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..."
Yeah, we all know that neighbor who's sister's daughter's friend knows that One Poor Person who blows all their cash buying a $600 cellphone every other week. They're all like "well I could pay for rent; or I could get a rose gold iPhone to replace my regular gold iPhone. I sure wanna get evicted." That definitely happens, like, all the time.
Post failed at the unnecessary failed and self-interested ideology. There is no connection between your "points" in reality. Government is the only force representing the interests of all people and is the only force to represent any interest against those of the wealthy and powerful. Dismantling ('defunding', etc.) official government leads to default government by the interests of the wealthy, which is normally called for what it is: slavery and feudalism.
So you are of the opinion that the poor are generally just as irresponsible in their spending as the wealthy, the only difference being how much they start with?
"That does mean food and housing"
And what they need does include entertainment, social connection and interaction, and VARIETY of foods. This may not be required to produce the physical meat of the body but it is a requirement for proper mental function.
There needs to be sufficient regulation to prevent free-marketeering from trying to milk the free money supply.
More generally, it is necessary that the universal basic income is sufficient not to force those on it into defacto poverty.
The two are related in the sense that, with an unregulated free market, if you pump money in but no more material resources, more money is chasing those same resources, pushing prices up.
In general, though, removing the anxiety about putting a roof over your head and food on the table should be considered a necessity if you want to get the best out of your workforce in a modern technologically driven world: the more you brain has to worry about the basics, the less brain there is left to think about productive things.
John_Chalisque
You mean your biased, opportunity based, convenience samples collected by untrained observations with unchecked internal bias on interpretations? Yeah, the research with carefully planned survey analysis is better.
To give you flip side on this, if you have been denying yourself for years it becomes very hard to work up enough enough willpower to abstain when you get a windfall. I have this problem but to a lesser degree (I would have bought myself a pizza, and the stupid overpriced dessert). Perhaps having a feeling of security regularly would make it so it wouldn't go to his head? Also a basic income is very different from what I am assuming is a lump sum of money?
The key is in the word "universal". These are just trials, but the idea is you to pay every man woman and child no matter their wealth or employment status. Considering very little of current welfare budgets actually reach the people who need it - ironically enough it's all wasted on a massive bureaucracy designed to keep people from accessing welfare - many economists believe it could reduce government expenditure while boosting the economy.
We are also looking at a world where automation replaces more and more jobs. If we don't come up with something soon angry mobs will run riot and capitalists are going to be swinging by their necks. Of course, instead of addressing inequality we could always start to militarise the police and reduce basic freedo... oh wait.
True. Those trust fund brats really sweat.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So someone works their whole life, and because they're smarter than you, or more frugal, or more disciplined, you'd prefer a system where the money they've saved is simply taken away from them until they're back down to having only what you have, so you won't hate them any more. That about sum it up? Or are you of the naive position that once you only take things away from "wealthy" people, that the same framework would never be used against people who are simply better off in any way than someone else?
Leave the false imagery aside and try to form a coherent position first. Your argument relies on assumptions and assumptions on assumptions that the poor in society (any of them) are there due to some moral or character flaw which could have been prevented with a bit of ingenuity and work. That is false, proven so by thousands of years of human history if you ever care to study it. The poor are there because of inefficiency in knowledge and physical transfers (both types have costs which in most cases must be paid prior to any service). The poor are poor not because of lack of Puritan work philosophy but because they lacked the advantages that allowed others to avoid most obstacles. Bad health from lack of care in childhood, poor food in childhood, etc. Bad education because of the above, or because of under-funded education systems, or simply being prevented from attending school by war, civil or international, famine, general unrest, etc. Apparently, your environment failed to equip you with empathy or intelligence enough to understand that on your own.
Each winter, we have several homeless freeze to death.
You may want to shut up.
Nobody says that it never happens. But it does not happen enough for lost money to outweigh the amount of money you need to spend on checking that it does not happen. Your anecdotes do not help and you are suggesting that what you said in your anecdotal evidence is a problem, no matter how much you try to deny it. You are using exactly the same arguments every opponent of UBI is using: "Even one fraudster would be too much, we must not let those people steal, that would be the end of the world!" UBI might have drawbacks, but not what you are suggesting. We give them the money. If they don't buy food, they will be hungry. Next month their primary need will be food, not shopping. So they will go eat. If they keep getting the money, eventually they will learn to balance their spending on their needs.
Another point is that once you have a bunch of guys getting money on a regular basis, there is opportunity for someone to help them out, as the unreliability of those guys and the uncertainty of them being able to get the income is lifted. Maybe all they want to do is sit around and play console games. Fine, if 4 of them get together, they might have enough money to get an apartment, big TV, xbox and play games all day. I don't mind. Good for them. At least I don't have to work with some stupid unmotivated punk at my workplace that will just slow me down. And at least they are not in the streets stealing. It is a win win win. In few years some of them maybe get bored and learn some useful skill, do something productive. Who knows. It is a small price to pay for the other benefits.
For example in US mothers often go back to work as early as 2 weeks after giving birth. Can you imagine that? I cannot. How much better would those kids do in life if they could stay home with them on basic income for a year or two? Can you imagine how much smarter those kids will be in 20 years? How many problems that can lift in just one generation? What about the fathers? Not finding a job is no longer a reason to join gang, sell drugs, go to jail. So maybe you got almost no money and live on basic income, but you got now two people raising that kid.
What about veterans? What about disabled people? What about mentally sick? There will always be some punk like you arguing with that one kid that bought xbox. FFS. I've had enough of you guys.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
angry mobs will run riot and capitalists are going to be swinging by their neck
As a supporter of UBI, I find it to be very compatible with free market ideals. While it provides a social relief program, it also removes the minimum wage regulation that screws up the free market forces in unskilled labor markets. I prefer that when society wants a program, it uses societal programs (government and taxation) to provide the program; forcing employers of unskilled workers to carry that burden is unfair and counterproductive.
Also... I would agree that crony capitalism is a bad thing, but please refrain from using such a broad brush. Free market capitalism, combined with social programs funded directly by the government and sensible regulations, is proven time and time again to bring about better societies.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.