Slashdot Mirror
Finland Will Give Some Unemployed Citizens a Basic Income (theoutline.com)
Next month, the Finnish government is going to try something completely different to help its unemployed citizens: give them free money. From a report on The Outline: On Jan. 9, 2017, a randomly selected group of 2,000 unemployed citizens in Finland will receive a check for 560 euros (about $585) with no strings attached. They'll continue to receive that check every month for two years straight, even if they find a job or continue to remain unemployed. This is part of an experiment to see what happens to people's participation in the labor market after they've been guaranteed a certain amount of money.
We have the same thing in the US - we call it the lottery. Winning still doesn't seem to correct bad choices.
You can only win the lottery if you buy a ticket. Buying lottery tickets is pretty stupid. So people that win lotteries tend to be stupid people that make poor choices. You would see much better outcomes if the lotteries winnings were assigned randomly.
Disclaimer: I only buy lottery tickets as part of the "office pool", which I view as a social activity, not an investment.
No, the few property management companies will collude to raise the rent to eat all the guaranteed income. The same thing happens when you raise the minimum wage: rental prices go up.
Basically what you do is modify (increase) the tax so in most cases, people get net more or less what they do now.
The problem is that the people that would get less (rich people, hard-working people, old people, disabled people) would fight this, and would likely be much better organized than people that would get more (poor people, lazy people, young people). At least in America, I don't see this happening.
I just want it. Stop dangling the carrot. Its a no brainer, give me $1000 a month or what it ever is, you can be almost certain that $1000 will flow directly back into the economy one way or another. The middle/working class its not like the 1%ers - we're not going to sit on all this money and remove it from the economy.
Rome used to give bread to the mob, because when they didn't, food riots would break out and then you'd see some real violence.
As it is, automation is going to mean a lot of jobs, even low skilled service jobs will disappear over the next half century. So you can buy into your Libertarian-fueled dystopia all you want, but back in the real world, where governments have to deal with real problems, UBI is going to happen, and you can't take your whole "the violence inherent in the system" crap and annoy your relatives with it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And finally the social "safety net" becomes a hammock
People dont just want handouts. They want to be able to prosper and live with dignity, do meaningful work, and contribute to their country.
I assure you there's a LOT of people who do want handouts and are quite happy to sit on the sofa all day drinking beer.
I say let them then.
There are people who complain about food assistance folks spending their money on lobster or cake or something along those lines. I say go for it... if that's what they feel they need to do, then who am I to say that they don't need that?
Another example is the person who might buy a piece of jewelry that they really want despite the fact that they have other obligations. That person may feel that they need that.
Do you want to take responsibility for their finances? No? Then shut up about it and mind your own business.
So you engage in something you consider stupid, and that makes you stupid by your own definition because of peer pressure.
Yes. As an introverted Aspie, I am not a good judge of proper social behavior, so when in doubt, I just follow the crowd. Putting $10 into the office lottery pool makes me "part of the group". But financially, it is a stupid investment.
if buying a cheap ticket, gives a small thrill to somebody that makes them happy
I know quite a few people (mostly relatives) that buy lottery tickets regularly as a solitary activity. They don't do it for the "cheap thrill". They do it because they think winning will solve their problems.
you should not qualify people as stupid like that.
Why not? Not everyone who buys a lottery ticket is stupid, but if you gave them all an IQ test, most of them would be dumber than average. Buying a lottery ticket is a poor financial decision, so it is unsurprising that winners continue to make poor decisions.
By that measure, everybody going to Vegas is stupid, and I'll be damned if you don't happen to have a good time once you go there.
I have been to Vegas, and while I enjoyed seeing Cirque du Soleil, I didn't find gambling appealing at all. Maybe it is an Aspie thing, but to me it seemed about as enjoyable as flushing $20 bills down the toilet.
Are you going to be the one fanning, feeding and blowing the guy in the hammock? Or are you going to be the guy in the hammock expecting someone else to service him?
As soon as you give people more money, the upper classes will obtain it eventually.
Yes they will, right after the poor have been fed, housed, and given a reasonably comfortable life with that money. Sounds like this kind of wealth redistribution is a win win the way you describe it.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications.
Other then committing perjury for two years without ever being caught, there was some questionable circumstances about how he got his contractor license.
The former is run of the mill corruption, it's not cronyism. And the latter doesn't sound like it either, even assuming the contractor's license covered a legitimate societal need rather than just being another government feed tube.
Ironically, he did that because he couldn't find a doctor to certify that he was disabled in the knees after being an auto body specialist for 30 years.
Still not cronyism.
But the employer, church, coven, etc that chooses to do this is doing it with money that was voluntarily given to them. When government does it they're using money that was taken by law. That's the key difference.
The middle/working class its not like the 1%ers - we're not going to sit on all this money and remove it from the economy.
The "one percenters" don't either. "Money hoarding" is one of the top indicators on Slashdot and in the real world for economic ignorance.
As to basic income for middle/working class. You already work for a living and thus, you've already figured out how to get that money and how to send it forth into the economy again.
However, the government doing these things is looked down upon.
Here is a clue: The government is spending someone else's money.
If you have an apple tree in your yard, and you pick the fruit and give it to the poor, people will think you are generous.
If your neighbor has an apple tree, and you pick the fruit and give it to the poor, few people will think you are generous.
Think of it as immunization against hoarding instincts by the mega-rich. They are acting irrationally, hiding so much money that their great-grandchildren probably couldn't even sanely spend it all, in tax havens and such. That hoarding behavior destroys the velocity of money, which stifles the economy as well as causing poverty and crime. Also, as stated by others, UBI is actually really simple in administration.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I feel like you're not following ceteris paribus here.
The hypothetical landlord already owns and maintains that property in the current environment - so is making enough profit or whatever to continue being a landlord.
What you're arguing seems to be that in an unstable economy, if a landlord currently rents out property at $250 a month, and a shock suddenly occurs, then he will go bankrupt because tenants can't pay that. But UBI stabilizes that, so an economic shock doesn't remove the tenants' ability to pay rent.
I would say that in general that is true, but that doesn't have anything to do with price levels - why would a landlord reduce prices if he can get a higher guaranteed utilization at the same price unless he is competing with other landlords? Also consider that $300 a month at the same 90% utilization (supported by the more stable UBI) is more revenue than $250 a month at 100% utilization - the landlord most certainly would try to maximize profit and raise rents.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
With jobs becoming more scarce
Jobs are not becoming more scarce. The American economy is generating about 180,000 additional new jobs per month, which is significantly greater than population growth.
Given the dole or turning every city into mini-Aleppos...
Perhaps those are not the only two alternatives. The violence in Aleppo was not caused by unemployment.
Really it's a shame, with or without a UBI, that legislators have not managed to take these perverse incentives out of the system. Basically benefits should fade off rather than just disappear at some threshold... the overriding rule should be "if you work, you do better." So far in the U.S. we have Republicans who hate giving anyone money for anything that doesn't involve either kickbacks or indoctrination, and Democrats who are too afraid to open the book on this business without an airtight super majority (excluding potentially backstabbing blue dogs) which they never seem to get.
Well, now that the R's have the majority, probably the entire social safety net will get gutted, so at least when the pendulum swings back, D's will have some brownfield to build on.
Someone had to do it.
The ironic thing is that this is basic investing, that businesses should be glad to be doing. I don't get why this is not done more often.
To a company, that's not investing. It's kickstarter for people... free money with no ownership stake in the outcome. It puts the company at a big disadvantage to competitors--who aren't required to participate in the investment--if the company spends its profits on people who could just go work for a competitor or not work at all.
To a nation, it's more of an investment since there's a better chance that the people will stay in the country and keep their contributions within its borders.
(I assume you are not talking about company-paid education with strings attached, since that already exists and is used in many industries.)
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
swiss bank account. cayman islands bank account. bahamas bank account. etc etc.
it's almost like you didn't even try to think of an appropriate answer before spouting off flippant nonsense.
Taxation is the only way any civilization can function. Taxation has been a feature of civilization since the beginning of civilization. Some of the earliest examples of proto-writing were basically ledgers used by early civilizations to track taxes.
Get over it. You live in the society, you get to pay a share for that society's function. Your liberty stems from the right to elect representatives to the legislative assemblies that enact taxation legislation. Your liberty does not extend to you not having a moral and lawful duty to pay taxes. Fuck off with your sociopathic selfish "I'm being robbed" crap.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The US has already been giving a subset of citizens BI for years - and the result is horrific. American Indians receive basic income, free health care, free housing, and free education if they choose it - the result is the most impoverished areas in the United States.
Actually it will increase the utility of getting a job.
If Finland is anything like the Netherlands, then you would find that minimum income is hardly more the wellfare, working 40 hours week for a few percent increase is not very appealing.
Having a job and keeping your basic income would mean you see an immediate benefit.
When minimum income is going to be lowered to offset basic income, it is a better psychological incentive to see 'added' money.