
Mark Zuckerberg doubles down on universal basic income after a trip to Alaska - doener
http://www.businessinsider.de/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income-alaska-2017-7?r=US&IR=T
======
ryanx435
It's pretty obvious that Zuckerberg is trying to grow his public image in the
national psyche to prepare for some kind of political run in the near future.

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

~~~
boobsbr
After his message exchange published by Business Insider in 2010
([http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-
ims...](http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-
help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5)), I think people have a hard time
taking anything he says seriously.

Just print and distribute that article to ruin any campaign of his.

~~~
fwn
This must surely alienate potential supporters. I can not imagine someone
getting to be US president with such shameful conversations being on the
public record.

------
mvid
I'm curious, isn't UBI basically untenable without single payer healthcare?
Assuming he will be running for president, doesn't that mean he will be
essentially a socialist candidate?

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Socialism is a spectrum. We have a socialized public transportation
infrastructure, socialized power industries, socialized water and sewage
industries, and a lot more, yet most people don't complain about that. UBI
doesn't designate how peoples' income is used, it merely provides a baseline
income to facilitate survival at least.

~~~
ryanx435
Are you really making the argument that government provided services are
socialism lite?

So I guess the Romans were socialists then with their aquaducts.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Yes, really, they are. And I'm not sure why this stuff is so surprising: one
of the strong facets of scandinavian-style socialism is the government
services and safety net. Single payer healthcare is often villified as
"socialized health care".

I'm pretty sure UBI and healthcare fit into the spectrum.

------
io-io2
So, who is exactly going to pay for all of this? How is government going to
collect funds in order to dole it out to everyone? Income tax?

Mark Zuckerberg only makes $1 in income from Facebook.

* [http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-only-makes-1-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-only-makes-1-a-year-2015-6)

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.cnn.com/2013/04/09/opinion/mccaffery-zuckerberg-taxes/index.html)

* [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax.html?mcubz=0)

It appears that the rest of us will be carrying the burden of UBI if it ever
goes through.

------
mychael
A thought experiment:

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?

~~~
thescriptkiddie
Quit the call center job and enroll full-time at the local community college?

~~~
digitalzombie
Seriously, call center job is a dead end job.

If you had the opportunity to go to college and get a trade or degree for a
better one this is a good move.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Honestly, I've been in jobs that are _much_ more dead-end. The one I worked at
provided a really good education benefit with fairly clear ways to get
promoted and transferred. I took advantage of those, and eventually got
outside the call center. This could be, however, because I worked at a phone
company instead of something like a small sales or collection agency.

~~~
sopooneo
I think the definition of a "dead end job" is one that does not provide clear
ways to get promoted.

------
Aron
UBI sounds a bit like minimum wage. Our normal tools of analysis will fail to
find much of a problem so long as it's only a small difference from how things
would have been without it, and a disaster otherwise.

------
joejerryronnie
UBI is such a crock of BS. It was genius marketing naming it "Universal Basic
Income" because it is anything but "universal". UBI is basically all of our
current social spending thrown in a huge pot, multiplied by some factor, and
doled out without any earmarks on how you can spend it (sure, maybe it is
written as some type of negative tax bracket but the end result is basically
the same). The more income you report, the less "universal basic income" you
receive, while your taxes will skyrocket to pay for all of the new UBI
spending. And the more people who decide to opt out of the workforce to pursue
their passion projects, the higher those taxes on the working middle class
will become. I guarantee Zuckerberg and his ilk will find loopholes to avoid
paying a proportional UBI tax to their net worth. Once UBI is really exposed
as the huge middle class tax it is, it will go down in political flames.

~~~
esarbe
> The more income you report, the less "universal basic income" you receive,
> [.

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.

~~~
Jabanga
>But this will more probably be paid for by taxing corporations and
shareholders instead of labour.

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.

~~~
esarbe
> The economy is less fragile with companies having these cash reserves.

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.

~~~
Jabanga
>Actually, no. Because the stability of the economy depends not on companies
but on the cycle of consumption and production.

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.

~~~
esarbe
> At the very least you should consider the possibility that your theories on
> economics are not right, [...]

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!

~~~
Jabanga
I'm glad you are keeping your mind open.

>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-...](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-in-
government-spending/amp/)

