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."
If people become indifferent to unemployment, trade unions have no reason to exist anymore.
Here's the thing - basic income CAN theoretically not work out... but some an economist with a stake or two against it working is NOT evidence that this version of it hasn't panned out. Especially when it's posted on fricken Bloomburg news!
That's what the experiment is for. Instead, it's to see if the money spend on THIS style of program is as effective as the several other programs it can replace, and whether that replacement will be practical. It's money that will be spent in any case! You need experimental comparison to judge the merit of the approach.
Again though - until RESULTS are in, hearing some talking head berate the idea of it as not to his liking isn't helpful.
It's like folks who dismiss needle exchange programs to reduce communicable disease, without actually bothering to look at the numbers, and what the studies actually account for.
Ryan Fenton
UBI is very different when the sum is enough to live or not.
If it is too low (and at 560 euro/month it is certainly too low to pay housing and food), then people still have to accept any job to live, and employer can pay less because decent living costs are already partially covered by UBI. In such a situation, UBI acts as a social support to employer without taking any power from them.
OTOH, with a UBI high enough to cover basic needs, things change a lot. Employers need to convince people to enroll them instead of the other way around, while people can also choose to start businesses that have social benefit without being profitable.
Of course that consideration do not cover the huge question: how to find the money for high UBI? Some specialists consider a high UBI possible if all national labor costs are socialized: Instead of paying employees, employers contribute to a labor fund which in turn pays UBI to people. I have no idea if this is workable or not
How do we measure the economics of the situation?
That's a very good basic question to ask.
Too many times people get up on the soapbox of the world and give their opinion about this or that policy, and one can never figure out whether they are experts speaking from experience or just political hacks.
People giving an opinion in public is just noise, and people bolstering their opinion with rationalization and/or analogy is noise masquerading as signal.
We shouldn't give any credence to anyone who tries to sway our opinions about, well... anything, unless they can back it up with facts that are suggestive or studies that can be examined in detail.
I'm especially suspect of the "it will only encourage some people to work less" comment, as if that is a bad thing. It might be perfectly acceptable for some part of society to have to work less, or perhaps not to have to work at all. There's a parallel and opposite rationalization that holds that people will accomplish great things when given enough leisure.
Making that statement ("some people" is an obvious attempt at being divisive, as in "you know the type of people I mean") in the way that he made it is simple emotional manipulation. Also from the article are such gems as "We think it takes social policy in the wrong direction", meaning basically "I don't like it, in an unspecified and indeterminate way".
He's not claiming that it doesn't work, he's claiming that he doesn't like it (and neither should you).
The question is, however, define "work". Would you labor for someone else? Probably not. But you likely wouldn't sit on your butt all day doing nothing either. Maybe you join a club, start a band, discover an aptitude for art, start your own business.. who knows?
The inescapable fact, however, is that what you conceive of as "work", going to a building someone else owns and laboring for them, is going to decline as automation, AI and robots improve, so something has to be put in it's place that's better than "labor a robot won't do".
I haven't seen anyone come up with a good reason people wouldn't use basic income to work less and be lazy. I can tell you, if I had guaranteed income for life, I would probably not ever work again.
Here you go.
You have to realize that "work" may not be going out and doing a 9-to-5 job in the traditional sense. Newton made a bunch of his discoveries while on forced leave from Cambridge due to the plague, and there are many historical examples of well-to-do scientists and explorers and artists who made great discoveries because they had the leisure and means to do so.
Stephen King was dirt poor for much of his early life, but he still wrote because he loved writing. Imaging how much more he could have contributed to popular literature if he didn't have to take back-breaking jobs as a young man to make ends meet.
Not everyone will be Newton or King, but anyone who takes up a hobby or minor occupation and becomes really good at it might extend the frontiers of that area. All of this has the potential to enrich our society and further our scientific knowledge.
"If you do not have basic security you cannot be rational,"
Exactly.
Not only does SAK say that the system may reduce the labor force -- for instance by tempting mothers of small children or those close to retirement to take more time off -- but the union also suggests that making it easier to refuse unpleasant jobs may create inflationary bottlenecks.
We have automation so that we didn't have to perform unpleasant of dangerous jobs! Not enough workers? AUTOMATE IT! Can't automate it? Pay people what the job is actually worth!
This is how the future should work.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Here's the thing - basic income CAN theoretically not work out... but some an economist with a stake or two against it working is NOT evidence that this version of it hasn't panned out.
Business folk (the type that like exploiting cheap labor) are terrified they are going to lose their leverage on people so they are summarily declaring it a failure. It could have been the single most successful thing on day one and they still would have declared it a failure because it's a threat to their way of life. That is to say that their way of life is exploiting people's food/housing insecurity, the modern form of slavery.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
A perfect example of basic income working is the longshoremen's unions in the US. Before containerized freight and automated cargo terminals, thousands of men would stand on the stones every morning and work a back-breaking job hauling loose cargo off ships with hooks. After containerization, instantly, there was no more work for the vast majority of these people. Since most of them were completely unskilled, and not capable of retraining into any other job that paid the same or better, they could have been in danger of seing the same fate we assign to the unemployed today -- eventual destitution. However, the longshoremen's unions implemented what amounts to a tax on cargo handled through these automated terminals that goes towards paying "retired" longshoremen a basic income. This is one example, and let's just say the union has a lot of muscle behind it that helped this get passed, but it does show a way to help the unemployable -- and make no mistake, that's going to be 90+% of us sometime before I'm dead (in the next 50 years or so.)
I guess my problem with people who argue against a basic income is that they don't have a better alternative in mind. Sometime in the near future, the vast majority of low level service jobs will be automated. At the same time, the use of intelligent systems will come and cannibalize the top end of the spectrum too. Think about doctors for a second -- they're smart enough to have a regulated profession and should be fine because of that. But what if they didn't? Medical education is basically academic hazing, from the MCAT to the preclinical firehose to 100 hour weeks as an intern. Med schools select for people with photographic memories and perfect grades because that's basically the only way to survive the training as it is today. Well, thanks to Google we don't need photographic memories anymore, so the only skill left will be synthesis of all the stored knowledge. This is why IBM basically sold off their entire business and are building Watson and other AI-type systems. Soon as these algorithms get good enough, most work that requires intuition is toast. Hospitals won't have to pay doctors when they can feed test results and live observations of patients into a machine and get a diagnosis.
I think basic income is the only reasonable transition vehicle to move the world away from traditional employment. Imagine telling everyone who's about to retire that people entering the workforce now won't have to save. Or, tell people who define themselves by their work that they've all been made redundant at the same time. Or, try to divide up the accumulated property among people when money stops being critical -- who determines where the renters go, or who gets to keep the houses they own? All of these are too much stress for the economy to bear all at once and will lead to a mess. Phase in a low-employment world over time with controls, and it makes the shift easier.
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.
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.