Slashdot Mirror
Finland Prepares Their First Tests Of A Universal Basic Income (futurism.com)
Finland is getting ready to launch their first pilot program with a Universal Basic Income -- one of several countries which are now testing the concept. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Futurism.com:
Finland is about to launch an experiment in which a randomly selected group of 2,000-3,000 citizens already on unemployment benefits will begin to receive a monthly basic income of 560 euros (approximately $600). That basic income will replace their existing benefits. The amount is the same as the current guaranteed minimum level of Finnish social security support. The pilot study, running for two years in 2017-2018, aims to assess whether basic income can help reduce poverty, social exclusion, and bureaucracy, while increasing the employment rate.
In January a basic income program will also begin testing in the Netherlands, according to the article, which points out that Y Combinator has also launched a test program in Oakland, California. And there's now also calls for a Universal Basic Income in India, where one social worker argues it's "sound social policy," while pointing out that it's already being implemented in other countries. "In Brazil, it targets the poor and has been a way out of poverty; in Iran, it has substituted for subsidies and citizens receive about $500 a year..."
In January a basic income program will also begin testing in the Netherlands, according to the article, which points out that Y Combinator has also launched a test program in Oakland, California. And there's now also calls for a Universal Basic Income in India, where one social worker argues it's "sound social policy," while pointing out that it's already being implemented in other countries. "In Brazil, it targets the poor and has been a way out of poverty; in Iran, it has substituted for subsidies and citizens receive about $500 a year..."
You are an over-entitled fool. Give people money and they spend it on what they need. That does mean food and housing, and while the long-term poor who have lived without longer than with may not have guidance to do that at first once the reality of a steady support sinks in and guidance is provided (it already is available at employment centers, which most of that group already attend often).
You need a mobile with data plan to be in job search now. Recruiters don't wait, and neither do employers. The days of leaving messages are over. Guess what happens if/when you don't answer immediately and comply with every command/requirement? They move on the the next candidate.
Only if you ignore all the evidence that says that people actually use cash to improve their lives and not spend it substantially on drugs or alcohol.
You need a mobile with data plan to be in job search now.
You don't need a data plan. Voice and text are enough. You can get that with a $25 pre-paid phone from Walmart, or $5 if you buy it used. If you need to browse the web, go to the library. It is free. Or you can buy a reasonable used laptop at Goodwill for $25, and use the free Wifi at McDonalds.
These people have no money yet they walk around with expensive cellphones..
That is not a problem limited to "the poor". 47% of Americans cannot come up with $400 to meet an unexpected expense.
I know many people like that. Some of my well paid co-workers will tell me they have to "wait until payday" for a purchase or even to go out to lunch. My sister, who makes $80k and owns a house, occasionally needs to borrow money from me for some minor expense, like fixing a flat tire on her car, because she has already spent her paycheck. She has zero savings, and no financial cushion whatsoever, yet she just got back from a Mediterranean cruise.
I couldn't live like that. The stress would drive me nuts. When I was 18, and got my first paycheck, I invested half of it in an index fund, and my savings have increased monotonically since then, even through college (I worked part time and had a military scholarship).
In case of Finland, social security benefit requires a bunch of paperwork done every few months in-person at the social security bureau or w/e. Those are run by municipalities/cities, not the state, and are pretty inconsistent and hard to deal with. The paperwork includes receipts of all of your bank accounts to see you aren't receiving money from anywhere else. It also gets revoked immediately if you start receiving money from elsewhere, and collected back retroactively if you make enough in a year (same applies to unemployment benefits).
Source: Am Finnish
Please, Honest days work for an honest days pay and you might have a point. But the fact is the leading employer in the united states in Walmart, 50 years ago it was General Motors. One job paid a living wage where everyone made a decent living and you didn't second guess that the degenerate on the corner was a lazy degenerate. Now, the top employer forces you to pull government subsidies to survive. I understand that some people have an iron will and can become a millionaire making $20,000 a year. but that is the execption, not the rule. Most studies have conculded that $74000/year is required to comfortably live in america, and still have money for savings and a vacation. The median household income is $50,000(ish) That is the problem. Our wages have hardly doubled since the 70's yet the cost of living has almost quintupled.
Base income to increase employment rate? How is that supposed to happen?
(Caveats: I'm a Finn but my knowledge on this is based on hearsay, but in some cases from persons in the situation of being unemployed or on disability pension. But regardless of it maybe not being 100% accurate, this is how most people believe the situation works, and consequently act in accordance with those beliefs.)
Because the Finnish current setup is that either you're 100% unemployed and get unemployment benefits, or you're not. As soon as you accept a job, regardless of its duration and the wages it'll bring you, you're no longer unemployed and no longer eligible for benefits. This means that if you accept a job that brings you less than your unemployment benefits, after taxes (which are very high in Finland) get factored in, you're financially screwing yourself over.
There's lots of smalltime (and admittedly mostly menial) work that could be done in Finland, and we've got plenty of unemployed people that could do them, but most of them just won't bring in enough that you'd be better off by working than just collecting your unemployment benefits. Or in some cases the hourly rate might be decent enough, but the work is of a transitory and brief nature, or won't offer enough hours per month to be worthwhile. The "a few hours a week, during peak periods, if we really need you" jobs also don't combine well due to their "we'll call you and then you better be available" nature as you obviously can't be in more than one place, when needed, at once.
Deciding to try to do something yourself (for instance, make small handmade souvenirs for tourists) means you become an "employer" (self-employing employer) in the eyes of the State, or at least an entrepreneur. Either way, you're no longer considered unemployed. There are other forms of support you can apply for and eventually get, I suppose, but in the meantime you're out of unemployment benefits, regardless of if you make enough to make a living or not.
Bureaucracy Hell also makes sure that once you've taken a job, even if it's just for a week or two, you need to start over the unemployment registration process from scratch once the job ends. The process isn't effortless for the person applying for the benefits, and in any case takes several weeks (or months?) before you see any money.
So yes, that's one of the benefits that we're hoping for: That people that currently have a financial incentive for not working, actually start working; even if the additional benefits that it'll bring aren't that significant, at least they won't be financially punished for working. It will also in some cases allow them to re-integrate into society as opposed to sitting alone at home wallowing in their own situation, and prevent them from becoming more and more unemployable due to being unemployed for longer and longer periods, while the world moves on around them.
Are you speaking in the royal "we"?
And I didn't just "live" there, I grew up in Europe and spent half my life there. I'm sharing my observation as an emigrant from Europe.
The HPI concocts a measure out of a poll about happiness, life expectancy, inequality of outcomes and ecological footprint and then calls that "happiness". The index is weighted to give progressively higher scores to nations with lower ecological footprints. Citing such an obviously politically motivated measure that has little to do with happiness as an objective measure of "happiness" means that you're either a gullible fool or are trying to manipulate people.
You can't really measure happiness by asking people whether they are happy; the responses are highly culturally dependent. You can measure happiness indirectly through whether people are optimistic about their personal future, and where they choose to migrate to and from. On such measures, Americans generally score better than Europeans.