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.
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.
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.
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.
So they were random, but people who were unemployed AND who were registered as a person who is seeking for a job and were from Finland? Even better! Here is a question: isn't the idea of a Basic Income to provide a set amount of dollars per person, no matter what their employment status is?
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.
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
I guess this means a random selection of people who are unemployed.
For such a test it would actually be very important to see why are these people unemployed, because they could possibly have very different results based on that.
If someone has been unemployed for a couple of weeks, really between jobs or someone who has been unemployed for 3 years. The results could be very different.
New things are always on the horizon
SJW types want free shit for themselves and their minority pets. That's why. The tech world has been hijacked to push left-wing political agendas.
You were doing so good, but you fucked up the end. No pansexual? LGBTQQIAN?
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.
It gets the fake libertarians on here riled up. All nerds seem to believe that they earn six figures because of their intelligence and effort, and not because they happen to be in an industry that has been hot for a few decades and they got lucky.
But they didn't implement it right... Waaaaaaah!
Here is someone who wants to give it a shot in the US, along with some of his reasoning.
Most likely, but I do't understand how UBI can be tested by selecting a "random" set from a very narrow subset (likely 1-10%) of the entire population.
Because we have compassion. Or so the plebes won't rise up and kill us when the revolution comes. Because we have compassion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
I'm assuming most of us are pulling down six figures
. . . "earning" six figures . . . and paying five figures in taxes.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
The idea is that "automation\technology" is coming so there will soon be vast amounts of unemployed people. The data, like productivity numbers, seems to indicate that automation is actually slowing down, but that doesn't stop people from claiming that any day now.... Anyways keep in mind that society used to have over 90% of people on farms raising food and we really automated all that away many years ago. I am pretty sure that the universal income experiments, if done properly, will show that it is actually a really bad idea. Which is why I think the experiments really should be done. Some studies have a result of "...a moderate reduction in work effort (17% among women, 7% among men) ...". See Wikipedia article for more details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots
It gets the fake libertarians on here riled up. All nerds seem to believe that they earn six figures because of their intelligence and effort, and not because they happen to be in an industry that has been hot for a few decades and they got lucky.
Translation: I don't understand economics.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
>> nerds seem to believe that they earn six figures because of their intelligence and effort, and not because they happen to be in an industry that has been hot for a few decades and they got lucky
So the people that invested in engineering, IT and comp sci degrees and training lucked into their multiyear career evolution: got it.
Would you also agree that people who looked at wealth-generating careers in tech or health and then decided to get that Masters in helping people fill out forms (e.g. social work) or writing a coherent paragraph (e.g.English) instead are simply "unlucky"?
Because most people want to have more than just the basic necessities of life: a nicer car, a nicer house, holidays, gadgets, whatever. That requires money and so requires finding a job.
Reducing stress while looking for that job makes it easier, it means that you can look for a better job or get training without worrying where the next meal is coming from.
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.
Because if it ever comes to this..it will be YOUR ass that is paying for it.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Because you have to start somewhere and the easiest place is people who would already be getting unemployment benefits anyway. The point was to gradually expand the trial, but it got nixed (likely for political reasons).,
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?
Why is it easier to select from a narrow subset of the population vs selecting from the entire population? I think you guys are missing the point. This isn't how UBI is supposed to work.
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.........
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I understand economics. I support UBI as a concept. I am just explaining why they post UBI articles here.
It is. This was just the trial that among other things was to provide some evidence on whether or not it helps unemployed people who are seeking a job.
Yes. It is "lucky", because other people who invested in other types of engineering degrees didn't get the same return on their investment because they weren't as "lucky". The point is that we are at a unprecedented boom in computer technology for the last few decades and that is why the return on investment is so high.
Because most people want to have more than just the basic necessities of life
What evidence do you have to suggest this? Why are there more people accepting of mediocrity than those pursuing higher life goals to get more than basic necessities?
Why work and find a job when I can use a sob story to get legislation passed to give me what I want without work from suckers that do work?
Reducing stress while looking for that job makes it easier
Less stress != easier. Stress can be a good thing. You still have to go through the same crap of finding a job regardless of the stress. Handling stress is part of life and again can be a good thing.
you said "which is self-funding"......what does that mean when it's the government giving out the benefit? Asking seriously...
From what I understand, it wasn't really UBI. So you're trying to apply a selection process logic to a trial that wasn't even UBI in the first place.
#DeleteFacebook
Then that isn't a test of UBI, because that isn't what UBI is about.
The Soviet Union had something close to a basic income. Everyone got money. Everyone had a job too, but there were basically no expectations and you couldn't be fired. There seemed to be little pride in workmanship, faucets hooked up randomly (Hot - Cold), live electrical wires sticking out of walls, hanging from the ceiling, out of street posts (I walked into one of these), big holes in sidewalks, high rates of alcoholism (on and off the job). All construction was nonsquare and misaligned.
This guy has a good youtube channel, Real Russia of what it's like to live in Russia and remember this is 25 years after it fell.
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?
It wasn't designed as a test of UBI. At all. It just happens to test a few of its tenets.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Think of it as a tax so the pitchforks don't come for you and other smart-alecs.
That's protection money, not a tax. Or maybe they are the same thing.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
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.
That kind of article is why I avoid discussing politics. Please note that people have been predicting the demise of one party or the other for at least two decades.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm not sure how much is a "figure", but I think paying 83% taxes is a bit high.
I've hired aerospace, chemical and mechanical engineers into dev roles, thus allowing them to join the money train. (If you can design a working X for the chaotic real world, I know you're smart enough to write working code to run under a structured OS.)
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.
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
That's called communism, and yes, there are have been many problems with it every time it's been attempted. Fraud is one, but the biggest is that you've removed the reward for working harder than your neighbor and you've given an incentive for lazy people to not work.
Revolutions do happen occasionally, but they usually fail so the threat of a revolution isn't taken seriously. What happened in Turkey in 2016 is a perfect example.
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
Working? Yes. Good? Perhaps. Maintainable? Unlikely.
That is all.
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 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.
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
And if it doesn't, it will be your neck in the noose when the mob rises after the unlearned masses CANNOT get a job but MUST have one to survive.
Choose wisely.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
More than one reason.
First, we know that automation and robotics WILL eliminate jobs. And AI will ensure that there aren't any new ones propping up that cannot be filled with AI guided robots. We're getting close to the point where low skill labor is virtually eliminated. And you can't simply turn everyone into a highly skilled person, no matter what that skill supposedly would be. Half of the population have a sub-average IQ. And these people will soon not be employable anymore. In no jobs. Right now their "selling point" is that they're cheaper than the currently emerging artificial workers that could replace them. How much longer do you think this will be the case? Because at some point even the lowest dimwit finds out that if he can't survive on 3 jobs, he's fucked because working 3 8-hour shifts a day is pretty much the limit of what you can do in a day. And once the gas you need to drive to your job costs more than what you make there, NOT working is the financially more lucrative option.
What do you think will happen when the amount of people who have nothing to lose reaches critical mass?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My mistake!
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?
I think a UBI system could be really great but if me and my spouse had an extra $1,000 apiece each month know what I'd do? Buy another property and rent it out. Then once that's stabilized... do it again.
If x% of homeowners use this to become landlords, and current lessors know everyone has an extra $1,000 what will this do to rental prices?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Two points, from a AI point of view:
A) Humans are really, really bad in deducing the consequences of the ideas they advocate (especially those who defend the idea of limitless capitalism and extreme individualism);
B) These same humans appear to be unable to understand what they read, especially the concept expressed by the word "BASIC" from "basic income";
Attempting to explain the concept: BASIC income is the minimum income needed for the individual to have their basic needs met: Housing, food, basic clothing.
Anyone who wants more than the basics would have to look for a job
But in compensation would not be at risk of starving if they can not get a job, this is the objective of the BASIC income.
No risk of everyone stop working (no one will want to stay only in basics if they can work), no risk of social disasters if there is not enough work available for all those who want or need to work (because with BASIC not having work ceases to be a death sentence).
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Sweden , Danemark seem to work because these were very rich capitalist countries before they became solcialist. Still corporate taxes are very low. Anyway, one day money runs out and then you will be saying that this was no real socialism. Venezuela was also greate example of working socialism before it stopped to be good example.
Reducing stress is also a good way good way to save on secondary costs. Lower stress levels lead to all kinds of positive effects, like lesser amounts of problem behavior (like excessive drinking) and less sickness. In a society like Finland where a bulk of the costs of such things are taken care by the Government with tax money, that's significant.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Even if I'm seeking a job but getting money while I don't have a job why would I seriously look for job?
For the same reason that people with jobs continually look for better jobs, I suppose.
There's no stress to find a job, per the article
the article says there was less stress, not none - you quoted this yourself, but somehow missed it... being intentionally obtuse, maybe?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
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.
"And AI will ensure that there aren't any new ones propping up that cannot be filled with AI guided robots"
This is an extraordinary claim. What evidence do you have (other than PR marketing press releases and dystopian movies that you happened to see) that "AI guided" robots will exist?
Now that I think about it, that's almost identical as it is in the US. With the exception that there is actually a chance that you CAN get fired, unless your boss is on the same "don't give a fuck" level as you are already.
Which kinda explains the quality of work you usually see in the US. Give it 20 more years and you're Russia.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because most people want to have more than just the basic necessities of life
What evidence do you have to suggest this? Why are there more people accepting of mediocrity than those pursuing higher life goals to get more than basic necessities?
Peer pressure and a desire to be more comfortable. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it does buy comfort.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
It really wasn't so much forced labor as much as complete indifference because you got paid no matter what. This led to low quality pretty much everything. I wish I could remember all the details a friend told me about a flight he took and went up to talk to .the pilots and they were complaining that none of the instruments worked. It was kinda funny, but very sad.
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.
How about working for a living instead of leeching of society?
That would be easier if there was work available.
You seem unfamiliar with the statistics in Finland.
There is something like a few ten thousand open jobs available. Let's round that up to 50,000.
There are over 200,000 unemployed.
Even if the job market was 100% efficient there just isn't work for everyone in Finland at the moment.
Qbertino mentioned the real reason universal/basic income is being experimented with.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Because 1: this isn't an actual Universal Basic Income trial. It was more of an extension to unemployment programs, looking to see if people with a guaranteed income ( even if it's a very small one ) will continue to look for a job to supplement that income.
Because 2: if the people that actually need it are in a narrow subset of the population, statistically you will get very few of them in your data set. Why bother making a data set if the vast majority of it is garbage data that you can't use to look at what you want to study?
Giving an extra 5-6K / year to people making easily livable wages won't tell you anything, other than getting a free 6K "makes life easier". Giving 6K / year to someone who is NOT making a livable wage can tell you a lot, like is it enough / too much / not enough, or in the worst case - will people actually look for a job if they are getting this money.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
What makes you think it's any different "over here"? You get just enough "quality" to keep people from getting fired. Because people have learned that putting any more effort into it isn't rewarded. Not at all. If anything, it means more work. Climbing the ladder? Please. IF it is possible, it means 5% more pay for 50% more work. Who in their sane mind would WANT that?
Indifference doesn't even start to describe how the average worker views his job. And the lower the pay, the worse.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I understand economics. I support UBI as a concept.
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
As some have pointed out within the country, it provides a disincentive to work and existing and new jobs don't get filled. Finland has a huge shortage of workers from construction and engineering to teaching, research and nursing and the results of the tests were basically that people stopped working jobs that were considered low-rank and didn't improve themselves to get higher-end jobs.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Job hunting is stressful. Not always in a good way. Not knowing if your risk losing your residence, your car, or where you're getting your next meal from is incredibly stressful and does make it harder. It's hard to give a good interview when your only thoughts are, "don't mess up, don't mess up....."
I have guns.....plenty of them.
But if it comes to that kind of mass revolt....eveyone will be in trouble, and the fittest and best armed and prepared will be the survivors.
But given that that's the absolute worst case scenario, I would posit that humans are resourceful, and all through time, people have found something to do to survive and make themselves of value to other people.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.........
And _if_ a robot takes your job, you should seek to product through some other function that people "value" (read: "are willing to pay for"). It's not as if your need to consume will go away. So it remains important that you produce. That is, unless you have decided that it should be somebody else's problem to pay your way.
(Virtuous notions: Try to be a giver. Try not to be a taker. Never give up.)
A) Humans are really, really bad in deducing the consequences of the ideas they advocate (especially those who defend the idea of limitless capitalism and extreme individualism);
But, those who defend enslaving a subset of humans to serve the needs of those that would be happy so barely subsist as long as they are not required to give back have vision bordering on clairvoyance? In other words, anyone that doesn't agree with your predictions and extrapolations is poor at deduction? Multi-generational government welfare dependency is not a thing in your world?
I'm going to be more direct, and say that you are really bad at OBSERVING THE DIRECT RESULTS of ideas you advocate.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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 ]
My question is with all these shiny, glossy predictions about UBI on /. how is it an article about it failing arrive here?
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.
You are exactly the kind of person who can not understand the consequences of an idea. What would you do with those who do not have jobs because there is no job for them? Kill them all? And better yet, what will you do if it is you who do not have a job because there are no more jobs? You will accept to be killed "for the sake of the nation" by people who think like you?
Of course not.
So obviously you can not understand the consequences, otherwise you would not be insisting on the selfish (and wrong) idea of "every man for himself".
P.S: And no, a minority would not be "enslaved" to support others, stop this pathetic presumption. Reread the whole concept of basic income and maybe you will understand why.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
thoughts are, "don't mess up, don't mess up....."
If those are your thoughts you are going to mess up. Part of doing a good interview is knowing how to relax. The people on the other-side of the table have been the interviewee before they understand people are nervous and likely will be accepting of some level of nervousness. After-all, it isn't (likely) an interview for an actor or public speaker but if you completely fumble because you keep thinking "don't mess up, don't mess up" and come off as a nervous wreck then it seems more likely that is your character and no one wants to work with unstable nervous wrecks. Leave the world at the door. It will be there when you finish
Learn how to give proper interviews. The state labor department should provide some training and mock interviews to help you.
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!
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.
It's just more protection money, you already pay lots of protection money and just aren't used to looking at it like that. In most every country taxes support things like Military, Police, Courts, Legislatures, and innumerable other agencies that serve the common good.
If the robot worker apocalypse does ever manifest it is very likely that the only peaceful solution will be some sort of UBI. It could just so happen that human workers end up being replaced as human workers expire. I find it more likely that some big advancements will happen that lead to rapidly replacing human workers with automation. At that point whether or not UBI is protection money or not becomes more of an academic question, because you'll either pay it or take your chances. The one thing I'm most certain of in that kind of situation is that the unemployed and destitute would be very unlikely to simply lie down and die somewhere out of sight.
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
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.
Well, it would definitely get rid of sanctuary cities and really incite cities to get rid of poor citizens.
Now that I think about it, that's almost identical as it is in the US. With the exception that there is actually a chance that you CAN get fired, unless your boss is on the same "don't give a fuck" level as you are already.
Which kinda explains the quality of work you usually see in the US. Give it 20 more years and you're Russia.
Why so long if that's true? Why does it take us 200+ years to deteriorate and Russia 50 years? Unless you are arguing we had better consumer and employee rights 100 years ago?
If robots take over production, there is no need for any UBI. Production costs would be so low that working only a few hours a month would be more than sufficient. They aren't going to replace all the workers with robots so they can produce stuff no one can afford to buy.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
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.........
>> Maintainable? Unlikely.
Fresh comp sci grads have this problem too. Your job as a dev manager, architect or lead, is to make sure that the newbie (or consultant) work gets restricted to testable modules that aren't critical performance drivers.
What evidence do you have to suggest this?
Exhibit A: The Mall.
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
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...
Its getting pushed to change governments. Show up in another nation as a non citizen and get a free UBI.
The illegal aliens get their share of a UBI in any nation.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Why is working harder a desirable quantity? By that measure, most of us computer programmers are shitty workers because many of us have no desire to work harder. Working smarter, now that's a different story.
The point is, the rat race is fucking stupid. If you've bought into it, congrats, you're an idiot. Most of the rest of us want to do a job we're happy with so we can go home and do something completely unrelated to what we do for money.
Connect the UBI to a bank card. Then have a list of products and services that can be supported with the payment. No liquor allowed.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
There used to be some kind of appreciation between boss and worker and some mutual respect. Workers had the impression that their work did make a difference and their contribution was valued, and that with enough effort they would get promoted, earn more, which was in turn seen by the other workers, motivating them to put in the effort to do the same. It was rather likely if not the norm to work most of even all of your life for one employer who valued and rewarded your loyalty.
This changed completely. And if you feel like your company treats you like a piece of furniture or, worse, the necessary evil for doing business, when your contract basically says "you're at our beck and call, but we only pay you if we actually call you and if you're not available you're fired, so don't even think about taking another job while you're sitting next to the phone waiting for us to call you", when your loyalty and overtime hours are rewarded by being fired but you get to train your Indian replacement, how could you dare to expect more than the bare minimum of effort?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
If you arrive at the point when the mob rises up, you're fucked either way. You can of course gun them down, and the rest of the world will look at you like you've just turned into the ugly stepchild of Kim Yong Un and Osama Bin Laden, which would make international politics pretty uncomfortable for the US. I mean, if you make Russia look like a lovely place in comparison, you're really fucked. Not to mention that this would finally totally rip the country apart and you can kiss any semblance of a remaining democracy good-bye.
You can try to reason with them and be gunned down instead, of course, which would be even worse.
By now I thought it became obvious that social problems cannot be solved with guns... but some kids need to touch the stove more than once.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If robots take over production, there is no need for any UBI. Production costs would be so low that working only a few hours a month would be more than sufficient.
You might think that, but what we've seen over the last 30, 40 years is that productivity gains, automation savings, most of that goes to the ceos, the VPs, the shareholders, the investors. It lowers the prices of the companies' products, but most gains go to the very top, as they're the ones who control where those gains go to. For your scenario to happen, we would have to see that situation reverse, and I'm not sure that happens without some incredible sea change, violent or not.
This is because removing a person from society costs society more than just the lost economic value of that one person.
But that's okay if there's a real profit involved. America has an incentive to incarcerate people at the expense of society, as long as it results in money being funneled into the pockets of private prison owners. Bonus points if you can somehow force the incarcerated to do labor, resulting in more profit for the prison owners.
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?
What jobs do you think will remain that could be considered "menial work"? We have arrived at the point where it's possible (although not cheap enough just yet) to eliminate all burger flipper jobs, the only thing missing is that the machines are still more expensive than the humans. Otherwise, that level has been reached.
And I don't see many jobs for this group of people being created due to automation or due to a shift in what people want. Most people in the "developed" world are working in the third sector, i.e. service industry. And we're working hard on eliminating those jobs now. Where should these people go? Just saying "oh, until now every time we eliminated jobs, something else came along". Yes. This worked because that was something that could not be automated back then. When agriculture was turned from a labor intensive to a machine intensive industry, the emerging factories took the people in, we actually had a shortage of workers until the industrial revolution. Automation in this area created free labor for the emerging service industry. Mind you, there has always been a gap of misery between those paradigm shifts.
Now that we automate and thus eliminate jobs in the service industry (which is already in a pretty bad shape because services are the first thing people cut down on when money gets tight), where will these people go? You don't need sophisticated AI to eliminate jobs and displace workers that have rather limited cognitive abilities, "shut up or I replace you with a very small script" is no longer just an empty threat. For some it has become painful reality, and for some more it will in the foreseeable future.
I'd guess that Amazon being one of the first to replace their workers packing stuff with automated shelves that pack and ship their crap fully automated. And that's only the beginning. As a side effect this also means that smaller businesses will go out of business because they cannot afford the machinery and logistics behind, which creates even more unemployed people. What we're looking at in the future (not the near future, but give it a decade or two) is large companies that are staffed only by management and a handful of technicians to keep the machines running, no jobs left for "blue collar" workers.
We're talking about roughly 40-50% of the workforce having no chance to ever have a job in merely a decade or two. I hope I'm not the only one who can identify this as a huge problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sweden , Danemark seem to work because these were very rich capitalist countries before they became solcialist
So you're saying that countries that follow the transition path that Marx outlined work, whereas ones that try to skip a step and jump straight from feudalism to communism don't? I'm sure Marx would be shocked to learn this!
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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!
Lots of things are called "communism" by people who don't know what they're talking about. I know of no implementation of Communism with a UBI. The Marxist creed of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," besides being unrealistic, doesn't include UBIs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I am intelligent, and have put in a lot of work, but, frankly, I stumbled into this field. Being an actuary sounded dull, and that was about the only other non-academic option presented for math majors. My wife, quite a bit later, decided that the graphic arts would never earn the money she wanted, and I told her programming had worked great as a racket for me.
I'm sure I could have been as financially successful in other lines of work, but I doubt I'd have found one I like as much for the money.
In other words, I had intelligence, something of a work ethic, and dumb luck.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Currently, we're undergoing a demographic shift away from the predominantly Christian white-dominated society. The Republican party will adapt or die and be replaced. Anyone want to take bets?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yeah but a lot of those immigrants are actually really conservative. Once they realize that Republicans aren't actually any more racist than Democrats, then Democrats will be in trouble.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is a long-standing issue. Immigrants, by and large, vote Democrat. This isn't a new thing. Hispanics tend, on the whole, to be religious conservatives, and vote Democrat.
Your perception of racism is clearly not theirs.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Well, if you want to get into a deep discussion of Latino politics, we can.....But if you're merely pointing out that Latinos have voted for Democrats in the past, duely noted, just be aware it will not continue with any certainty.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."