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.
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.
What happened to the crime and traffic rates?
What is the cost of living in Finland?
Not enough info in the story.
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.
This is actually a really shitty test. Give wage slaves a year of guaranteed pay and of course they will take the year off, it's the only time in their lives they'll get a year-long vacation before they've gone senile. Basic income tests which don't last for life are invalid (to say nothing of their non-randomized selection of candidates.) This whole study was propaganda to keep plebs thinking they need to spend every waking hour of the good parts of their life working for someone other than themselves.
If you read the article, you'd see that the people enrolled in the pilot had similar rates of employment to a control group. It isn't that they don't bother -- they bother just as often regardless of whether they have a basic income.
If it were reported accurately, this would alleviate the fear that you just parroted, that people would stop working.
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
Read the article: "while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money."
IOW, the UBI did not reduce their willingness to find work. It had no apparent effect at all.
I do not have a signature
I'm on the fence about the whole thing but I find it interesting that there's an assumption that the result was a bad thing. I don't believe in an afterlife so you're born, you live, you die. The only thing that makes much sense during that period is to try and be happy and this study seemed to improve their happiness.
Now, one might say 'fuck that, I paid for their happiness which makes me unhappy' which makes really good sense.
The real question is, is there sufficient free energy in the system that we can provide food and lodging for humanity if they don't contribute *IF* we also provide increasing incentives to contribute. So you get a basic income for doing nothing and more and more for actually contributing to the system.
I've seen no compelling objective modeling either way.
Yeah, they should learn to code and then they can work for themselves.
Thanks, after reading your comment I went and read the article more closely. It says
Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.
As you say, that's an incredibly disingenuous summary. The big worry about UBI is that people won't work. The test is "do people work less?" and even on this very limited test, the answer is no. That's the unexpected (by anti-UBI people) answer that makes this test a resounding success. The fact that it's being sold as anything else is Finland's government and the media being dishonest.
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.
I'm in a well paying job that I'm not particularly fond of (though it's not terrible). I'd love to branch out and start my own business doing something I enjoy however that's a lot of risk, especially when I have a young son at home.
If I was guaranteed a small basic income that may give me the safety net I need to get something started.
But that's just my take. Every person would be different.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well yes and it was given to people who are unable or unwilling to work now. Make it a decent sum and give it to working class people who are at least 25 and make a similar amount now. See if their investments, wealth, and income increase across the group over five years.
There isn't enough info, and I doubt a 2k test run will yield statistically detectable changes in crime and traffic rate.
(Aside: what if crime rates actually went up due to UBI?)
The biggest problem with 2k doing the test is; that's not enough people to tank the economy if this turns out to be economically important.
That said, I would say that happiness in life is ultimately the most important thing. Happiness is what makes life worth living; but if the economy collapsed because of UBI, I don't think people would be happy for long.
You can't experiment with UBI on 2000 people- you need to do it with a whole region, or country... I wouldn't want to be living in one of the first test places though in case it went wrong.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The point of UBI is to make people happier not have them work more. The problem is that there isn't enough work.
And another problem is that there's not enough money.
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?
Don't we already have a similar situation in the USA - people who win a lottery? That would be an interesting group to study, to see what people do when they get a pot of money that isn't transformative (i.e. hundreds of millions), but sustaining (i.e. gives them what amounts to an annuity of something resembling a UBI, or is enough to basically replace their pre-winnings salary).
Probably... although the majority of winners do take the whole pot of money... and the majority of them are back to their old wealth levels within 3 years.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.]
"We can't just generalize "people" because there are some which have virtually no chance of getting a job."
No but we can generalize currently unemployed people and know they have a higher probability of having a disadvantage in job seeking. A more useful test might have been to give a decent UBI to a group that makes a sum on par with that UBI. In 5-10 years are they living on the UBI, continuing to earn twice the income (and probably reach a higher tax bracket even if you don't tax the UBI itself but only count it for that purpose. Have they increased their wealth and earnings at a greater rate than the control group who doesn't have the UBI?
It's the same clueless problem again and again a UBI might organically eliminate the need for many social programs (it should be high enough that nobody qualifies for them) but it isn't charity or a gift to the poor.A UBI is to provide a stronger position for workers to negotiate. Lower the risk of opportunity exploitation and ultimately to provide a means to ensure workers have a fallback when the jobs go away. If you match the UBI dollar per dollar to earned income you provide double incentive to upward advancement and move millions of people into a taxable range. That will make taxation less top heavy and you'll be enabling the growth of massive investment wealth, the returns will generate more taxes, provide for retirement and stimulate the economy. That also leads to a substantially more solvent social retirement program like social security.
The test is "do people work less?" and even on this very limited test, the answer is no.
The article said no such thing. It said that some of the participants found work, and that they were not more likely to do so than the control group. While many people seem to be taking this for granted, the article never said that participants were just as likely to find work as the control group. The full results of the study will not be released until next year. My impression from the article was that they are admitting that they didn't get the results they wanted (more employment) but at least for now are avoiding the subject of just how much negative impact the experiment had on employment rates among the participants while attempting to refocus attention on other aspects like the participants' reported "happiness".
Regarding those who did get jobs: All the participants are well aware that this experiment won't last forever, so it makes sense to plan for what happens after it ends. How might that change under a true UBI, where they can count on receiving payments for the rest of their lives?
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Have you considered the stress that people experience when they need to pony up the money when taxes are being paid?
If this causes you as much stress as "my children are starving and homeless", you need to re-evaluate your life.
The trial is limited by its length as well as choice of participants.
From the article:
From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of €560 (£490; $685).
Very few people would stop looking for work, or even consider a career change for the equivalent an $8000 check. If I wanted to start a business, I would need at least 2-3 years of savings, and if the business fails, I'd want something to tide me over until I find a new job. If I were to change careers to do something I think is beneficial to mankind, but doesn't pay much, such as teaching, I'd want enough to last me to retirement.
The other problem is that unemployed people are already looking for jobs. The reason they don't have one is because they can't find one. Giving them money makes no difference. To see the economic effects of UBI, you'd have to give it to the entire population, which in turn stimulates demand and thus business and job growth.
If they want to do a proper study, it should be 20 years, with a representative sample of individuals from all walks of life. An effort should be made to track spending habit changes, which would inform us on the potential wider economic impact.
This is actually a really shitty test. Give wage slaves a year of guaranteed pay and of course they will take the year off, it's the only time in their lives they'll get a year-long vacation before they've gone senile. Basic income tests which don't last for life are invalid (to say nothing of their non-randomized selection of candidates.) This whole study was propaganda to keep plebs thinking they need to spend every waking hour of the good parts of their life working for someone other than themselves.
Year long vacation??? You are seriously overestimating what a luxurious al life you can lead on $695 dollars per month and it makes you sound like one of those clueless conservatives who think single mothers are living the high life on 7.25 dollars an hour working 16 hours a day 7 days a week while raising three kids. Speaking for myself 695 dollars per month would not even be enough to pay for rent or pay off the mortgage, even if I downgraded to a dirty cockroach paradise of a living space, not even close. If I wanted to prioritise not starving to death over paying off the mortgage on that UBI, I'd have to settle for housing in the form of a nice cardboard box under a bridge, that way, 695 dollars would do me fairly well for food, washing and clean clothes. If somebody held a gun to my head and made me choose between this $695 UBI, and working somewhere as a dish washer (instead of what I usually do, which is coding) I'd pick the dishwasher job in a heartbeat because even a crappy job like that just pays much better.
Sudden wealth that you're not used to dealing with is nowhere similar to handling a small sum that's less than average wage. You also don't suddenly have to deal with all the new "friends" that show up wanting a piece of the pie.
Just another day in Paradise
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
Well, actually there is enough money. Or, rather, resources. If the goal is just to fulfill the foundation of the pyramid of needs, we're more than capable to do this. We can actually give people food&shelter.
What we can't give everyone is a job.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In most places in the west, you can have all the necessities and then some with minimum incomes (either unemployment or otherwise). The rates are calculated based on the price of bread, income, communications etc.
In most parts of the US, actually in all parts of the US, it will provide for a BASIC rent if the state doesn't outright pay your rent (like NY and CA where rents can be outrageous in the cities).
Plenty of people live at the minimum income range across the entire US, whether or not they have a job, the majority of them does not end up stealing their way through life. This notion that you are required to steal from the rich because you are poor is a myth and extends well into the left mythos, where even if you do well, you are encouraged to steal from the rich because they don't "deserve" their wealth.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
There isn't enough info, and I doubt a 2k test run will yield statistically detectable changes in crime and traffic rate. (Aside: what if crime rates actually went up due to UBI?)
The biggest problem with 2k doing the test is; that's not enough people to tank the economy if this turns out to be economically important.
That said, I would say that happiness in life is ultimately the most important thing. Happiness is what makes life worth living; but if the economy collapsed because of UBI, I don't think people would be happy for long.
You can't experiment with UBI on 2000 people- you need to do it with a whole region, or country... I wouldn't want to be living in one of the first test places though in case it went wrong.
The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in.
Turns out that many people are very lazy and will put in as little work as they believe they can get away with...which meant the harvest was bad, and a small group of people did the bulk of the work for functionally nothing, because they got as much as the person who didn't as much as twitch a finger to help. Which meant they stopped contributing labor--since they got the same as somebody who contributed nothing, they had no incentive to not match the minimum contribution--which meant that the fields just simply went unworked and the only people who ate were those who thought to raise food for themselves.
Oh, and we got ideas like those who won't work, won't eat. (Those who can't work generally would get charity--even if it was in the form of the community finding some kind of work they could do, especially when it was seen as demeaning to not be given some job, no matter how symbolic it was.)
This also is pretty common in cultures which aren't that far away in time from having been running on subsistence--somebody who doesn't contribute and isn't basically an investment is a parasite on their community, if they don't have that many basic resources to spare.
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.
Doesn't the US have an old age pension system? Aren't there a lot of parallels between such a system and a UBI? Isn't a pension system supported by tax dollars basically just a UBI for the elderly? Don't we see these systems as having an overwhelmingly positive effect?
I desperately want UBI rolled out as I see it massively increasing the efficiency of the work-force by removing the dead-weight... No. The negative weight. You know what I'm talking about: That guy who spends three quarters of his day wandering around talking to people and therefore wasting 1.5 equivalents of time.
"The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in."
That's make sense on a society where labour makes a difference, but we are heading to a society were labour means shit and what really meets ends is ownership of increasingly labour-less means of production. A totally different scenario.
Key phrase here is "heading towards." Until we have a 100% post-scarcity system that can maintain itself indefinitely without a human twitching a finger, labor does not mean shit and the last thing anybody who does not expect to be part of the ruling class should want is to have the state have control of the means of production and the distribution of goods. You want this to end well? Every bit of the system needs to be not scarce--including the means of production and everything one might need to run it forever--so as to ensure no group could get a monopoly, and the state itself needs to have slightly less power than a dead cockroach.