Slashdot Mirror
Finland Basic Income Trial Left People 'Happier But Jobless' (bbc.com)
Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said. From a report: From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of $685. The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work. While employment levels did not improve, participants said they felt happier and less stressed. When it launched the pilot scheme back in 2017, Finland became the first European country to test out the idea of an unconditional basic income. It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits. It immediately attracted international interest - but these results have now raised questions about the effectiveness of such schemes.
Give people a basic income thats not dependent on whether they bother to look for work or not and ... they don't bother! Well, I for one never saw that coming! No no , not in a million years!
Is there anything dumber in this world (that are still recognisable human) than socialists?
It did not reduce unemployment, but it reduced the stress of that situation for people. That social impact of that cannot be ignored. In addition, this was only 2,000 random people out of 400,000. That is not enough to determine the economic impact on any sort of measurable scale.
This experiment it is a starting point, not a failure.
I know people on welfare that get small checks like this each month. The only reason they don't try to work is because they will loose their free money, so instead they just find creative ways to live off what they are given. The last thing they would ever consider doing is finding a job.
I do not belong to the church of the lowercase 'i'
The results from experiments with a random selection of 2000 people cannot be extrapolated to a hypothetical situation of Universal Basic Income. Job dynamics when everybody has a guaranteed source of income would be... interesting.
People weren't meant for that... you suggesting that this would make them happy.
[($)]
A lot of people like to point out that basic income will not motivate people to work, yet we're subsidizing that laziness, and that's certainly true. However, the mistake is assuming that we aren't paying for it already. I would rather use a basic income to replace all of the existing social programs that we spend billions of dollars on per year. It's far better solution in that it's more adaptive (food stamps are useless if you need to repair your car to get to a job) and less expensive to administer since it's a single program.
But it's also necessary to look at it in terms of other costs it might help prevent. People without money or any way to obtain it aren't going to sit and starve. More often than not they turn to some form of crime. It costs a lot of money to hire a police force necessary to deal with that crime and to incarcerate the criminals who perpetuate it. If $700 a month stops us from having to pay almost four times that amount to lock that person up in jail, we're recognizing cost savings there as well.
I think that large scale government wealth redistribution schemes are folly, but a basic income is the best way to go about doing it. From a utilitarian point of view, we're already spending massive amounts of money on these types of programs. I think it's a good compromise because the left gets their government program and the right gets a smaller government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unemployment benefits usually require you to seek work, and end when you obtain work...
This didn't require you to seek work, and would still be paid if you got a job (providing bonus income)
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Have you considered the stress that people experience when they need to pony up the money when taxes are being paid? Lack of empathy, cruel and cold immorality is so typical among the socialists.
Is there anything dumber in this world (that are still recognisable human) than socialists?
Yes. Trump supporters. Though the ones in the KKK and the nazis are hard to recognize as human.
More seriously, it was an experiment. Relax. Yes the outcome was fairly predictable but sometimes what seems obvious actually isn't correct. So you run an experiment to find out. It was possible we'd find out something unexpected. This sort of data is why I think people who talk nonsense about a "post scarcity society" are talking complete nonsense because most people don't want to work if they don't have to.
I have a bachelor's degree in economics and I can assure you that, yes, this is written down in many, many books.
If you want people to work low-end jobs, subsidize wages so employers can take useful advantage of that labor pool.
Everyone wins.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As a civilization, is the goal employment or happiness? Is employment of every capable individual necessary for the happiness of society or can happiness be achieved without exhaustive employment. As efficiencies increase and fewer human labor hours are necessary for the same output, perhaps we should start looking to happiness as a measure of a successful society rather than a fully employed population.
Does seeing your neighbor get by on public assistance make you more happy or less happy than seeing a person that is homeless on the corner begging for money? Personally, I would prefer the public assistance neighbor to the person struggling on the street corner.
A few things:
1 - They did not get employment more than their counterparts (it doesn't help 'em find jobs).
2 - They did not get employment less than their counterparts (they don't take the money and slack off).
3 - They were collecting this instead of unemployment or other benefits (which may have different bureaucratic ramifications one way or another depending on program implementation overhead).
4 - They were happier.
5 - This is a successful experiment - it produced data in a controlled manner which can likely be replicated.
There are a few narratives left to be explored. Here are some samples of such stories:
(PRO) "UBI, as implemented, costs less than the collection of unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, and other assorted benefits. Giving poor people money through a unified program decreases administration costs and allows for individual choice regulation in the marketplace without affecting employment outcomes."
(debatable-PRO) "UBI, as implemented, is more expensive than unemployment costs in implementation, but results in happier and less stressful citizens."
(neutral) "UBI, as implemented, did not result in people just sitting about the house."
(debatable-CON) "UBI did not result in additional risk-taking, business-starting, or other activities, as hypothesized."
(CON) "UBI cost the taxpayer money to pay people to be happier while they sat at home doing nothing productive."
"You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless."
And the best part is that the solution is in your post:
"You want people to smoke less, you put higher taxes on cigarettes"
We need to put higher taxes on people who are unemployed. That'll solve unemployment. It's so obvious I wonder why its not in every school textbook.
Actually, the article didn't say it increased joblessness.
It only said that it didn't *reduce* unemployment.
Considering the stated goal was to "see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work", this is unsurprising. Perhaps many of them did take such work, but with something like a gig job where you are just paid once as soon as you finish the job, it doesn't technically qualify as lifting them out of unemployment.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You really shouldn't live like you are. To say you can't change that is a lie you tell yourself. Cut one minor expense or two a month and you can have thousands saved over years of working. Take serious stock of your expenses and you can save many thousands. To say you can't do that is an idiotic lie you tell yourself.
My household income is >$200k but my cable, movie and video entertainment bill is literally $0 out of habits formed when my income was not this high. I go to the library and check out TV shows and movies and watch youtube. I had netflix once until they decided to make it all about minorities. Now I have an extra $120 a year to save. Over 30 years, cancelling netflix alone is $3,600 without accounting for investment earnings.
Reduced stress.... good
Happier... good
Don't have to find a shit job.... good
I should note that all of the people selected for the experiment were jobless at the start. Is it a surprise that they were jobless at the end? Some of them did find work in spite of being paid not to work.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Granted, I live paycheck to paycheck and have a small savings to take care of minor emergencies. But nothing to cover a single month of expenses.
Why the hell are you doing that? It seems like you recognize the folly, but yet you choose to continue to do so.
I thought that one of the big benefits of UBI is that it replaces a bunch of other complex, difficult-to-manage and costly programs. TFA does not state if they saw any cost savings from running the program. People who want to work are going to eventually find jobs. People who want to abuse the system are going to abuse the system. The question is if UBI is easier and cheaper to manage than supposed programs to encourage people to go back to work.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
The strength of UBI is that it allows people to take risks. People who have mortgages, children, etc and feel they cant afford to start a new business, go freelance, or develop something new. UBI, it's hoped, could drive innovation and creativity by reducing the strain of earning. Of course this will be a far less effective strategy amongst the long term unemployed who dont have the commitment of earning.
No one says that UBI makes people work more, just that it is not an impediment to people working. I'd say the result they found is completely what would be expected for a successful test.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Then there miserable bastards, but at least they'll eat.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Why does it matter? The point is for people to be happier, not more educated.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're saying a millionaire is going to quit his job so he can live on $651 a month? Wow you're a special kind of dense.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
That would be the alternative, which is welfare.
This experiment was to give cash payments to unemployed people regardless if they started working or not. The problem they're looking to solve is that welfare encourages people not to seek income, since that would make them ineligible for welfare. It's a fight against the status quo bias.
I would say the goal should be healthiness and fitness for work, which is closely related to hapiness.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I can't believe UBI is a subject worth investigating. It's like people haven't ever met other people. It's the "give a man a fish" proverb gone backwards. If you give him a fish every day, he's never going to learn how to fish.
The problem with this basic law is that it is a grade school level understanding of the pattern. It isn't obvious or self evident, it is a super simplified misunderstanding of game theory that no one who has studied the field in any depth takes seriously. It only appeals to people who don't know any better and want something 'obvious' to validate their ignorance.
Free money makes people happy? This is what they learned? Who would have ever guessed?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
So, if I understand what you're saying, handing out free benefits to people (instead of them earning them) makes them feel better but essentially doesn't improve their condition so you're left with a largely dependent group of people who cannot fend for themselves?
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/cat...
Who'd a thunk it?
-Styopa
We don't advocate feeding wild animals since it introduces long-term, bad behaviors such as a lack of foraging skills, attracting too many animals to an area, and increased reproduction rates due to an abundance of food. It also increases the risk of a disease outbreak due to more animals in the area. So why do we promote basic-income programs for younger, healthy people?
The main theory behind a UBI is reducing the diminishing returns from going from unemployed to employed. The loss of benefits (unemployment, food stamps, disability, etc) often is as much or close to the income from an entry level job. So instead of getting paid ~$12 / hour for work (after taxes, etc.), you're only seeing a ~$1-2 /hour increase. For many people it's not cost effect to get work when they already on some programs.
The UBI is basically supposed to say "Go get a job, look at all the extra money!"
[Not that I agree/disagree. It has has some interesting ideas, and I think experiments like this is a good idea. But, people are selfish bastards, so I'm not optimistic.]
I would say the goal should be healthiness and fitness for work, which is closely related to hapiness.
I (and I suspect others as well) have a fundamental disagreement with this argument. My happiness in life is, at best, tenuously related to my work. I have a job that pays quite well, has an acceptable level of stress to me, and whose activities I find rewarding and engaging. Despite all this, the happiest times in my life are, without question, not related to my work. They're spending time with my wife, my family, and my friends. Or pursuing my hobbies. Or traveling. Or exploring new interests. I work where I do, doing what I do because it is the optimal way the society I exist in will allow me to enjoy those things the way I want to. I am at peace with how this has worked out for me, but I am not willing to concede that the situation cannot be improved for both myself and society at the same time.
I accept that the ability to perform work is what you believe will end up bringing people happiness. And, for you, maybe that is indeed true. Maybe for you work is intrinsically rewarding and a goal in and of itself. For me, it is not.
You really shouldn't live like you are. To say you can't change that is a lie you tell yourself. Cut one minor expense or two a month and you can have thousands saved over years of working. Take serious stock of your expenses and you can save many thousands. To say you can't do that is an idiotic lie you tell yourself.
My household income is >$200k but my cable, movie and video entertainment bill is literally $0 out of habits formed when my income was not this high. I go to the library and check out TV shows and movies and watch youtube. I had netflix once until they decided to make it all about minorities. Now I have an extra $120 a year to save. Over 30 years, cancelling netflix alone is $3,600 without accounting for investment earnings.
The only thing (in bold) I got out of your entire post is that you're a racist scumbag.
all lotto winners and the outcomes 5-10 years later. Maybe that is the best raw data there is for what happens when an individual becomes financially secure.
;)
Will we learn that individuals who are unemployed/not financially secure are that way because of the life choices they make.
Just wondering?
Just my 2 cents
There is another law, so self-evident that no one writes it down. It's that people substitute their personal beliefs and prejudices into any story, and refuse to believe the story when it doesn't match.
'cause this:
You want more joblessness, you give out rewards (in the form of cash payment) for being jobless.
Was demonstrated to be false by this study. The UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group.
The headline writer as well as the story writer were unfortunately afflicted with the same issue.
Known fact that a 1%er eats with two spoons at a time !!! Damn parasites....
People who can not shower or wash their clothes tend to not do well in job interviews. Since showers and laundry are tied to having money, not having money makes it harder to find a job.
Also, if you're so very worried about this you can rest easy: the study showed that the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. So UBI doesn't make people sit around and do nothing.
They sort of did give money, indirectly. They forced us/you to show up for a job. Some shitty job where everybody slacked off as much as possible and you got a paycheck. Thing is there was not much to buy with the money. This was here in europe.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How dare you assume the minorities he is talking about are a different race than him ? How dare you sir !!
So, all the good advice he gave just woosh by, and the one thing you saw was something about minority movies being lame. And also, you have a weak definition of rasism, for example mine is someone calling you *to your face subhuman worthy of soap-making*.
> I had netflix once until they decided to make it all about minorities.
Found the racist
Stress about unemployment can be a harmful driver of keeping your fragile backside in a toxic job in which you deliver far less value to yourself/family/industry/society (and consume more medical support) than if your career was managed proactively with less fear.
But many just inherently love the genre of pointy stick incentive porn, especially when when discussing a group of presumptively characterized as even more fat and lazy than yours truly.
Psychology 101: That's how we generally deal with our own self-loathing: by projecting it onto a group even less deserving. Go into any prison. You'll never find anyone tougher on crime than the white collar criminal who defrauded little old ladies into destitution seething with vanity twenty paces farther up the corridor from the filthy puke who stalked underage girls.
These small trials are just the tip of the iceberg.
Check out Architect of Prosperity: Sir John Cowperthwaite and the Making of Hong Kong (2017) about how Hong Kong established a unique cultural heritage of low-taxation social safety nets.
This took a very smart man twenty years to accomplish (circa 1950 to 1970). He had scored several firsts back in the homeland in Latin and Greek, and thoroughly believed that excess government spending drained venture capital away from projects that drive the long-term growth rate.
But then when the private sector borked things over (far too many people were dying in preventable housing fires) he waded into the mess and established a government program in low-cost housing that didn't kill people for no good reason.
I was watching Erik Weinstein the other day, explaining the IDW (which began as an in-joke BTW). He sensibly explained that no intelligent person believes in completely open borders; and conversely, that no intelligent person believes in completely closed borders (these being memes that society's elite institutions—operating on both the left and right—above the MSM layer, use to keep the masses uselessly preoccupied with ridiculously polarized bun fights).
A complex world always has two sides.
UBI is not a panacea, but it could turn out as well as Hong Kong, depending on how we move forward.
The text continues, quoting from Milton Friedman:
Neil Monnery on Hong Kong and the Architect of Prosperity — 8 October 2018
Of course, leaving people to burn to death in substandard housing does indeed motivate them to get off their fat asses and move up in the class structu
I'm not sure how Finland handles secondary education but it would be interesting to see if any of those selected decided to enroll in furthering their education. The article does a great job of not speaking on education basically at all.
Why stop there? Disable all trade outside of a normal walking distance. Why should I in California have to deal with products made with substandard wages in Alabama? Why should Broward County have to deal with imports from Dade county? Why should the Bronx have to deal with uppity Manhattan?
The bulk of the homeless, maybe even the majority, are mentally ill. Reagan shut down the mental hospitals (aka insane asylums) in the 1980s with the idea that the states should fund them like they did every other medial expense except Medicare. The states never picked up the tab, so they closed down, and all those people got dumped on the streets.
A lot of the rest are probably like you (I assume, since you don't give any financial details). Smart, well-educated, and capable of doing a decent job at work. But financially illiterate. I worked for a couple years at a job making $30k. I was shocked by how many of my co-workers at the same salary range lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Their MO seemed to be to deposit their paycheck in their bank account, and pay their monthly bills. After those were covered, they'd use money for impulse buys until the ATM said their bank account was empty, Then they'd hunker down and try to make it until the next paycheck. "The ATM says I don't have any more money" was a phrase I heard all too often. I never understood how those paycheck advance loan places stayed in business until I saw how common this lifestyle was. And it explained why so many people go into credit card debt (I pay mine off every month and thought everyone else did too, until I saw how my co-workers lived).
In the meantime, I (on the same salary mind you) was scrupulous, maybe even paranoid, to save what money I could. I didn't go to movie theaters, preferring to rent a video with friends so we could all watch it together. I rarely ate out, taking the time to prepare most of my own meals, and tried to encourage my friends to hold potluck-style get-togethers instead of eating out. When I did eat out, I always drank water instead of ordering a $2 soda or coffee. Speaking of which I never paid more than $1 for a beverage, and the first time I walked into a Starbucks and saw the prices, I was so shocked it almost ruined the date. On road trips I'd always try to arrange as many people as we could squeeze into the car to go along so we could share fuel, entrance, and parking expenses. All while paying for my own health and dental insurance (paranoia helped there). By the end of the year I'd saved up enough to buy myself a couple thousand dollars worth of new photo equipment as a Christmas present to myself, which still retaining a savings buffer big enough to cover almost 6 months of expenses.
I look back on my high school education, and what was missing, what's badly needed, was a semester-long course on financial management. How to balance your monthly expenses (used to be balancing your checkbook). The importance of creating a monthly budget (which is trivial now that you can run a spreadsheet on your phone for free). What the interest rate on your savings account means long-term. How those little maintenance and late fees build up over a year to eat a sizeable chunk of your savings. The power of compounding interest, and why it's better to save up and wait to buy a big ticket item, rather than take a loan to get it immediately. How insurance works and when it is/isn't a good idea to use it (if you can't afford to pay for a failure, you need to buy insurance). The difference between gambling, insurance, and investing in stocks (yes there's a difference - if you think there isn't then count yourself among the financially illiterate). Taxes, how to file them, the different options (standard deduction vs itemized), common deductions and exemptions so you know what kinds of spending are encouraged by our tax code, heck, what the difference is between a deduction and exemption and credit. And a brief tutorial on investing, so you know how to compare all the different options like a savings account vs CD vs money market fund vs mutual fund vs stocks vs municipal bonds. Your credit report, what helps you get good credit, what gives you bad credit, and how you can detect and expunge wrong info from your report. What all those terms and conditions mean when taking out a loan/mort
I'm not saying you have to be happy at your work. I'm saying you will be happier working and more productive on average if you are healthier. Under UBI you won't have to work unless you want more than UBI can afford to be happy in your personal life.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
When you reward a behavior, you get more of it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
fixes benefit cliffs that make it better to not work
That is by far the strongest appeal of a system like this. It all removes the inefficient black markets that foodstamps create. If I could ever believe this would be done instead of all the existing welfare programs and EITC, I'd be all for it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Gravity also attracts objects to each other, yet you walk around as a non-puddle of goo and planes flight overhead.
Even within the 'you reward behavior' idea, UBI rewards all behaviors equally, so which behavior exactly will you get more of?
Opa-locka represent woot woot
But, what do you do with the significant number of people that, rather than spend their UBI on food, shelter and other necessities of life....they BLOW it on drugs or other bad choices?
What if they do this for 2-6 months or more in a stretch?
Do you then let them starve on the street? What about their kids, these people fuck too you know.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
My wife and I have a household income of right about $200K, and we live in a 3-bedroom house within city limits, on a mortgage payment of $12K/year (I.e. not expensively). I am almost 50 and she is 43.
If the govt guaranteed us $100K/year free and clear of taxes for the rest of our lives, we would quit our jobs instantly and never look back.
We would gladly give up money for time to fuck off.
Children feel happier and less stressed if they have parents.
Paying the lower class a salary not to work is dangerous. People will get the idea they don't have to. Would people wash dishes or do other dirty jobs if they didn't have the threat of starvation hanging over them? Of course not. Don't let the deplorables win.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Do you know that there was no unemployment in the countries you cite here? And something like this was pretty much impossible as well. Article 209.1 of the USSR penal code pretty much meant that you either have a job or you go to prison.
"He who does not work shall not eat", a quote Lenin quite blatantly lifted from the bible. Just in case anyone here thought that Communism and Christianity are completely incompatible, at least their seedy underbelly looks quite the same.
I guess you really would have liked the USSR. Or a theocracy, it's all good.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And that's different to the beautiful capitalist world we're in now in what way exactly?
In Communism, you had people giving not even half a shit about their job, do a half-assed job if that, with nobody, not even the kolkhoz- or factory foremen giving a shit because they, too, didn't care jack shit about it.
In Capitalism, you have pretty much the same, everyone working just enough to not getting fired with those on top not giving any more of a shit beyond what's necessary to ensure their bonus payments, and since they're basically a given, they don't give a shit either.
And since we're in a completely hire-and-fire economy anyway, and since more than minimum wage is but a wet dream (unless you happen to have a skill that is in higher demand than supply), nobody questions why you're on your fourth job in 5 years and nobody bothers to "climb the corporate ladder" anymore either because it doesn't happen anyway.
Seriously, the only times I have seen a considerable change in my paycheck was when I switched companies, and I have not seen any in-house promotions in at least the last 6 years.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oddly the result does not support your premise. Giving out the UBI did not result in more joblessness. All that could be observed is that the ones that got UBI and the control group that didn't had about the same rate of people finding/keeping jobs.
Could it maybe be that 600 bucks a month wouldn't convince anyone to not work? 600 bucks isn't even close to what I'd need every month to pay my bills.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Then I guess money failed as a reward. Could it be that people just need money to pay for what they really need and don't give a shit about it beyond that?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Be honest, would you?
Seriously, if you pay me 800 to work my ass off 40 hours a week or 600 to sit at home and work on my own projects, guess which one I choose.
If you want me to work on something that's not in my own interest, make it worth my time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits."
That's like dipping your toe in the swimming pool and calling that a study about "Survival rate of castaways in the Antarctic".
It was known to be only of a limited time so there was still a huge motivator to get off unemployment. This was simply extended unemployment benefits.
It was only offered on people on unemployment so it didn't apply to employed people who may want to find a way to end up unemployed or just quit if the rules for UBI benefits allows.
There was nothing UNIVERSAL (key word here) about it. It was an absolutely worthless study in regards to UBI. Only a full scale implementation can be a representative sample of UBI.
That was a study about "What if we extend and raise unemployment benefits".
That is probably right if we have a sophisticated concept of work as something beyond simply pushing up GDP. Taking care of a long term sick family member is work, too, it just does not generate pay check. Being a stay at home parent that keeps the home running and the children looked after is work, too, it just does not generate a pay check.
What sort of fulfillment happens when you end every sentence "do you want fries with that" all day long? Be honest, would that be fulfilling? Along with being yelled at by idiots who can't remember their own order, kids that puke all over the floor that you can clean up afterwards while being berated by someone that it makes him nauseated (not like you wouldn't love to puke on top of it because you're down on your knees and much closer to the olfactory treat offered by the little bastard). Plus the ever popular "someone made a nono in the toilet, go and clean it" spiel.
All that for the killer salary of 5 bucks an hours.
That's fulfilling, yes? Makes you feel valued and appreciated?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That makes sense. Healthy workers are generally more productive. After seeing the way you phrased that, I realize I may have misinterpreted your earlier comment. Sorry about that.
Are you positive that you replied to the right post? You're quoting someone completely different and it sounds like you are kinda-sorta agreeing?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They starve to death and cease being a problem? If a person has the means to survive and chooses a drug-addled death instead, I don't see how that's anyone else's business. These sorts of programs are generally conceived to alleviate the gross inequalities of capitalism and bad luck, not make unfortunate adults into wards of the state who are denied the right to exercise free will. And I would imagine that begging would become *far* less effective (and thus appealing) when everyone knows that you had plenty of money for food and shelter but chose to blow it all on other things instead.
There's also already a range of voluntary boarding homes available for people incapable of taking care of themselves - an honest one would automatically deduct food and housing expenses from your monthly stipend on the day it was deposited and leave the rest of your money alone, or dole it out as a daily or weekly allowance to avoid major shortage problems toward the end of the month.
For kids - free meals at school is an extremely effective solution once they reach school age. Infants and toddlers are a trickier problem, but one that can fairly effectively be attacked from the opposite end of the age spectrum by making free birth control available to everyone - in my experience most junkies don't actually want kids, they just can't be bothered to avoid them. So, free IUDs or implants for women, and free Vasogel or similar for men (once it's approved) - you don't want to use something that they can easily mess up, nor anything permanent that they might choose to avoid. That also has the added benefit of largely preventing children from being born with drug-related problems.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
even the drugs they take are to cope with mental illness.
In most societies just putting a roof over your head isn't much of a battle. Even during the 2008 market crash folks kicked out of their houses by banks didn't stay homeless for long. Assuming your brain doesn't go you'd get back on your feet in about a month tops.
Homeless people don't "prefer the lifestyle". That's something the media tells you to alleviate guilt over not paying to eliminate homelessness. Nobody chooses to live without shelter. The elements take a huge toll on the human body. You can look at just about any long term homeless person and see that. But if you're not all there in mind and body good luck holding down a job.
You're right about one thing, you can't give a mentally disturbed person money and expect them to manage it. This is why we used to have insane asylums. Reagan shut them down, which is where the modern homeless crisis came from. He used the fact that they were not nice places as an excuse (along with talk like your post about "they prefer it this way"). The right thing to do would be to remove the problems and abuses, but America's all about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Especially if you have to raise tax dollars to pay for that baby.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
People don't work if they don't have to, news at 11. I mean, this is common sense, no? Easily 9 in 10 people wouldn't lift a finger if they could have shelter, food, and healthcare without lifting a finger. I would, but there's no way I'd work on anything I'm not interested in.
And yet, they still didn't work, which just proves that the "benefit cliff" isn't actually what's keeping these people out of the labour market.
And this study proved that aspect to be worthless as the people didn't suddenly get jobs now that the benefit cliff argument was negated. So if the strongest argument for UBI is now disproven, even without actually trialling an actual UBI, when do we finally give up on this horrible idea?
You really should look into answers to your own questions as there is a great deal of accessible literature devoted to exactly this problem...unless of course you just want to bash UBI programs. If that is your intention, well done!
A UBI is not intended to fix drug addiction issues. If you want to address that problem, you should be looking at policies intended to do just that. The best policies I'm aware of are legalization of all recreational drugs and prescribing drugs as part of a universal healthcare system.
Most of the issues surrounding addiction are made much worse by current laws and enforcement strategies. The social costs to users and the people they victimize are almost completely eliminated through legalization by both prescribing and providing them with appropriate and safe drugs, including the very narcotics they are addicted to, as part of a treatment program.
Well, if unemployment was 600 and pay was 800. It might not be worth it. But if I got to keep the unemployment after getting a job, that would then be 1400 for the 40 hours which is much better.
"...unless of course you just want to bash UBI programs"
I'd say that, in order to bash UBI programs... you need to focus on UBI program!
"2017, Finland became the first European country to test out the idea of an unconditional basic income. It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits. "
This looks like stupid politicians doing their stupid things at their best (because, frankly, it works).
So, in order to study how "unconditional basic income works" you experiment focus on a very conditionally chosen target? WTF!!!???
The participants all started jobless, so it only tested half the equation.
Nobody checked to see if giving the money to people who were employed would cause them to quit their jobs.
So....someone would quit their job to go sit on UBI....but once on UBI they would get a new job at the same rate as the control group?
When you need to tie yourself in that many knots to maintain your argument, it's time to re-evaluate your argument.
That 5 bucks an hours adds up to something.
A coat. Rent money. To support a project. Savings. A hobby.
The resulting resume that says a person can:
Arrive on time.
Do what they are told.
Respond to unexpected conditions and changes.
Can interact with other people at work.
Can work with and around money.
Able to talk to and be nice to paying customers.
That adds up to getting another better job.
The person can then go to get more education. Find a better job that pays more.
More money for rent, projects, hobbies.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The reason for means tested social programs is that a) you make it harder to get and therefor lower potential taxes to the rich and b) it puts the poor and working class in an antagonistic position where the poor get something the working class does not (and at least partially pays for).
This is exactly why Joe Biden supports means testing for Social Security.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
News flash, not all people are the same. Some people got jobs while on UBI. That is not the same as confirming that no other people would quit their job to be on it.
This is probably not going to be sustainable. What I could see, though, especially with gig-economy becoming more and more a reality for low level jobs, is abolishing minimum wage with UBI and low level jobs actually offering like 50 bucks a week. People taking these jobs will probably work a week or two to pay for whatever appliance they have to replace, and let's be honest, stock boys don't need a lot of training, so hiring them on a per-day base might be interesting for both, people who need a few bucks to pay for something the UBI does not cover and companies that need a few more hands on certain days.
We already have zero-hour jobs that pretty much constitute something like this, so the difference would be minimal. And it would be beneficial for everyone. Shops only have to pay a fraction of what they pay employees today, people would still retain the safety of UBI and be able to earn the extra money they need when they need it without some "unemployment" looming over their head. And those of use with real jobs that pay real wages certainly won't quit their jobs because, well, let's face it, living off 600 bucks a month is impossible to me and even if I got 600 bucks less from my employer because of UBI I would probably not even notice it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Do you live in this reality?
This is a honest question. Because it doesn't really seem that way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you work for about 26 calendar weeks, you get 400 days of approximately 60% of their salary in Finland for each day of unemployment. This consists of 705 EUR "base daily payment" (peruspäiväraha) and earned part (ansio-osa) determined by salary while working. Additionally if recepient has children, base daily payment is increased by 5,29EUR/day for one child, 7,77EUR for two and 10,02EUR for three or more.
Note that even the base payment rate is higher than this particular UBI test run.
Source:
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you don't meet the requirement, you fall to base unemployment benefits, which are approximately 702EUR/month, paid weekly. You can earn up to 300EUR on top of that in salary without it impacting these benefits, and you can also earn additional 4,74EUR per day if you participate in activity "which improves your chances of getting employment".
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
UBI was paid on top of these social benefits (among others, these are far from the only social benefits unemployed person is entitled to), and its primary stated goal was to amortize against the often small difference of gaining salary but losing unemployment benefits. Result show the test run to be an abysmal failure, as test group scored marginally lower on finding employment than control group that didn't get the extra money on top of their unemployment benefits.
Certainly a good option for when there are no jobs due to AI doing it all....I think a negative income tax is best for now though. Milton Friedman was a huge proponent of this.
Yeah, as it written with out current level of technology. I don't think it is feasible. A true UBI type system seems very Star Trek. Food, energy, space would have to become much lower cost to allow society to absorb the inevitable deadbeats without feeling it too much.
That's an interesting aspect with the gig economy, it could help level things out.
> But, what do you do with the significant number of people that, rather than spend their UBI on food, shelter and other necessities of life....they BLOW it on drugs or other bad choices?
But ... that's their problem, not yours. It's not the job of other citizens to morally police how other people spend their money.
There is a different way to look at this data. It's not a coherent argument to just say that UBI recipients didn't get jobs, when those recipients are drawn from a pool of people already receiving long-term unemployment benefits. First, those people aren't really a representative cross-section of society, since in a nation with full emploment ,only a couple of % of all people are going to be on long-term unemployment benefits (aged or single-parent pensions, and the like, are different).
So, since these are long-term unemployed, it only makes sense to compare how they fared vs other long-term unemployed that you didn't include in the trial (a control group).
Here's the thing: making job seekers jump through hoops requires a large and complex bureaucracy just for that. And the Finland data shows that people who go through that are no more likely to get off long-term unemployment benefits than the UBI recipients are. This proves the current programs are a costly waste of time. Additionally, lower stress almost certainly means lower future health costs, and these save money for the taxpayer too.
UBI isn't going to make long-term unemployed magically get jobs, but it is a hell of a lot cheaper just to give out a payment and leave people alone than the current overly bureaucratic and expensive methods, which plainly don't work.
Its the kind of job people do for hours to get into other work.
To move on in the fast food company if they want.
To earn money at that stage of their working life.
People learn the needed skills and how to keep time.
Thats what makes work good. Study, advancement, putting the money to something.
A resume that stands out later when needed. That a person can work. Turn up on time. Learn. Be able to take on new skills.
Part time work gives people a way to move up into better work. Pay for some education.
People get to take home the productive results of their days work.
They can save, learn, try a hobby, buy something, enjoy what they want.
Its not all lost to a huge new tax to pay for a UBI.
With the UBI given back lost to the costs of products, more tax and services.
Working gives freedom as the wage is the persons to invest, spend, use.
A UBI might not be cash from a gov. A UBI could end up on a controlled gov card.
Show ID, prove citizenship, have every amount of spending set each month.
With a gov offering a list of products and services that can never be paid for with gov UBI money.
Products and services that are counted every month,, rationed depending on the new gov that election.
Things a gov felt should be done get support and more funding?
A wage after working suddenly looks great and has some real freedom in cash.
When a gov gives out a UBI as a digital spending card, it can block, lock, regulate and tax.
A set amount of a UBI has to go on a set about of approved food every month? From a list of approved shops?
The reality of a controlled UBI from a gov will not always be free cash from a bank account.
Like the internet? The UBI will only pay for a set speed of ISP service.
Like books? The UBI will only approve set topics.
Like a car? The UBI will only cover a very short list of electric cars to travel in.
Not drive. No spending on any non electric car parts.
Need to travel? The UBI will not allow that free holiday unless for approved gov reasons. Medical, academic.
Want a passport? The UBI will not allow that as that would be a free holiday paid for by a UBI.
Accepting the digital UBI comes with a lot of gov limits. But everyone can get a UBI at anytime and use they UBI on things that are needed.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
When you will need it, society, you will give it.
Basic Income is about hordes of unemployed people that need to be fed and entertained.
When it comes, it comes. No need for experiments now.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
And a significant portion of them will do just that...if not less...
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
We already have those deadbeats. We already absorb them. That's not going to change. If the current refugee situation shows us something, then that we can easily feed and shelter millions.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I take that as "no".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'll play.
Gambling is bad because of negative expectation. Investing is good because of positive expectation. Insurance is negative expectation but it can still be good because any reasonable monetary utility function is going to decrease the value of more money.
Chris Mesterharm
Negative. Begging will never stop being a problem. It's not about the beggar, it's about the person giving the money. To some people giving money to beggars *feels good*. You're not going to stop those people from feeling good. Beggars are selling a product, and that product is the approval of your own conscience.
I love how you argue against making adults wards of the state, and then two paragraphs down tell us they neglect their children and it's the state's job to feed them.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Why would they try if they were getting it for free?
Firstly "you need a job to live" is actually a cultural thingy mostly made up by rich people to fight the laziness of their serf/slave/peon. There is NO REASON whatsoever if there is enough wealth to force people working. None. The question you should ask yourself, is , if automation rise a lot more, does the cultural shitty "you need to work" still make sense ? IMO it does not. Furthermore I am betting that by forcing people to work for a living, we are undercutting ourselves culturally and intellectually. Let me explain : I know a few of people which (like me) would prefer to concentrate on a better pursuit intellectually be it writing, painting and in my case coding and QM research. But by the time the day job is ended, people are SPENT and thus cannot really concentrate on their hobbit without deleterious effect. How many games, open source software, great painting, great music and so forth are lost like tears in the rain because the of the stupid "you gotta workkkkkK ! Not working is not allowed !!!!! economy MUST be capitalist with rich getting richer and poor getting crushed eleventy !" ? Maybe not that many.... Or maybe a lot. Who knows. Such a scheme on the long term would show it. And if there is enough automation, frankly then we will HAVE to have such a scheme, or live in a dystopian future of a few mega rich with robot dropping a few crumbs to the poor living in ruins outside.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That's called tax , something all society even the US accepted a long time ago, and in many case societal communal program are a great success. Education, fire protection, police etc.... But I guess you are one of those childless person which get an hissy fit when they hear THEIR money is getting spent on school stuff ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Interesting questing question. Probably most homeless are not motivated by greed and status. Makes them in some sense better people than the rest.
Now imagine that nobody could fall to homelessness and nobody had to resort do crime to make a living. Personally, I would only work on things that interest me in that situation. May still be a 50% full-time workload, admittedly.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Begone Satan spawn.
Your rationalism holds no sway over my flavor of Gods today!
Your sig here!
But it is their problem to give them money, then? Why do you draw the line at exactly that point?
Either people are responsible for themselves, and they get no money or anything else. Or others are responsible for their well-being, in which case it is eminently reasonable to also demand these people take care of themselves.
Asking for money but being unwilling to do the least thing in return is extremely unreasonable. The people donating the money are not their slaves.
Wth are you on about clan rallies and dogs whistling, i'm from europe. And btw the dog calling is rasist because my ancestors worshiped wolfs, may I point you to wikipedia.
And no you are *not* a wolf, trust me on this. Wolfs are family-centric animals, brave, very self reliant, and love to roam free and independent. 5 euros says you like none of those things. I mean without the Party's written permission in triplicate, of course.
And that's different to the beautiful capitalist world we're in now in what way exactly?
answer:
Seriously, the only times I have seen a considerable change in my paycheck was when I switched companies
You answered your own question. The galactic-size difference is that we didn't have this option. There simply was NO OTHER COMPANY. There was the state, and the state. How is it possible to not grap the difference between 0 and non-zero ?
You simply don't know the feeling of looking into the shopkeeper's eyes when asking for 1 bread because it's totally up to his whim if he sells it to you or not (there were no walk-in supermarkets like now).
You are saying basically: capitalism sucks, the only good thing happens when i use capitalism.
According to this article
http://biaj.de/archiv-kurzmitt...
the german unemployment help cost 36,954 billion â in 2018 while administrative costs have been labeled as 4,555 billion â, thats around 11%. It provides several services for around 6 million of 82 million people. I have no idea why people think that the administrative costs were so high that removing them would enable you to extend services to everyone.
So there are greedy people, so what? Really i ask. It's not like they are eating endangered-species meat and it will run out. They aren't eating *your* lunch. Let them get diabetes, i really don't care.
And also greed is not a "rich-man"'s disease, we all are gready more or less, it's built in.
-making $30k. I was shocked by how many of my co-workers at the same salary range lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Their MO seemed to be to deposit their paycheck in their bank account, and pay their monthly bills. After those were covered, they'd use money for impulse buys until the ATM said their bank account was empty,
This always reminds me of when I worked a warehouse job after losing a contract. I figured I could work my way into the office and took the job right away. We were making $12/hr working 40 days a week. There was a group that hit the nearby bar every Friday and kept inviting me. I started going with them and it was pretty eye opening on why they seemed to have such worse money problems. I'd go to the bar and spend maybe $8-12. The others would buy rounds of shots and/or expensive drinks, then leave with a $75+ bill.
Then there was this lady named Jenn who worked 2 jobs. 40 hours with us and around 30 hours 3rd shift with UPS. She never had money. But she had seemingly 1,000 sets of clothing and 100 different make ups to color match to them all. Almost weekly she was having to ask people for $20-30 because she was out of money and gas and couldn't fill her tank and wouldn't be able to get to either of her jobs. Finally we got 2 weeks of overtime and she had some extra money. We told her not to go to the bar, told her not to buy people drinks, etc..... Then she went and bought everyone a round of drinks along with 2 appetizers and also got herself a dessert to take home.
A very big +1 to a financial management course for everyone.
That doesn't sound like much of a solution for anything.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Will a huge tax rate to give everyone a free UBI as a cash payment work out?
Nations will run out of free tax money.
Cut back mil spending?
Spending on gov services?
Roads?
Science?
The arts?
Education?
Health care?
Gov and mil pensions?
Every part of the gov and mil is going to demand more spending and not want to give up their projects to pay for a UBI.
Take away all gov and mil pensions and only give the low UBI to all gov and mil after decades of work?
Where are the reductions in gov and mil spending to give everyone a free UBI?
Take on national debt to give away free money?
Then the UBI stops getting paid and then what?
More tax? A nation goes deeper into debt? Pay the interest on past debt? Pay the UBI?
Big amounts of new gov spending has to be paid for.
A new UBI tax on productive jobs and workers? A UBI national debt?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Just because you're not a ward of the state, doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to your children - they're not your property, they're citizens in their own right.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So, should it or should it not be the state's responsibility to care for children? You're arguing against yourself. And losing.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
For a good reason that if you let people starve there will be more crime. It makes business sense to make sure everyone has a basic standard.
Also, from the viewpoint of other workers, if there are more desperate people out there, that will drive your wage-value down. Spending some of your tax dollars to ensure that there is a basic safety net ends up increasing your own bargaining power.
Main points:
1) you need income support for the poor, or things go to bad to "Calcutta bad"
2) it costs a lot to make people jump through useless hoops - often double to triple the actual amount of money that's being given to them
If you cut (1) then you end up using PRISON to house a lot of the dirt poor people who suddenly have no money for food or rent. And putting one person in prison cost about 10 times as much as UBI would.
You can cut (2) (bullshit compliance bureaucracy) because those are policies that only make politicians look good, actually cost far more to administer than they payments alone, and they're proven time and time again to have virtually zero effect on unemployment rates. Axe the failed programs, and what you're left with is basically UBI.
You already answered my question to my complete satisfaction, so what's your point?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Try re-reading. I said the goal was not to make nominally competent *adults* into wards of the state. However, the state could reasonably be considered to have a responsibility to protect children from starvation, just as it strives to protect all citizens from most other forms of violence.
It also has a long-term interest in making sure all children are adequately fed, as childhood malnourishment leads to significantly lower IQ as an adult, which is a much more expensive problem to address.
To those ends, free school meals is an extremely cost effective and minimally invasive solution, with a well-proven track record around the world.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But, what do you do with the significant number of people that, rather than spend their UBI on food, shelter and other necessities of life....they BLOW it on drugs or other bad choices?
Firstly, the most fundamental freedom is the freedom of self-destructive behavior. Secondly, you can't stop this behavior, you can only create an inefficient black market. What the state can (and should) do is be very responsive and supportive when someone hits bottom and asks for help.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No, it really didn't prove much, beyond "UBI is not a magic pill". I see no evidence that it's actually worse than other forms of government charity, and with no cliff to punish those who do seek work, it's at least slightly better than some alternatives.
The real benefit, though, would be administrative simplicity. That's why it's only worth doing if it replaced multiple other programs. Otherwise, there's no clear advantage.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
and with no cliff to punish those who do seek work, it's at least slightly better than some alternatives.
Did you even read the summary? This study proves that the "cliff" didn't affect anything. They removed it, and no more people got jobs than they would have with the cliff in place.
The real benefit, though, would be administrative simplicity. That's why it's only worth doing if it replaced multiple other programs. Otherwise, there's no clear advantage.
And while administrative simplicity was the original purpose of UBI, I have never heard any of the recent proponents talk about a plan that would do that. All of them are means tested in some way, which quals all that administrative overhead that UBI is supposed to avoid.
One small study can provide evidence towards a claim, but it can't "prove" anything. Their methodology seems dubious. But that's sort of a side note: there's no benefit to be had either way from "yet another government charity".
All of them are means tested in some way, which quals all that administrative overhead that UBI is supposed to avoid.
Yup, it's not even UBI a that point. All government organizations eventually divert from their charter, but to do so before the program even begins is something special.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.