Slashdot Mirror
Finland's Universal Basic Income Called 'Useless' By Trade Union Economist (bloomberg.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg:
Finland's basic income experiment is unworkable, uneconomical and ultimately useless. Plus, it will only encourage some people to work less. That's not the view of a hard core Thatcherite, but of the country's biggest trade union. The labor group says the results of the two-year pilot program will fail to sway its opposition to a welfare-policy idea that's gaining traction among those looking for an alternative in the post-industrial age. "We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction," said Ilkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions, which has nearly one million members.
Since January, a group of unemployed Finns aged between 25 and 58 have been receiving a stipend of 560 euros ($600) per month. The amount isn't means-tested and is paid regardless of whether the recipient finds a job, starts a business or returns to school... Advocates say it eliminates poverty traps and redistributes income while empowering the individual and reducing paperwork... While limited in scope (it's conditional on the beneficiary having received some form of unemployment support in November 2016) and size (it's based on a randomly-selected sample of 2,000 jobless people), the Finnish trial may help answer questions like: "Does it work"? "Is it worth it"? And the most fundamental of all: "Does it incite laboriousness or laziness...?"
The trade union argues this UBI program would cost 5% of Finland's entire gross domestic product, making it "impossibly expensive."
Since January, a group of unemployed Finns aged between 25 and 58 have been receiving a stipend of 560 euros ($600) per month. The amount isn't means-tested and is paid regardless of whether the recipient finds a job, starts a business or returns to school... Advocates say it eliminates poverty traps and redistributes income while empowering the individual and reducing paperwork... While limited in scope (it's conditional on the beneficiary having received some form of unemployment support in November 2016) and size (it's based on a randomly-selected sample of 2,000 jobless people), the Finnish trial may help answer questions like: "Does it work"? "Is it worth it"? And the most fundamental of all: "Does it incite laboriousness or laziness...?"
The trade union argues this UBI program would cost 5% of Finland's entire gross domestic product, making it "impossibly expensive."
I live in Finland, so few comments about the SAK.
SAK is worker union that has jammed to 1970's.
There are only 2 things SAK is capable of doing:
1) Shouting "bigger pays of we will go to strike"
2) Shouting "you may not do any improvements for more flexible work contracts, or we will go to strike".
Absolutely no understanding that the world economy has changed since 1970's, and absolutely no understanding od thet fact that finland has been belonginf to EU for over 20 years should make things very different than things were in 1970s.
Also absolutely no understanding of the fact that Nokia was holding Finnish economy high and now when Nokia is no longer making mobile phones, Finnish economy is doing much worse and they cannot require so high wages anymore.
In Finland the worker unions are way too strong, they have some rights (or actually wrongs) worker unions in other countries do not have:
1) The worker unions also decide how much is paid to employers that are not members of the union.
2) You get tax rebates for belonging to worker union.
3) In order to get better unemployment benefits you HAVE to belong to some unemployment fund, even though only about 1% of the unemployment compensation money comes from the unemployment fund, 99% comes directly from the goverment. Most of these unemployment funds are ran by the worker unions. (fortunately there is also one private on, "YTK", "common unemployment fund", but many people do not know it exists)
How other could they see "it may encourage some people to work less" as a problem, when that is precisely the intent? The problem tackled by an UBI is primarily the scarcity of work, nothing else.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You seem to somehow have missed that most jobs will go away and not be replaced with others. Hence your statements make no sense. Nobody is really advocating for an UBI if enough jobs stay available and need to be done.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Because its simple maths.
There are not enough troops and police etc for them to defend everything that they would like to protect.
While one force is out putting down one group of civilians,another group of civilians is burning their fuel supplies,garages,bases etc etc.
Troops and police have families,they will also come under attack,so who is going to protect all the vips and infrastructure that these forces need to put down an uprising if more than 30/40% of the population decide to fight back ?
No country in the northern hemisphere has enough troops and police to take on a large percentage of its own population..
there is no overpopulation problem.
there is a logistics problem, the moving of basic needs, goods, and services from person to person.
there is a difference between the two.
there is plenty of food even at current production levels. the problem is getting what we have where its needed; since we rely primarily on a free market system, and the world poverty stricken arent much of a viable market...they get to suffer the consequences of a market failure. meanwhile much of our own excess goes to waste.
there is plenty of space for people to live with room left over.
https://persquaremile.com/wp-c...
the rest is quality of life: electricity, medicine, education. each of which is solvable.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Check your math. In 2013 there whre 242 million adults in the USA.
You don't pay UBI to children.