Slashdot Mirror
Is Finland's Universal Basic Income Trial Too Good To Be True? (theguardian.com)
It was one year ago that Finland began giving money to 2,000 unemployed people -- roughly $652 a month (€560 or £475). But have we learned anything about universal basic incomes? An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian:
Amid this unprecedented media attention, the experts who devised the scheme are concerned it is being misrepresented. "It's not really what people are portraying it as," said Markus Kanerva, an applied social and behavioural sciences specialist working in the prime minister's office in Helsinki. "A full-scale universal income trial would need to study different target groups, not just the unemployed. It would have to test different basic income levels, look at local factors. This is really about seeing how a basic unconditional income affects the employment of unemployed people."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland's trial was launched -- at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m or $24.3 million) -- by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland's stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate. It has a very clear purpose: to see whether an unconditional income might incentivise people to take up paid work. Authorities believe it will shed light on whether unemployed Finns, as experts believe, are put off taking up a job by the fear that a higher marginal tax rate may leave them worse off. Many are also deterred by having to reapply for benefits after every casual or short-term contract... According to Kanerva, the core data the government is seeking -- on whether, and how, the job take-up of the 2,000 unemployed people in the trial differs from a 175,000-strong control group -- will be "robust, and usable in future economic modelling" when it is published in 2019.
Although the experiment may be impacted by all the hype it's generating, according to the Guardian. "One participant who hoped to start his own business with the help of the unconditional monthly payment complained that, after speaking to 140 TV crews and reporters from as far afield as Japan and Korea, he has simply not been able to find the time."
I don't know...
In the past (up until WW2, I guess), many creative types of work and technological advancements were brought to fruition by people who did not need to work, otherwise said they had the means to live comfortably without having to work. Still, they have produced very useful things, both in art and science.
Not saying this can repeat nowadays, but you can't dismiss it either.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Raised our taxes?
I dunno about YOU, but I'm going to see MORE back on my tax returns.
And I'm not some billionaire.
Wait 10 years.
The bill made permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary ones for individuals. The reason is that reconciliation (the rule that let them pass the bill with only 51 votes) says the bill can't raise the deficit after 10 years. So at the 10 year mark the corporate tax cut is partially paid for by a tax hike on individuals.
Of course this is fake math since the GOP doesn't actually expect the individual cuts to expire. In 10 years they expect a Democratic administration to be in power, an administration who will be faced with either letting the cuts expire (and getting blamed for raising taxes on the middle class) or renewing the cuts and finding a way to pay for them.
I stole this Sig
It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that Microsoft and Facebook were founded by college students living on daddy's dime.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I think the idea is that most people, even people with severe limitations, want to do something. There is a percentage who will choose long-term to do nothing, however the cost of policing that exceeds the cost of accepting some leakage.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
I dunno what the real estate market is like in Helsinki but 140 euro a week would be lucky to pay the rent on a 1 bedroom apartment where I live, a decent sized industrialised city in the Southern Hemisphere.
For those that believe in small government, a universal income would slash the number of public servants overnight - those who currently administer unemployment schemes in ensuring that 'dole bludgers' have met the appropriate conditions to continue receiving payments. This would also apply to administering veterans' affairs, disability support and aged pension.
I know a similar situation exists with people on disability benefits. They can earn around $1,000 a month without losing benefits and health insurance. Many find part time work to earn just below the limit. However they're then trapped unable to accept a pay raise or seek promotions. Considering the benefits they receive it may be worth $1,000-$2,000 to remain on the program.
How does one go from earning $1,000 to roughly $3,000 in one jump? Some take classes or gain a certification that enables a career change, most stay part time indefinitely.
I think the country in the article already has universal health care so it's a fairly similar situation. Without the fear of losing their benefits I think a lot more would take the time to seek greater earnings.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
> We also know that a segment of the population, given the option to do nothing WILL DO NOTHING. Do we actually know that? I think it's good of them to try it out in small scale just to be sure.
Well the real question is does everyone need to do 'something that benefits a corporation' to bring value to the world. Someone do 'nothing' that sits at home and has no goals or ambition - well they are better off being paid not to work anyway - because they are going to do a shit ass job and make life worse for everyone else. Someone who might enjoy painting or creating art/song/etc. may do so now instead of taking up another job calling people to renew their car warranty. Is that still 'nothing'? Are we net better off?
If the 'worthless jobs' of working at a fast food place double your take home - would people treat them with more respect - because no boss will put up with lazy crap because at the back of their heart they worry about the kid at home that needs food/a home?
There are so many interconnected threads to the idea of what someone might do with the money.
As to the 'people given the option WILL DO NOTHING' - well that's 100% provable lie. We don't need the study to know this.
Answer to this question - is another question - How many billionaires that never need to work another day in their or their great great great grandkids lives - sit at home and do nothing?
When I was in high school I was a delivery driver for a drugstore. There was one "subsidized income" neighborhood where everyone was on welfare (I knew since they paid with welfare "stamps" for prescriptions) yet one had a nice porsche in the driveway, most had expensive electronics, etc. After a while I realized, that a good percentage of these people worked odd jobs "under the table" while collecting welfare - one guy drive delivering pizza for example and I asked him once about it - he said that delivering pizza was not going to sustain him and his family, and that he wouldn't do it the income was declared and simply deducted from his welfare (plus all the paperwork associated with it was a deterrent too), but will do it as "extra money" - along the reasoning of this finish study.
While I've always strongly believed that welfare should be a second chance, a social safety net to allow people to take bigger risks, rather than a way of life, the reality is that there will always be people who will do nothing unless starving, there are some on welfare which would contribute to society if welfare was in a form of basic income rather than welfare you have to qualify for. It also seems more fair and simpler to administer - everyone gets it, even the super-rich.
Far-right in Europe is generally still left of the GOP. My guess is 90% of our parties would be chased off as "commies" with pitchforks in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe this is why I see the largest number of homeless people sleeping on the streets than I have ever seen, while the news programs are all proudly announcing that the unemployment rate is at a record low because the economy is totally awesome. It's bullshit. These people get written off because it makes the numbers look good.
In any event, this Finnish thing is an EXPERIMENT. It is not concluded, they want to see if this idea works or not. But no, Slashdot says experiments are stupid, just go with your gut feelings, because science isn't popular anymore.
I am not offended by other people doing nothing. I AM OFFENDED by me paying other people to do nothing though.
Hmm...Federal Budget...all the "Social" programs combined (welfare, medicare, medicaid, SS, various pension plans and such) would allow for a UBI of ~$7500 per person. Which isn't a lot, but might (and I stress MIGHT) be enough for a family. Maybe.
Double Federal Income taxes, and you boost that amount to ~$12.5k per person. And which should be more than adequate for a family of four....
Note that a UBI should also reduce the Federal Bureaucracy a bit - won't need people to determine whether you meed the requirements for Welfare, Medicaid, etc. Which may or may not be good, depending on your perspective.
So, might be doable, might not. But certainly worth looking into.
PS. Do note that increased taxes would be part of the deal. On the other hand, no taxes on your UBI, so you get that much as an absolute minimum....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You miss one basic fact in the 'analysis'
These are Finns, not Americans.
there is a reason that Scandinavian (and yes, Finland is marginally that, but hey) socialism 'works' (at least better than other places), and that is that they still have a moderate number of people who are responsible, proud to be reasonably self sufficient, realise that stupid actions tend to lead to actual and bad consequences, etc.
IMHO, a lot of that comes from living somewhere where tripping over on the wrong winters day can, and does, kill people. Not planning ahead when a storm is coming can and does kill people.
These countries are NOT America. They may have their own issues (and certainly do), however they are a very very different place.
Unfortunately they are being slowly infected by 'American Exceptionalism' and all the BS that seems to drag along with it, however they are less far along that diseased path.
TL;DR - Finns are more likely to work even if they dont have to - which you would understand if you know some Finns, however they can also do math, and wont work if it means they come out worse off.
Excuse me. If we are running 3% growth right now, why do we need the tax cut?
The main flaw in that study (that I can find after a couple of minutes) is that the statistics are completely wrong. The median income figures used are *post-tax*. The swedish figures are ignoring the income used to pay for everything in the state:
* free healthcare.
* free education.
* paid parental leave.
* subsidized childcare.
* much much more.
The correct comparison is the gross income figures. In the swedish case somebody earning around the median level is paying about 25% in direct (visible) taxation, and about 65% in invisible employer contributions. I.e. If their headline (visible) salary is $40000, they receive about $30000 after tax, but their total tax ia about $30000 taking into account mandatory social contributions from their employer. Their actual gross salary is about $60000 and this study treats it as $30000.
Tldr: the study is deliberately using the wrong income figure to make a false comparison.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Furthermore: it is my opinion that many of the proponents of UBI are disingenuous, and do wish to be living in a world where they get handed money, and will do nothing other than sit on their behinds, being fat, lazy, and contributing nothing to anyone other than themselves, with not a care in the world for the fact that they're just parasites.
Well, opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one.
In civilised countries, there's already a considerable social safety net. You can wish that away to a post scarcity world if you wish but I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon.
The point of UBI is to rearrange the existing social safety nets (and taxes to match) to simplify the bureaucracy. The idea is to greatly reduce the administrative costs of running the system and also remove some of the things that disincentivise work.
For example, you can get job-seeker's allowance in the UK if you're between jobs. But it takes a while to kick in after your job finishes. That prevents people taking short jobs inbetween finding a better one because the cut to the jobseekers allowance after the job ends ends up being a net negative. That kind of thing vanishes.
Another thing, the UK tax system already fairly closely approximates UBI + flat tax (for income above a certain threshold), using a complex system of piecewise constant tax bands. My rougher approximation of the negative part, where benefits kick in is much harder to do accurately but it veeery roughly holds there too.
So, why not replace that entire hot mess of benefits and tax bands with basic income and flat tax? The numbers come out very similar but it's a hel of a lot easier to administer.
SJW n. One who posts facts.