ever present forces of voluntary transaction at work, not the other way around. Critical thinking can enable companies of people, interacting in the free market to create alternatives to the institutions of society - that is just dandey. However, government monopoly of violence prices out companies that could take over the functions of government.
If there is a demand, there will be a supply. Violence interrupts this chain of exchange. What will it take to get fair priced police, military etc? A free method of exchange. When will this occur? The fall of the currency, and mass disillusionment with government coming out of cotastrophy (WWIII, etcetera).
You are an ideological brother of mine! We are first on the battlefield of the coming revolution, Steemit. Hopefully we will not need to take to the streets in defense of the free internet. Cheers.
Oh in case you didn't know. Larken Rose is here on Steemit and has been for awhile. He will occasionally get pretty active. @larkenrose
Quite a few other prominent minds in the anarchist/voluntaryist movement have also participated on steemit from time to time.
EDIT: Sadly Larken and others are missing out on big earnings at the moment as the payouts are once again in a very lucrative range.
Thanks for directing me to his page. Do you have more resources on how you came to terms with the inability of populations to accept a cohesion-free social order? (and don't say the Kardashian show's ratings)
Yep, that is the inflation argument. Great point and one that would have to be worked around some how. What good is it to get roughly $15k per year, if the cost of living also goes up by roughly $15k?! Great comment!
Interest rates are a matter off currency and supply and demand. The government both manipulates markets (food, precious metals, oil) through the use of subsidy and control of imports and exports (regionally and globally). For example, exportation of US crude oil is illegal, which is a price control on the market. Meat, dairy and crops are regionally price controlled and simulated through subsidy. Lastly, currency manipulation in the form of the federal funds rate and arbitrarily controlled currency inflation is a power vested to government and the Federal Reserve because US Dollars are fiat (not stable money). Without a doubt government plays the biggest hand in weighing economies down, with no culpability, accountability or moral grounds for doing so. Universal wage is a euphemism for mandated salary, worse net-economic effect than the price control of minimum wage labor.
Here is a critically important study to view on the issue:
"In 2007, nominal GDP was $14 trillion. Had regulation remained at its 1949 level, current GDP would have been about $25 trillion, an increase of $11 trillion. With about 140 million households and 300 million people, an annual loss of $11 trillion converts to $78,600 per household and $36,700 per person. Another way to put it, perhaps a little too dramatically, is that each page of federal regulation added since 1949 today costs the economy roughly $82.1 million in foregone output per year."
Just another political plunder scheme to entrench the powerbrokers through the illusion of charity. UBI can't work, because economic facts do not change.
Good point. It will be interesting to see how Altman's experiment plays out. They haven't released much info on it yet but I am curious what exactly would indicate success or failure?!
AI, Robotics, Bitcoin, and the blockchain change it all.
Nope. Tools multiply labor rather than replace the need for it. Blockchain technology is just a high-tech ledger. And cryptocurrency is an alternative to government money systems but not a panacea.
Yup. The labor is done by the bots. And those govt money systems are at a reset. You know the debt is unsustainable. It's ponzi finance on steroids.
Bots can't do everything, and AI suffers from GIGO just like an old DOS machine. They still can't replace labor. All they do is free up labor for new ventures.
If government were not siphoning wealth to cronies and destroying wealth through wars, far less labor would be needed to achieve a decent standard of living, and the multiplying effect of technology would most benefit the poorest. I do not deny that.
I agree with your position on Government. And bots can't do everything yet. But we are getting very close to the time when automation/bots will overtake a great deal of jobs. I think it is healthy to have the discussion now as opposed to having complete chaos due to massive job loss.
Automation has yet to create systemic unemployment. Aside from short-term adjustments in the labor force allocation, it does not reduce employment at all. Umemployment problems are political, not economic or technological.
The future looks bright. I can imagine universal basic income happening one day.
We already have universal income, its call do something productive and you will get paid for it. Anything other than that is call welfare. wake up people, no one should be getting something for nothing.
True. The value rule doesn't make sense if we get something for nothing.
I could too. However, I feel like we are still a long ways off before it could become a reality. I fear that it may take some kind of global financial catastrophe before it could be implemented...
That's true. Maybe in a few hundred years we'll have universal basic income? I don't know. I know one thing, it'll happen, sooner or later
in exchange for?
Being born :) It is pretty stressful... you know :)
Another (((elitist))) pushing for greater government centralization. Meanwhile the fall of Rome is happening again... Steemit is the future, not (((Cuckerburg))) wanting to play puppeteer.