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.
You didn't need Ms. Cleo to see this coming.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
They were all unemployed, but were selected at random.
It has to be universal and permanent to really reflect the outcome expected.
I support a Universal Dividend, anyway, which is self-funding and doesn't have concerning fiscal issues presented by UBIs. The whole UBI thing is a clunky proto-ideal that I regard as old technology.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Why do all these articles about basic income keep showing up here? I'm assuming most of us are pulling down six figures (if you aren't and you're in tech, get gud) and wouldn't think of sitting on our asses while collecting a low basic income. So my serious question is: why is "basic income" news for nerds?
You don' need to pay nibbaz not=to=work. Dat porch-monkeys do nothing fo' free. Wif dem free Obamifonz, foodstampstakes and babamamaz Cadilakks dey B duin OKa.
This is /., so no one RTFA, but itâ(TM)s the Finnish parliament that stopped it for political reasons in December, only one year into the two year experiment, not because it failed. We wonâ(TM)t know what happened in the study until 2019.
Whites are the reason for all the injustice and inequality in the world. How can you possibly make UBI work when it is proposed, run, and given to white people. Finland is one of the least diverse and hence most racist nations on the planet. The only way to possinnly make it work would be to replace all the fins in Finland with trangendered African American Latinos. Then UBI will bec9me the ut9pia w3 all know it can be.
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.
How about working for a living instead of leeching of society? If the Finnish government would cut taxes for the middle-class by 10% it would generate more jobs than there are current parasites in the project. Free money for people without expectations or reciprocity is a recipe for disaster, socialist havens like Finland and Sweden have a hard time understanding that.
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.
Basic Income seems like an interesting experiment. Which comes down to the a root issue.
Do people live to work, or work to live.
This article was kinda wimpy about giving us its findings. Just supporters crying that it didn't have enough time.
However things I would like to see.
For these people on Basic Income, what did they do in their lives? Even if they didn't get jobs, what did they do with their lives? Did they just sit at home watching TV and playing X-Box? Or where they out being active in the community. Volunteering their time and talents to help make things better?
If people live to work. Even if they are not able or unwilling to get traditional jobs, their instincts will still have them being productive member of society, just in ways that Supply and Demand doesn't give a lot of money too.
If people work to live. Then basic income will be negative effect, as having enough to survive is means they are not motivated to do anything else, other then their own benefit.
I expect there is a mixture of these people, but having this targeted at only the unemployed may have found a concentration of the work to live folks vs. people who are on short term job loss, or who are under paid.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Details at 10. /Triggered snowflakes in 5...4...3...
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.
Why is the experiment being terminated early, especially before the next phase? Is there evidence that UBI is a massive fail in Finland (as currently implemented), or is it because the political or economic situation has changed, or something else?
As written the FA can only viewed as flamebait.
The Alaska Permanent Fund was a great experiment in UBI. And, it demonstrated that there's really no impact. Now, it wasn't a "living income" unless you culturally lived through subsidence hunting ... which is a significant part of the Alaskan population. The result? It doesn't make a significant impact. Liquor sales spike, but that's about it. Sorry, long term experiment is a big fail.
Here is someone who wants to give it a shot in the US, along with some of his reasoning.
Run a town/city/county/etc as a cooperative corporation. In place of UBI you have everyone receive a dividend based on the region's profitability at the end of a specified earning period. This makes people think more not only of the common good, but also how they want regional profit reinvested, whether to improve the 'corporation' which in turn would improve collective infrastructure, or directly into their own pocket at the expense of services or infrastructure. This would work best with either everyone having a single vote, or a fixed number of higher ranking positions with limited but greater voting power.
Lots of problems possible with this system, defrauding by people in privileged positions if the collective doesn't demand transparency and also independently audit records, etc. But it would provide an actual way forward, could be tested at the micro level then scaled up to find the ideal organization structure, and might eventually allow a better system to develop as people could migrate to regions whose 'corporate culture' better reflected the values they are looking to live within. Of course it could also end up like Rollerball (The James Caan original, not the LL Cool J remake) or any of the other corporate dystopian movies or novels of the early to late 20th century. As it is, we seem headed in that direction either way, but at least this way some people might retain control of their society and corporation under corporate personhood or sovereignty.
All good reasons. But if we are to actually follow the scientific process, such tests should be measured.
They were many Hypothesis created on solid thinking, that just didn't show to be true.
The question comes down to numbers. Will UBI be a net benefit or a net burden.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The United States was founded as "The Great Experiment." Why in the hell can't our government continue that tradition? We don't try anything anymore. At least nothing drastic or that would be classified as an experiment. The reason that America is/was great (depending on your political leaning) is that we're resilient enough to withstand experiments that may not happen to work and learn from them to do something better. When was the last time the US government did anything original outside the theater of weapons and warfare?
I know that is the SOLE reason I work.
I would posit that it is that way for the majority of people.
If I won the lottery tomorrow with enough money to never have to work again....frankly, I don't know if I'd even bother calling into work to let them know I wasn't coming back.
If I didn't have to work, I have a TON of other interesting things I'd rather be doing for fun.
I know there are some few people out there, that do define themselves by their work, but I think that is a very small number, IMHO.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
...existing unemployment benefits were so high, the Finnish government argued, and the system so rigid, an unemployed person might choose not to take a job as they would risk losing money by doing so – the higher your earnings, the lower your social benefits ...
The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits.
Their UBI idea was not a bad one because everyone (eligible) got UBI and if you did get a job you still kept your benefit. The problem with UBI though is that people will *always* argue it's not quiet enough, and then you get to a certain point where you're paying people who are otherwise solid earners. Your only hope to fund programs like that are taxes on businesses or national resources--taxes from people will never make that work unless you intend to tax everyone incomes above UBI to death (which they may be doing already... I think other countries in that region do it? They've got the same insane personal income tax levels that the US had in the 50s, grabbing 90%+ of high earners money)
They recognize they have a motivation issue w/ benefits that decrease with other income, but their new model doesn't sound like it's really going to solve anything, you're going to get people who will do the absolute bare minimums (and probably do a shite job while employed too).
you said "which is self-funding"......what does that mean when it's the government giving out the benefit? Asking seriously...
put out a bunch of basic food dispensers that you can eat from and survive. give every apartment basic electricity that is enough to run a hand full of led lights a basic tv and a laptop (if you use more you pay for it all... possibility to pickup a free municipal buss pass every week and what ever baisc stuff might be needed.
people that need it will survive and people that want more will get that and not bother about the free stuff.
i actually think that would work better than just giving everyone free money.
I work to live but if I had a steady income of cash I would likely continue to work and probably start a business (food truck). Work my current job 20 hrs a week and then the rest of the time work the truck or continue with a 30hr work week and do festivals/weekends on the truck.
If people in the experiment received $690 per month, how much did the others, not part of the experiment, receive?
Logically, they should get more money, since they lose it all if they get a job.
But those who didn't plan to find a job and got selected for this experiment got less money? Surely they must complain. So the only way to perform this experiment is to give the same amount of money to all of them. Except that those part of the experiment are allowed to get a job AND keep their $690.
So then, how to we figure if the experiment is a success or not? Of course more people chosen for the experiment got a job than those not participating. But how do we say if the experiment was a success?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not sure where to start with this. First, your comment is insulting to all the people who worked so hard to get where they are. That involved sacrifice, commitment, and dedication to acquire the education necessary to be competent in the field. Then, you further insult them by suggesting their career success and pay rate is simply due to luck.
I have to ask: what planet are you living on? Do you really think luck plays a bigger part than hard work for successful peple? If so, I pity your worldview. It must be difficult to be so beholden to fate. Why even try?
The fact is, most of the people who are successful in their careers did something to deserve that success. Luck plays, at best, a bit part in that success.
... for people who are really bad at math... and economics.
The reason the UBI is a terrible idea is because economies tend to filter out constants. Well, they don't tend to, they just do. If you give everyone $1000 per month, economic activity will increase, demand will increase, and prices will rise to absorb that $1000, and nobody will be any better off than they were, once that happens. People will be better off in the beginning but they will settle back down to their prior state. I call this, "pushing up the cost of existence."
The "cost of existence" is the amount of productivity a person must generate to pay for the resources they consume.
This leads to the next point: their experiment was crap. The outcome on a large scale would be totally different than on a small scale, as the small-scale experiment is basically irrelevant to the economy as a whole, but a 100% rollout would be devastating, especially to those who are unable to take advantage of the program for whatever reason.
There are so many problems with UBI it's hard to fathom how rational human beings actually go so far as to implement it. They have to know these facts, so the reasonable explanation becomes, "they are trying to dupe people into giving them more power with free stuff," which has been the modus operandi of the leftist movement for.. well.. forever.
The experiment does not even attempt to emulate the defining characteristics of basic income as it is commonly understood. Can't have a time limit on a basic income experiment, or give it only to the unemployed who would have gotten unemployment benefits anyway. Only difference to benefits is that you keep a time-limited subsidy after you get a job, that's not even a new thing.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Universal Basic Income: for when you're absolutely convinced that the world just owes you a living.
"That is why socialist countries routinely murdered insane numbers of people, because they took out a crucial part of human morality." see this is where you stray away from facts. 1) russian communism was more dictatorial than it was socialist but we could argue for days on that 2) what IS NOT arguable : Sweden hasn't murdered a lot of people and did not took a crucial part of humanity. See the problem is not socialism per see, even the US do practice some form of socialism (e.g. medicaid) ,no society can do the ultra capitalism/no socialism/everybody for itself and survive. The problem is a degree, and whether the "elite" (read those who have the political reign) take over and abuse the system for itself or not. A Sweden , Danemark, and other countries show : socialism do work.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
even capitalism. This is a question of degree and moderation rather than go to the extrem "-ism". A ultra capitalist free market society with no rule would be as terrible as russian communism, if not more. That is why bloody socialist countries exists today and work well no matter what the popular belief in the US is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Whoa.. you had two ideas there which, I think just combined into my loony idea of the day.
NOT SO FAST ON PREVENTING THE PITCHFORKS!! Maybe they're exactly what we need, but as tools rather than as weapons.
Instead of free cash, how about 40 acres and a mule (or modern replacement)? Anyone with a shack and a field, doesn't need a job.
If industry can't get people the income to be fed, maybe that just means that our economy has (partially) regressed to pre-industrial. Well, a pre-industrial economy isn't the end of the world. It's the world that we came from, after all.
People think they can't compete with modern industrial farms, and that's true in terms of selling your food for profit. But growing it to feed yourself? You know that's possible with even ancient tech. Sure, it costs less to just buy food from the industrial farms, but I guess people can't even afford to do that, because they have no money all thanks to unemployment. So, in fact, if you grow it to feed yourself, you are competing with modern industrial farming, and there's no reason it shouldn't work. A random dude from 1800 or 1500 or 1200 or 500 or 1000BC can do it, so why not us? We'd be better at it, thanks to tech.
PS I don't wanna be a farmer. Fuck that. But if I had to choose between starving to death, farming, or stabbing innocent people with my pitchfork, maybe farming ain't so bad after all. And you can always mix the three: be a mediocre farmer who doesn't make quite enough food, so you occasionally resort to cannibalism...
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I know that is the SOLE reason I work. I would posit that it is that way for the majority of people. If I won the lottery tomorrow with enough money to never have to work again....frankly, I don't know if I'd even bother calling into work to let them know I wasn't coming back. If I didn't have to work, I have a TON of other interesting things I'd rather be doing for fun. I know there are some few people out there, that do define themselves by their work, but I think that is a very small number, IMHO.
Well, I think that depends on what work is. There's quite a lot of business owners, sports stars and movie stars etc. who's got millions of dollars in the bank but still want millions more. But they can quit whenever they want. They can delegate. They can pick and choose what to do in the first place. I don't see a whole lot of burger flippers or toilet scrubbers keeping the job if they won enough to never work another day.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The problem with trying to do any political experiments is that you have powerful forces at all levels working for their interests adding variables and trying to skew results. It's also almost always easier to break things than to keep them going or to fix them. So it's quite difficult to test anything without making it massive in scale and using broad averages to try to eliminate all the noise to get a trend line. Even so, there are always big external factors at play which can't be eliminated and the impact is hard to estimate; even if it is so huge that all reasonable adjustments show it's a huge success-- you are talking politics and the profession of lawyers and propagandists-- who's sole purpose is to argue a position regardless of TRUTH, reason, or common sense.
Right now, a lot of Libertards hate UBI because they fail to see it as a small government solution where the welfare is self-managed without supervision of the funds. It saves a great deal of money and reduces government greatly. They could be arguing from that angle and helping it along towards the closest thing they'll ever get to having their way. The problem with UBI approaching that is all the people who just blow their UBI on stupid shit and then end up destitute and looking for more handouts-- and you can't turn a blind eye because some many of them will get in your face... with crime etc. So you STILL end up with management in addition to the unmanaged welfare. Think of the US healthcare embarrassment, it's essentially a hybrid of mostly bad parts of everything... a minimal free support + minimal regulation + almost total anarchy free market exploitation.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If someone won the lottery, that person might immediately leave his CURRENT work.
But then, maybe, he could start writing a boook, or helping in a shelter, or becomeing a volunteer in a NGO, etc, Because some people need relatedness and a purpose, which is impossible to follow it given the current constraints of day to day survival. I certainly would. All of this is "work".
Of course, some people would also become shut ins and act as socipaths (aka "Screw you, I got mine").
I assume that they wrote poetry, pursued multiple PhDs in field without a big economic payoff, volunteered doing various social services, learned a couple of new languages, and did lots of exercise to improve their health and fitness. What else would they do? Sit around and drink beer?
For most people -- even retirees, this is the typical progression:
1. "Yay! I don't have to work anymore!"
2. "I get to do whatever I want now!"
3. "Okay! Now we got all that out of the way, this is kinda boring."
4. "What else can I do with the rest of my life?"
Whargarbahl! Liberals!
What I would like to see is the other side of this equation, people who are going to pay the higher taxes and get the UBI. So the person who makes $100k and gets the UBI but has to pay 40% income tax flat. See how that works out. The money has to come from somewhere and the assumption is people will continue to work if they have to pay this high tax rate. I don't know if that would be the case.
Generation Useless right here!
So you're saying your tax rate is somewhere between 1% ($10,000 tax on income of $999,999) and 99% ($99,999 tax on income of $100,000)? While I don't doubt that's true, it's also a ridiculously pointless statement.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
To figure out this was a joke, will never work, as most SOCIALIST programs DO NOT work. Taking money(or anything) from ONE group, giving it to another group never works!
..think youre all just one more tax cut away from becoming millionaires. Lulz. Enjoy your life of subservience and bottomscraping.
Big difference. Social security is "suppose" to be YOUR money, taken from you by force of the government, then "locked boxed" (YEAH RIGHT) away until you retire, then, given back to you over time. Couple reasons why THAT won't ever work. 1. Congress since it's beginning (BOTH parties) have spent that money decades ago 2. It was set up at a time, when the average lifespan was 67 years old, which meant that most people would never spend all of their money saved, propping up the system for years. 3. Since 1 & 2 aren't working any more, SS is doomed to collapse on itself soon. For SS to "work", that money stolen from you each paycheck, should be locked away in a PRIVATE non-government-can-access-it-anytime-they want system. Also, the retirement age, should be increased to say 70. Or, people should opt out of SS but still be required to set aside some of their paycheck in some sort of safe retirement system. SS was another one of those "do gooder" ideas under the New Deal by FDR. The new deal crap extended the depression for years, and, had it not been for the U.S. getting into WW2, who knows how long it would have lasted.
No official results of Finland’s basic income experiment will be published until 2019, after the pilot has come to an end. So we still have 8 months to wait.
As opposed to being one tax increase away from utopia?
I'd rather pay off my car than pay for your bomb, thanks.
The longest spell I've had between contracting gigs, was like for 7mos awhile back.
My routine was something like,
Wake up
Eat, walk the dog
Go to the gym
Eat lunch
Look for some work, interviews, etc
Usually about 2-3 in the afternoon, I'd jump on my motorcycle and run about town, see museums, etc...and then meet friends getting off work at a bar somewhere....then home, dinner...etc.
Honestly, I never got tired of this life with some variations thrown in.
I figured I'd do something of the sort if I won the lottery, with throwing in travel/vacations when I really needed a change of scenery....but honestly, doing this and hobbies I have, I could be quite happy never working again, if money wasn't a concern.
That last part has a caveat in that I require to keep my level living and spending as I currently have, as that that makes me happy.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If people work to live. Then basic income will be negative effect, as having enough to survive is means they are not motivated to do anything else, other then their own benefit.
I work in the banking industry.
If I didnt have to work, I'd spend all my time making video games and cooking.
If no one had to work, odds are art production would increase quite a bit.
this discussion is not about retirement money but welfare money for the unemployed.
Do people live to work, or work to live.
It's not that black or white. There are those at one extreme who work for fun, and then there are those who would prefer to never work a day in their life. There are plenty in the middle who just do what they have to do. Should be up to an individual to decide the balance that is right for THEM. Just because I choose to tilt my balance towards work a little more doesn't mean i should have to forego my spoils to support someone who doesn't want to work. It's not fair and those who do the work aren't going to stand for it.
Scott
While I feel that way about life, too, I also know that, once I had that freedom of choice, I'd be doing all kinds of productive things - writing, programming, carpentry, planning group projects. Many of those things might not be very profitable, but right now I don't have the time and energy to find out, and when I do have a little inclination to do something, it almost *has* to be designed around the profit to justify it. With the total freedom to attempt things regardless of their financial aspects, there's a decent chance many of them would end up at least somewhat productive in the long run.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Everyone is assuming that killing the project means that it was a failure. However, there is no indication that this was the case in TFA, AFAICT. Slashdot is being incredibly naive in regards to assumptions about how government and politics work.
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 ]
or, rich people could pay into the system, which would make it solvent again.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Make it easier to get jobs. Enact earned income tax credits. Get rid of pointless, non-health related occupational licensing regimes. Find out what jobs the unemployed can do and make it as easy as possible to get those jobs. Lower minimum wage so it's cheaper for companies to hire more people instead of automating their jobs out of existence. Get more internship and co-op programs going so high-school and college kids aren't competing for these jobs.
That would be a start.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
If I didn't have to work, I have a TON of other interesting things I'd rather be doing for fun.
Me too... but then I realize, a lot of the interesting things I like to do for fun would be considered work by another person's standards.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And you show you don't know a lot of people.
Sure a number of us would work. But many people would just ultimately go home and watch TV and rot away. If possible, they'd even ignore their own families. Many people follow the policy of not giving a shit about anyone or anything.
Nailing down the exact number who would just quit on life altogether is borderline impossible, because they like to pretend to be like us, people who would still work. But make no mistake, they don't mean it. They literally care about no one and would NEVER rise to the occasion except on their own behalf (meaning to live), sometimes not even then.
One thing people tend to by-pass is how to pay for it. Realize if there is UBI a lot of the current programs like (Social Security, Welfare, Food stamp, etc.) could be cancelled and that money be rolled into one UBI type program. Through UHC in there and you could cancel Medicade, Medicare programs as well. What percentage of GDP is being spent on all the various programs that could be rolled into UBI/UHC.
Dire Straits knew this decades ago.
It's only work if you HAVE to do it (i.e. to make a living) and/or don't like doing it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have been taught that Yoorop could do not wrong. :( I knew for sure everything Yoorop did was absolutely right. Yoorop was the uncontested leader of the world. Nothing Yoorop did could fail, ever. We should all strive to be like Yoorop, even while knowing nobody could ever, ever, approach the perfection Yoorop is. To hear that one of those universally accepted Truth is wrong... Well, it's more than anyone can bear. I cannot keep living anymore. Yoorop is not perfect. My world is shattered. Going on makes no sense. Goodbye.
The question is not whether you would keep your curent job but whether you would do something productive if freed from the finanicl dpendency on your curent job.
If any of those things you'd rather be doing include:
Art projects,
Improving your home/neighborhood,
Participating in community works (like a sports team or such),
Study of science, history, etc.
Learn a new trade and practice it as a hobby
etc.
Than you are in GP's "live to work" category.
Actually the cost of most commodities and services *should* be trending towards zero as automation takes over (which is what will make something like UBI necessary due to 50%+ unemployment).
But in all likelihood we'll end up living out the bad ending in Manna: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
The study has a bias. It must include currently employed folks, at least 80-90% of the study should be already employed.
First , unemployed might just have bad luck, or they might not be good employees. And the employed need to be included to see if they'd quit their job and get high , or just keep working or try a riskier job or entrepreneurship.
If society throws UBI at me, I'll try to give society something back. But it'll be something where I feel there's a need, and where I want to give.
UBI won't be any more successful than any other freebie program. Sure a lot of people will get to feel better because they feel did something. Just like when welfare was created. But the only thing that was actually done was the issue was made worse.
You only end up with a larger version of the same problem down the road.
More system dependent people.
Higher costs for goods over time. (not as a result of the program. just because prices always rise. but now $xxx.xx UBI isn't enough)
Fewer people putting into the system.
And a group of people who will say UBI isn't enough we have to do more.
Back to problem one...
Food and clothes are cheaper than ever before. More things and newer things are available to buy than ever before. So why are we spending and borrowing ln a per capita rate greater than the dead middle of WWII when we were engaged in a major war on two fronts, and were churning out one major naval ship a week?
There is no god damned emergency in good times. This is just bread and circuses screetching by politicians for politicians to get power.
Any balanced budget, as with the unexpected Internet boom, will quickly unbalance because they can always borrow some more to spend for votes.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's not universal basic income unless EVERYONE gets it. That's the universal part. Rich, poor, young, old. Bill Gates and the homeless guy on the street corner. You want universal income, you need to give it to everyone.
No sentient being should be enslaved, Real freedom is to not be concerned about where your next meal is coming from... then inspiration comes much easier. Feed the people, cloth them, give a few dollars to play with... your society will have a much greater chance of producing brilliant minds.
[($)]
Have the government running profitable businesses "For The People". Invest our money wisely.... why cant a government do that... like Musk.
[($)]
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
I didn't get it WHY they killed the experiment.. Anyone care to explain?
Because more than half of our Federal spending (SSA and Medicare alone are more than half of Federal spending) are Entitlements? Last year, 62% of the Federal budget was Entitlements (SSA, Medicare, Madicaid, specifically), for instance.
The military absorbs a whole 14% of the Federal budget. Plus about half that for servicing the National Debt, of course.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Aids or other STD's? Yes.
Windows 10? Yes.
Money? Probably not.
Windows 7 license? The more the merrier!
Methinks you need to stop viewing the world in a binary context -- context IS what is important, not "only" the choices.
Yup, and here context was "things that the government can make available for free, thanks to the budget it obtains through taxes".
Notice how the single thing on your list that a government provides for free ("Money ?")* is on the the things you like ("Probably not {resent}").
(*) : as social warfare to assist individual going through hard time (e.g.: unemployement service)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I see it as anything that requires more than 0 joules of energy.
But I'm a nerd like that.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The newly in power Finnish government has been ideologically opposed to the UBI experiment since before it started. It had nothing to do with the results of the experiment. It was killed so they could call it failed, not because it failed.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
For that matter, especially in a world with truly universal basic income, what does being a "productive member of society" even mean? Are artists productive members of society? They often make a pittance in money in today's world, but some (usually after their death) become so famous that their works are nearly priceless and are, in some cases, considered national treasures. Does an artist's productivity (or lack thereof) depend on how people later judge their works?
As long anyone in the world can live without money or things getting done for free he can not accomplish, this person is not forced to work.
But, we all depend on money or goods or people doing things for us in their time. Noone can live totally without money or he dies when not able toopay the doctor.
I always ask who has to work for the monies other should get without doing anything for it?
People want to ride the bus for free because its better for the environment. Thats a fucking lie. Young students need monies to get drunk and partying and having the newest gadgets. Thats why such people stand up for such projects they never finance and live of tax monies....
Basic income raises the prices. I got to work and pay rent. The dud who does nothing gets the money fro free and the landlord will raise the rent because all people have money now. The food will be more expensive because all folks now are rich..
So i should go to work for others lazyness or fucking dumbness. I they missed the chance to make good grades, why is that MY problem???
If they wanna live in the woods and live off berries etc, they are free to do...but don`t show up at my door hungry.
The whole debate is about lazy people wanting to let others pay for their fail in life.
I have seen so many people just to lazy to go to school again or do somtihing about the shitty job. But instead complaning consumes the time to get shit done.Look at all the protesters on a wednesday noon in every city. Hell, i know where the work is that needs to be done. I was unemployed once and work in constructions, dirty, loud etc. I did this for a time when meeting my future boss on the construction site. He hired me after i told him i use to work in the IT. He wasstunned that i did this shitty job and told me he was searching for an IT guy(that dud ran a big company) who does not comes up with the salary within the first minutes of a job interview.
It took some more time to get my dream job now, but i made it. It was not easy. Believe me.
I just read from few Finnish news sources that KELA is in WTF mode. They say that they never told anyone that the experiment will be killed, it will continue as planed until end of 2018. And the results will be evaluated after the experiment has ended. All they've told before was that they don't have any plans beyond end of 2018. (It's up to government anyway to tell them what kind of system to implement anyway).