CDZ Zuckerberg Calls for a Universal Basic Income

[ScienceRocks]

He is 100% right.

There should also be a federal mandate to have a union. Nothing else will be enough to raise incomes.

 

[Picaro]

He is 100% right.

There should also be a federal mandate to have a union. Nothing else will be enough to raise incomes.

Unions are only as efficient and desirable as their membership is. A union where most members are inept tards isn't quite as damaging as a corporate leadership made up of the same is, but it's close; true, the corporate membership is subsidized and suffer far less for their stupid decisions, and in fact in many cases will be rewarded for them, and as result if one group is going to be protected from the consequences of their actions there is no reason not to protect the others from stupid management decisions.

 

[mudwhistle]

He is 100% right.

There should also be a federal mandate to have a union. Nothing else will be enough to raise incomes.

If you want to raise incomes lower tax rates and stop bringing illegals and refugees here which drives wages down. Also decrease government regulations so that we can create cheap energy. Repeal Obamacare to help lower health care expenses.

 

[jasonnfree]

I remember back in the early '70s there was talk about a 35 hour work week due to the increase in work productivity in the USA. Kurt Vonnegut in the '50s wrote "Player Piano", anticipating what would happen to America after robots did more and more of the work. In his novel, the workers were 'retired' and got a stipend to live on. National income basically. None of this has happened yet with robots taking over more and more. But the robots are back with hi tech computers. Anyway, here's a utube video I was watching last night on the subject of guaranteed national income.

basic income and other ways to fix capitalism - Bing video

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This idea is gaining steam from people familiar with the coming Robotics Revolution.

For the sake of social stability we need to implement a UBI.

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his speech. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."


Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don't have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.​

Excellent idea. Zuck can send me a check anytime he'd like.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He is 100% right.

There should also be a federal mandate to have a union. Nothing else will be enough to raise incomes.

There should also be a federal mandate to have a union.

Force people to join a union? Fuck you!

We need to outlaw government employee unions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Putin reveals fears that robots will one day 'eat us' | Daily Mail Online

 

[danielpalos]

Oh wah wah wah cry us all a river over your fantasy economics and BS, all of which is nonsense. You wouldn't be around today if it weren't for what dumbass right wingers like to keep calling 'socialist policies', so go find some illiterates to peddle those ridiculous propaganda 'talking points' to.

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics.

Poverty in the US, is officially defined. Only poor is relative.

 

[danielpalos]

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

A book on the morals of "children of a God", called a Bible?

Put everyone on an income of 52,000 dollars. You must use all of the income during the year.
No one is to have a net worth of more than 52,000 dollars, paid weekly...not politicians, not Mark Zuckerberg, not Elon Musk, not Harry Reid, not Barrack Obama.
No one is to work. You just collect your 1,000 dollars a week and if it is gone before the next paycheck, you do without. No credit cards, no credit, no "I'll pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today".
No lawyer can have a personal wealth worth more than 52,000 dollars.

No business is to hold more than 52,000 dollars in profit. Anything above and beyond is to be forfeited to the government for the upkeep of the citizens. Business will have to replace equipment from the 52,000 per year. They will also have to pay for any product upgrade or research out of those monies.

No company can be sued. They have the right to the same income as the individual.
No doctor can be sued for malpractice. He won't' have the money for it and you cannot touch his income.

Everyone gets the same income. What is fairer than that?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Hmmm --- where have I heard that before?

A book on the morals of "children of a God", called a Bible?

Sorry --- you're letting your ignorance show.

Good luck with trying to prove THAT point!

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about politics or morals.

Acts 11:29.

 

[Mac1958]

Those who are ignoring the increasing wealth division in this country do so at their own peril.

I understand and appreciate the whole individual liberty and personal responsibility thing, but people are people, and they will only take so much.

Just sayin'.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Those who ignoring the increasing wealth division in this country do so at their own peril.

I understand and appreciate the whole individual liberty and personal responsibility thing, but people are people, and they will only take so much.

Just sayin'.
.

Just remember, we have a better Constitution than Venezuela.

 

[Picaro]

Those who ignoring the increasing wealth division in this country do so at their own peril.

I understand and appreciate the whole individual liberty and personal responsibility thing, but people are people, and they will only take so much.

Just sayin'.
.

But a majority of them are happy fans of mindless self-indulgence as well, and like Jay Gould once said:" I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." Democrats just run ads on Craig's List and violence and bodies start appearing in days.

 

[danielpalos]

Those who ignoring the increasing wealth division in this country do so at their own peril.

I understand and appreciate the whole individual liberty and personal responsibility thing, but people are people, and they will only take so much.

Just sayin'.
.

But a majority of them are happy fans of mindless self-indulgence as well, and like Jay Gould once said:" I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." Democrats just run ads on Craig's List and violence and bodies start appearing in days.

Democrats don't have their own their doctrine, they rely on the federal doctrine. Promoting the general welfare, is the federal doctrine.

 

[Spare_change]

None are so blind as those who will not see; none are so deaf as those who will not listen; none are so dumb as those who will not learn.

I really, really --and I mean, REALLY - appreciate the intelligence and forethought you put into your response!

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics.

Poverty in the US, is officially defined. Only poor is relative.

So "poverty level in the US" is the same as "poverty level in Nigeria"?

Really? I think you skipped one too many classes in macroeconomics ... or listened to the wrong left-wing professor.

 

[danielpalos]

Settle down; nobody's impressed with your Emily Letella Moments here.

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics.

Poverty in the US, is officially defined. Only poor is relative.

So "poverty level in the US" is the same as "poverty level in Nigeria"?

Really? I think you skipped one too many classes in macroeconomics ... or listened to the wrong left-wing professor.

So what; they embody different concepts. Poverty is officially defined; Only poor is relative.

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

 

[Spare_change]

That's the best you can do? Why did I assume you actually wanted to discuss the issue?

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics.

Poverty in the US, is officially defined. Only poor is relative.

So "poverty level in the US" is the same as "poverty level in Nigeria"?

Really? I think you skipped one too many classes in macroeconomics ... or listened to the wrong left-wing professor.

So what; they embody different concepts. Poverty is officially defined; Only poor is relative.

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Slept thru that class?

Poverty is "defined" as "...the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions"

Poor is "defined" as " ... lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society." (By the way, it is also defined as "living in a state of poverty", but we won't mention that, will we?)

Both are comparative to a socially constructed level of wealth .... what you are inartfully trying to say is that "poverty" is an economic level defined by the government, while "poor" is an economic level defined by society.

Both are "relative" to a norm - thus, the ability for liberals to ignore the fact that the "poor" in the US enjoy a higher standard of living than about 90% of the rest of the world. (If your annual income is $10K, you are richer than 84% of everybody else in the world).

Further, they can ignore the fact that "living in poverty" in the US means you have a car, a cell phone, a place to live, plenty to eat, free healthcare, and a big TV.

Now, back to your nonsensical proposal - if you raise the level of income for everybody, those who were at the bottom of the scale remain there - they simply have more STUFF to be poor with. It simply doesn't work ... except in the deluded minds of liberals who have never had to work for a living.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Since "poverty" is a relative term, it is impossible to "solve simple poverty".

You are disconnected from reality.

This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics.

Poverty in the US, is officially defined. Only poor is relative.

So "poverty level in the US" is the same as "poverty level in Nigeria"?

Really? I think you skipped one too many classes in macroeconomics ... or listened to the wrong left-wing professor.

So what; they embody different concepts. Poverty is officially defined; Only poor is relative.

Why do you object to solving simple poverty under Any form of Capitalism, but especially in our Republic, with our federal Constitution?

Slept thru that class?

Poverty is "defined" as "...the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions"

Poor is "defined" as " ... lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society." (By the way, it is also defined as "living in a state of poverty", but we won't mention that, will we?)

Both are comparative to a socially constructed level of wealth .... what you are inartfully trying to say is that "poverty" is an economic level defined by the government, while "poor" is an economic level defined by society.

Both are "relative" to a norm - thus, the ability for liberals to ignore the fact that the "poor" in the US enjoy a higher standard of living than about 90% of the rest of the world. (If your annual income is $10K, you are richer than 84% of everybody else in the world).

Further, they can ignore the fact that "living in poverty" in the US means you have a car, a cell phone, a place to live, plenty to eat, free healthcare, and a big TV.

Now, back to your nonsensical proposal - if you raise the level of income for everybody, those who were at the bottom of the scale remain there - they simply have more STUFF to be poor with. It simply doesn't work ... except in the deluded minds of liberals who have never had to work for a living.

Living in Poverty is an excuse for being poor; simply being poor means lousy capital management skills.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the idea has been around for a long time

it is cheaper to give every American a basic income like 13 grand

then to continue on the path we currently do with welfare

 

[danielpalos]

the idea has been around for a long time

it is cheaper to give every American a basic income like 13 grand

then to continue on the path we currently do with welfare

This much is clear: The various reforms resulted in fewer low-income families getting cash assistance. That was the point, after all. In 1996, 68 out of every 100 low-income families received cash assistance nationwide; but by 2014, that fell to 23 out of every 100 such families.--https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-dont-go-directly-to-poor-people-anymore/

We should end the funny money of EBT for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in out at-will employment States.

There is a reason for a sluggish, illiquid economy.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the idea has been around for a long time

it is cheaper to give every American a basic income like 13 grand

then to continue on the path we currently do with welfare

This much is clear: The various reforms resulted in fewer low-income families getting cash assistance. That was the point, after all. In 1996, 68 out of every 100 low-income families received cash assistance nationwide; but by 2014, that fell to 23 out of every 100 such families.--https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-welfare-dollars-dont-go-directly-to-poor-people-anymore/

We should end the funny money of EBT for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in out at-will employment States.

There is a reason for a sluggish, illiquid economy.

it would free up a lot of money and potential

however those greatly into using the system

would not go for it they stand to lose 17 grand or more in benefits