Why Facebook should pay everyone a basic income | Hacker News Reader

Why Facebook should pay everyone a basic income

ft.com

27 pointstriplesec23 comments

> Why Facebook should pay us a basic income

Perhaps so we can afford the $10 subscription fee to find out why Facebook should pay everyone a basic income.

i put it into instapaper and was actually able to read it.

This is kinda ridiculous. What about those of us who don't use Facebook? Should they pay us, too? This has to be some kind of satire.

It kind of is. It alludes to Zuckerberg earlier statements in favor of basic income. The author basically replies that he should set an example. "Mr. Zuckerberg has said his purpose has been to make an impact rather than build a company" - so that now the opportunity presents itself to live up to his words.

Non-paywalled link: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/why-facebook-should-pay-us-a...

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency is better than UBI

I'm interested in your reasoning here: how does local currency solve the problems that UBI is meant to, but better?

If Facebook paid people in exchange for the content they produce, it's not UBI, it's normal income. UBI happens when you get paid for nothing. Looking the example from Alaska, though, it makes sense - it encourages people to move to a place they might not consider otherwise. Perhaps UBI would be a good idea if offered by cities that are facing issues with declining population, as an incentive for attracting more people.

UBI is in the focus for a lot more than attracting people to an area - it's a solution to a future (present?) where we don't need everyone to work.

The reality is when all the menial jobs are automated, you have to reclassify anyone not capable of non menial jobs as disabled, create busywork jobs that don't give value / actively don't automate things just to create jobs, or provide UBI.

Maybe the first option combined with better education would work, but UBI seems like the best option. It should also cut costs around welfare and, morally, I think it is right - everyone should be able to live, regardless of ability.

I think the idea of UBI as incentive is dangerous because it leaves a lot of potential for rug pulling when it sees success.

I don't think we'll reach this point of all jobs being automated, where UBI becomes an absolute necessity, mostly because human desires are unlimited, but that's beyond the point I'm making here.

I'm curious about why you think UBI as incentive would be dangerous, especially in the scenario I described. Doesn't this already work in Alaska? What kind of rug pulling you expect it might happen?

Human desire might be, but human ability isn't. If we don't raise the level of education everyone can get, and to a lesser extent even if we do, some people just will not be able to do any of the jobs that aren't automated - that's already true today. As I said before - our current solution, call them disabled and provide for them specifically, would have to be expanded, or UBI would solve the problem universally.

As to it being an incentive - if you provide a UBI as an incentive, you will presumably get people moving there to receive that UBI. When enough people have moved to the place and the incentive is stopped, it could easily cause huge issues as those people who moved will be relying on it.

It's probably only an issue if the UBI is high enough.

Nah. UBI is government's duty.

What companies like Facebook should start doing is to stop avoiding taxes. That is the best way if they really want to help.

I like the idea of worker co-ops.. but if what if we had..worker/consumer co-ops where not only did the worker receive ownership in the company, and payouts as a result--but the more you as a consumer used/supported a product, you ALSO receive payouts/stock in a company..

Not really. Yeah even if we would assume responsible governments and effective governance what makes you think that the money collected from taxes would not go to where it should not ?

If you assume "responsible governments and effective governance", then yes, money collected from taxes would go where it does the most for the overall well-being. But I'm aware of how governments are hijacked by private corporations that lobby and bribe politicians so they work to maximize those private profits in detriment of the public interest.

We're not paying for half the stuff we're getting right now! We may as well throw universal health care and education on top of the heap. We're not fully funding Social Security or Medicare, so why not NOT pay for UBI too! Until the federal government (and the states, for that matter) start passing balanced budgets, any discussion about being able to "afford" other entitlements is a farce.

Facebook makes slightly more than a dollar per active facebook user (in profits). So if they did payout to active users, it would be just a couple (or tens) of dollars. Hardly an "income".

Reasoning: Facebook's profits divided by active users.

considering how hard Zuck is pushing for this, then sure, let him put his money where his mouth is... oh, you want other people to pay for your lefty ideas? I see.

UBI isn't a lefty idea at all actually. It's probably most popular with right-leaning Libertarians.

It's wealth redistribution, so I don't see how it fits with libertarian ideals in any way.

there's a far greater diversity of Libertarian thought than you seem to be assuming, and ultra laissez-faire capitalist ideology is a very very narrow slice of it that I think is a position discussed loudly by undergrads and dismissed quietly by everyone else.

The reason this form of wealth distribution is favored by many Libertarians is that it far more free of encumbrances and complexities than any other form of redistribution you might think of. It's not means-tested, everyone gets it, so that avoids the moral hazard of treating the wealthy differently than the poor. It's not restricted in what you can do with the money, so that avoids the moral hazard of picking winners and losers in the marketplace by government fiat. It's not linked to unenforceable nanny state monitoring of people's behavior, so that avoids the moral hazard of intrusive bureaucrats monitoring your spending habits.

It is a policy that can aim to provide significant humanitarian improvements in people's lives while avoiding many of traditional pitfalls of government policies intended to provide humanitarian relief.

> than any other form of redistribution you might think of.

and why do we need to do redistribution of any sort? I think that's what Libertarians are opposed to.

actually that wouldn't be a bad idea considering they get $ worth of money from our data. That way people join the service too and they can mine more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com