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.

21 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. Duh? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:Duh? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA is misleading.

      It was never a universal basic income, because it was never universal. Only unemployed people got it.

      And it was less generous than the previous unemployment benefits, the idea being to "encourage" people into work.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Duh? by GoTeam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, saying "Only unemployed people got it" isn't 100% correct. If those unemployed people got a job, they kept getting the $690 each month. But your point about it not being a true UBI is well taken.

    3. Re: Duh? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't need work. I need money. I could find a lot of sensible things to do with my time on my own, don't worry about this.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Duh? by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They sure as hell do!

      The problem is that we've redefined income to mean, "money I get paid directly to do a job", while excluding "wealth gain due to using my money to make more money".

      That's still income, and it should be taxed like income.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re: Duh? by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans need something to feel productive and appriciated yes. The fact is many people have to decide between jobs that fit them better, IE make them more happy at work... and jobs that pay better and actually can afford to keep their kids in a decent home, and ensure that they can afford for his/her children to actually have the option for an education that will allow him to pick a job that satisfies them. and that's ignoring the fact that there is no perfect law or guarantees that the quantity of jobs lost to technology will always be counteracted by the amount of jobs replaced etc... The fact is some people can feel happy and satisfied, making youtube videos that only interest a few dozen people (and thus are pretty much implausible to afford to live off of). Heck MMORPGs are pretty historically great at filling that urge/need in humans. I'm not one of those people... but I do work in a field where there is very high competition, and I'd have much easier times getting a job if I didn't have to compete with people who hate the idea of doing the job I want, but they have to do it to survive.

    6. Re:Duh? by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What happens when you Give Poor People Cash? They spend it on the things that it makes the most sense to them to spend it on. Things like livestock, tools, and housing repairs. Things like health care and education.

      It's almost as though the idea that helping people is bad comes from miserable SOBs who are only ever happy when other people are miserable, too.

    7. Re:Duh? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the rest of the money ends up in the hands of the business owners who take it out via dividends or capital gains. Just like they do now.

      News Flash: The 1% do not have incomes to tax.

      Crazily, once you get over about 150k p/y and can afford to take advantages of loopholes you pay less of your income as a % in taxes than you do if you make less than that.

      The fact that there are billionaires out there who pay $0 in income tax because they structure their ownings to look like a net negative in the eye's of the law (even though their wealth is growing) is frankly disgusting.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re:Duh? by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Poor people in my home town use a windfall to fix or replace their cars because they are tired of throwing money into their rolling wreak that is always broken down. Or to pay off credit cards (which they probably shouldn't have) to get that 22% APR monkey off their backs. Admittedly most of them fail to stop using the credit cards entirely, most people use them for "emergencies" but when your poor everything feels like an emergency. Kid has no school clothes or shoes? Charge it.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    9. Re: Duh? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, they need purpose. Work may or may not be a means of finding purpose, but needing to work to survive isn't advantageous in and of itself.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  2. Re:Doesn't work as an experiment by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, we can't try it out to see if it works, we have to implement it on a massive scale and only then can we know? Yeah, we're not going to experiment with all of society like that. Those kind of social experiments have a bad history of negative outcomes, something that educated people know.

    Plus you pull out something completely new, that is also untested and unknown? Huh?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  3. Misleading headline by RichDiesal · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. The issue remains - what to do with people by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The issue remains - what to do with people by Xolotl · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many % of the population are actually waiters and lawyers and doctors and trash collectors?

      Sales cashiers are being automated away through self-checkout. McDonalds staff are being automated away through ordering booths and robotic burger flippers. Drivers are forseeably going to be automated away through self-drvinf vehicles. Call centers have voice-recognition AI, web pages have customer query chat bots, trash collection can be easily roboticised once self driving vehicles happen. Factories are already automated. The numbers of available jobs in industries which require either manual labor or scriptable interations is falling and will continue to do so.

    2. Re:The issue remains - what to do with people by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, Informative

      What type of magical "automation" is coming that is going to massively replace jobs? People keep talking about "automation", but is there some magic technology coming that is going to automate out waiters and lawyers and doctors and trash collectors?

      Not paying attention, are you? Waiters and trash collectors are already losing jobs to automation. It's not a 100% replacement, but automation is cutting the numbers of workers in those (and many other) industries down.

      Just look at checkout lines at stores - most of the ones around here have less manned lanes open because they're pushing the "self checkout" lanes - which are automated with video and weight sensors - which let a single employee run 4-12 "lanes" at a time. Even your examples of waiters and trash collectors suffer from this: Several national restaurant chains are moving to have a tablet-like device on the tables from which you can place orders and pay your bill. Doing this reduces the time waiters need to spend at your table, and results in more tables served with less employees. In the last 20 years, most garbage trucks have moved to a system where a driver uses a robotic arm to pick up and dump trash cans. Compare this to how it used to be, with 3-4 workers riding the truck with the driver to do the job that one robot arm does now.

  5. Re:Here's an idea... by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. RObot overlords, AI, automation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Random by Xolotl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Here's an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Doesn't work as an experiment by butzwonker · · Score: 4, Informative

    What are you talking about? There was not a single socialist or communist country with UBI ever.

    In socialism and communism people were forced into labour, unemployment figures were neglectable and everybody was "dragged along" at the work place, whether they were drunk and incapable or not. It was the worst case scenario for the productivity and for those who weren't willing or capable of doing the work they had chosen or were chosen for. The people who didn't meet expectations were constantly cautioned and 'educated', and it was hard and took serious efforts to change workplace, especially if you weren't in line with the party.

    UBI is the opposite of that concept. The only similarity is that less people had to live on the street and people were less afraid of their future, after that the similarities end. UBI has never tried in any country so far.

  10. Re:Why does basic income keep appearing here? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.