Slashdot Mirror
Finland Is Killing Its Basic Income Experiment (businessinsider.com)
tomhath shares a report: Since the beginning of last year, 2000 Finns are getting money from the government each month -- and they are not expected to do anything in return. The participants, aged 25-58, are all unemployed, and were selected at random by Kela, Finland's social-security institution. Instead of unemployment benefits, the participants now receive $690 per month, tax free. Should they find a job during the two-year trial, they still get to keep the money. While the project is praised internationally for being at the cutting edge of social welfare, back in Finland, decision makers are quietly pulling the brakes, making a U-turn that is taking the project in a whole new direction. "Right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income," Kela researcher Miska Simanainen told the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet.
So, we can't try it out to see if it works, we have to implement it on a massive scale and only then can we know? Yeah, we're not going to experiment with all of society like that. Those kind of social experiments have a bad history of negative outcomes, something that educated people know.
Plus you pull out something completely new, that is also untested and unknown? Huh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I mean that is why it is called an experiment. You see if it works or not and not just talk about it. This is the scientific way to do things.
You have a theory and then you test that theory. If it proves that the theory works: good. If you prove that the theory does not work: also good.
So it is good that they tried it and respect the outcome of the experiment. Much better than those where e.g. Mary-Jane is proven to not be dangerous and still politics do not change according to the scientific proof.
What they did is the way it is supposed to work. Or in words of a more famous person than me : Science, bitch!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The issue still remains - what to do with too many people going after too few jobs. Currently, our society structured on 65% population working, the rest are young, sick, and old. Of that working population, we tolerate no more than 10% unemployment before social unrest occurs.
Well, what going to happen when half of working population is automated or no longer relevant to get a jobs? For example, when self-driving becomes a reality, what is going to happen to all people that drive for living? Poverty and massive social unrest, that what happens. Autocrats and strongman with "Bring back jerbs" and "Kick out jerb-stealing other people" get elected.
Yes, basic income is really expensive. It will also reduce productivity. However devolution of Western Liberal societies to totalitarianism will be even more expensive. Even nukes might start flying.
How about working for a living instead of leeching of society?
The problem is that when robots take your job that "working for a living" might just turn into grabbing a Kalashnikov and taking whatever you want. Especially if there's no other option available.
UBI will come and it will be a simple writeoff for functioning societies. Think of it as a tax so the pitchforks don't come for you and other smart-alecs.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Because when AI, robots and automation displace more people, the people will need some way of getting a living.
Retraining is a fairy tale - especially for the middle aged - and it is based upon the myth that there is some other industry that is need of those workers.
And we are going to have to get over this Puritanical idea that one must work to make living.
Because just ignoring the problem and telling those displaced people nonsense platitudes will end in revolution. And remember here in the USA there are over 300 million guns out there.
That thing with the Google buses a couple of years ago is just the prelude of what's going to happen if the wealth and income disparity continues. THe election of Trump is another symptom. And the next demagogue may be a Hugo Chavez.....
That will not end well. I'm hoping for a Bernie Sanders Jr.
Either you run out of other peoples money to spend or you run out of businesses willing to participate in a country where the money they make doesnt primarily go to them. Then you have all of the corrupt policy makers that will somehow want a cut of some kind so they get favorable kickbacks in the form of fund raising.
Jesus kind of summed it up:
You will always have the poor...
What limited evidence there is suggests it does actually.
Not for everyone, obviously, but overall it works pretty well.
Alas such experiments tend to get stopped before we have enough data to really say for sure. If they'd allowed the experiment to proceed to the next stage and included a wider range of people in the study as planned we would at least have more data to argue over but no, that would be too useful.
So, yet another trail stopped early with some limited encouraging results. But we don't know because it has been canned.
I think at this point the only way to know is for all those futurist billionaires to club together and finance the trail themselves...
Even if I'm seeking a job but getting money while I don't have a job why would I seriously look for job? There's no stress to find a job, per the article, why bother?
The project involves 2000 unemployed Finns, who receive roughly $690 every month - no strings attached. No official findings have yet been published, but some participants reported lower stress levels at an early stage.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
So, we can't try it out to see if it works, we have to implement it on a massive scale and only then can we know? Yeah, we're not going to experiment with all of society like that. Those kind of social experiments have a bad history of negative outcomes, something that educated people know.
Plus you pull out something completely new, that is also untested and unknown? Huh?
We already have a ton of test cases. Just look at lottery winners. If you want even better data, create some more specific lotteries. Sell lottery tickets that give the winner 20k for life (or whatever amount you decide you want to test). It's not completely random because it has a slight selection bias of those people that buy lottery tickets but it's a big enough pool that it's close enough and it requires no tax money to do it.
To be fair, saying "Only unemployed people got it" isn't 100% correct. If those unemployed people got a job, they kept getting the $690 each month. But your point about it not being a true UBI is well taken.
Why would you say it is "self funding"? It only appears that way. I can assure you, that eventually you'll run out of other people's money.
Socialism has failure built in. There is NO possible way for it to work, given human nature. The assumptions of socialism are flawed. Universal Income is just as flawed as all other attempts at socialism.
Here is how it will fail.
Universal Income is implemented.
Everything looks good initially (success!!!)
Slowly over time, universal Income is increased (doesn't cover "basic" needs any more)
Taxes slowly rise to cover Universal Income increases.
People slowly figure out "why work", and quit
The productive people leave due to increasing taxes, less opportunity
The whole thing starts spiraling out of control downward.
People start eating dog, because nobody is working, there is no food in stores etc.
Eventually you run out of other people's money.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The real problem is that some people get way too much money for the same amount of work as most people. I'm not advocating the same hourly rate for everyone, but clearly some kinds of limits would be beneficial for society as a whole. If the basic hourly rate is $10 per hour, maybe we should have a ceiling of $100 per hour for top jobs.
#DeleteFacebook
Think of it as a tax so the pitchforks don't come for you and other smart-alecs.
This is what a lot of folks miss about social welfare programs in general. Often it's cheaper to feed a person with food stamps than it is to lock them in a cell and feed them anyhow. Sometimes it's even cheaper to give them housing, food, and a stipend then it is to incarcerate them. This is because removing a person from society costs society more than just the lost economic value of that one person. Sometimes there are children or other dependents left on the outside who then become a drain as well.
It's basic economics, but most self-described "conservatives" never bother trying to do the math. To them, economics is more about ideals than actual money.
I don't need work. I need money. I could find a lot of sensible things to do with my time on my own, don't worry about this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you so happily revoke someone else's right to live, may I ask what makes you think you deserve to?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They sure as hell do!
The problem is that we've redefined income to mean, "money I get paid directly to do a job", while excluding "wealth gain due to using my money to make more money".
That's still income, and it should be taxed like income.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The Soviet Union had much, but basic income it didn't have. What it had was forced labor. You worked. You better did if you didn't want to be labeled "unsocial" and end up in a prison or worse.
What you have in Russia is what you get if you force people to work for a set amount of money, in a job they cannot quit and can't be fired from.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Humans need something to feel productive and appriciated yes. The fact is many people have to decide between jobs that fit them better, IE make them more happy at work... and jobs that pay better and actually can afford to keep their kids in a decent home, and ensure that they can afford for his/her children to actually have the option for an education that will allow him to pick a job that satisfies them. and that's ignoring the fact that there is no perfect law or guarantees that the quantity of jobs lost to technology will always be counteracted by the amount of jobs replaced etc... The fact is some people can feel happy and satisfied, making youtube videos that only interest a few dozen people (and thus are pretty much implausible to afford to live off of). Heck MMORPGs are pretty historically great at filling that urge/need in humans. I'm not one of those people... but I do work in a field where there is very high competition, and I'd have much easier times getting a job if I didn't have to compete with people who hate the idea of doing the job I want, but they have to do it to survive.
"What's your alternative proposal? Forcing people to work in jobs they hate so they can somehow live another day?"
Yes. That's the proposal. This is what grown-ups do.
And the rest of the money ends up in the hands of the business owners who take it out via dividends or capital gains. Just like they do now.
News Flash: The 1% do not have incomes to tax.
Crazily, once you get over about 150k p/y and can afford to take advantages of loopholes you pay less of your income as a % in taxes than you do if you make less than that.
The fact that there are billionaires out there who pay $0 in income tax because they structure their ownings to look like a net negative in the eye's of the law (even though their wealth is growing) is frankly disgusting.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You've made some major "assumptions" and declared a number of economic issues as well known. If being poor was only economical, then all of what you said would work. Unfortunately, this is looking at the problem in a vacuum. If simply giving everyone money would bring people up economically, we would have already succeeded by now.
For example, there are a lot of people who don't have a huge drive to better themselves. They just want to live how they are. Nothing wrong with it, just as you find you're motivated to look at a big picture on economic issues.
No homelessness? Are you kidding? Many people actually choose this style of living. I've talked with them. Some of these people were like you and me and just gave the birdie to society and left it. They don't want it. Giving them money.... not going to change what they want.
I won't even go into the drug issues of these homeless people. Unfortunately, they are probably homeless because of this. But, unless they want to get help, unless they really want to beat it, no amount of money will save them. They will find the drugs again. Big social issue. Someone needs to really care for the person, not give them money.
"People will have to work fewer hours to take home only a moderate amount of additional wealth instead of an enormous and unmanageable amount." I'm not sure where to begin with how wrong this statement is. So, who will decide what is moderate and unmanageable? Let people decide how much they work and how much they want to make. This is really what drives people. Is it all about the money. No, but let people decide that.
I think you have a very clear thought process. I also think you've simplified problems too much, and don't account for many problems you would create by your economic utopia.
Poor people in my home town use a windfall to fix or replace their cars because they are tired of throwing money into their rolling wreak that is always broken down. Or to pay off credit cards (which they probably shouldn't have) to get that 22% APR monkey off their backs. Admittedly most of them fail to stop using the credit cards entirely, most people use them for "emergencies" but when your poor everything feels like an emergency. Kid has no school clothes or shoes? Charge it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yeah, they need purpose. Work may or may not be a means of finding purpose, but needing to work to survive isn't advantageous in and of itself.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
but I absolutely RESENT having things taken from me.
On the other hand, would you resent also having things offered to you for free ?
(Random example of things that you get for free in most of the countries in the developed world, like in Finland ?)
Like the ability to go to university and get a degree for you do have the mental capability, for which your parents didn't save massive amounts of money to pay for ?
Like having a public health system that can help you pay your medical bills - because nobody does choose to become sick and even more so, nobody choose on purpose to have the most complicated and expensive to treat disease on purpose ?
Like having an unemployement system that can cover your back if you happen to lose your job ?
Like living in a country where there's an effective police force that is good at keeping the criminality low, to the point that you con't need to constantly be carrying a gun around ?
For these things come for free to you should you need them, the government should be able to pay for them, and for the government to be able to pay for them it needs money, that is taken in the form of taxes.
If Bob can't get a job, because there is nothing useful for him to do but Ted has a job and the fancier car, bigger house, more meals out etc that come with it Bob will be jealous! Bob will either demand productive people like Ted provide him these things as well leading to an inflationary cycle where UBI must be forever increased
You know that the "B" in "UBI" stands for "Basic" ? It is here to cover for the Basic needs of the population.
(Cheap housing, cheap but still healthy food, etc.)
It's aiming at the lower levels of the Maslow pyramid
Until the possession of a fancy car can clearly be considered as a basic need that every single member of the human popular absolutely needs to be covered, the UBI won't inflate to please Bob.
(Maybe one day it will. There used to be a past when even shelter and food wouldn't be taken for granted. In several modern European countries, it's hard to *NOT* be obtaining them.
Maybe in the future the society will evolve to the point where every single citizen is entitled to own a car.
But for now, public transportation system is considered to be covering most of the needs every one has).
Its really better for all of us if we occupy Bob doing something....
Don't worry, TV and Internet are very good at keeping Bob busy.
(except that advertisement might also be very good at keeping bob persuaded that it his god-given natural right to own ${SOME ULTRA EXPENSIVE PRODUCT} )
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
People like you are always saying socialism doesn't work
UBI is NOT "socialism".
Here is the definition of socialism: Government ownership of the mean of production.
That is what socialism is. That is the only thing it is.
Does UBI involve government ownership of factories, tools, or capital? No, it does not. Ergo, it is not "socialism".
Government run pensions are not "socialism". Unemployment benefits are not "socialism". Depending on your political views, those may be good things, or they may be bad things, but they are not "socialism".
Sorry for going off on a rant here, but socialism is an important concept, and it is a useful word with no obvious alternative. We should not dilute its meaning by using it for all kinds of tangential concepts.