Finland Basic Income Trial Left People 'Happier But Jobless' (bbc.com) 694
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.
The Results (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
Stress about money can be a useful driver to get off your fat backside and go get a job. We'd all love to sit around all day and just be mailed cheques for doing nothing but thats not how a viable economy works in the real world.
Re:The Results (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually? That's exactly how it works for the owner class that inherits their wealth, like Donald Trump. They are not required to work a real day's work in their obese lives, and they do not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And despite their lack of need to work or spend their money on anything but hedonism, the owner class does things like build space ships, electric powered cars, or even hotels and golf courses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> They're professional money-droppers.
Exactly. They're the ones taking the financial risk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Love him or hate him, to think Donald (or any President) "doesn't work a real days work" is insane. I doubt most humans could put in as many hard hours as he is without buckling under pressure. If your definition of real work is slaving over a burger griddle at a fast food restaurant then you are an idiot. I have done that work and it was some of the easiest work in my life. Not needing to give a shit, think more than 10 minutes into the future, or use your brain is an easy trade off that most people woul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really in Donald Trump's case it isn't. He's a professional tax cheat and inheritor, nothing more. He did an absolutely objectively SHITTY job as a businessman, and anyone else in his position without a rich father would be a complete failure in those multiple-bankruptcy fiascoes! HE LITERALLY IS A PROFESSIONAL CRIMINAL WHO DOES NOT PAY HIS WORKERS WHEREVER HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
If you think tax cheats who cheat their workers are doing "real work" despite getting bailed out dozens of times and inherit
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Results (Score:5, Interesting)
So sorry, but this study does not support that position either.
That does not say that the participants were less likely to find work, nor that non-participants were more likely to find work.
If they are equally likely to find work and the program is administratively equally or less costly than tested unemployment benefits, then the program still has a net benefit if only due to the psychological aspects.
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great when there are jobs to be had, but this isn't really what these experiments are about. These are about how are governments going to make sure the public doesn't go out and lynch the richies when the jobs become automated.
You do not want them not getting a good grasp when unemployment starts kicking up due to automation
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
And who are you to demand that everyone needs a job? Who died and made you moral arbiter of the human race?
Most unemployed people don't do "nothing". They spend their energy on voluntary activities that enrich the community. Look at stay-at-home moms (and dads) that run the PTA, do charity drives, organize school events, work at various shelters, etc. Do those activities have zero economic value? Of course not. Just because wages aren't involved doesn't make an activity worthless to society.
Not to mention that I've worked with people with negative productivity. They not only can't do their own job - they actively prevent other people from doing theirs. We could do with fewer employed people in many cases.
Everyone has a choice. Don't work and be satisfied with the bare minimum for survival. Work and have a more comfortable lifestyle. I choose the latter because I don't want to live on ramen and water.
Valid arguments against basic income are economical, not moral. There is legitimate concern about the inflationary effects of society-wide basic income.
Your moral objections are nothing more than frat boy hazing of lower classmen: "it was tough when I did it, so it should be tough for everyone". No. Stick your sanctimonious attitude up your bankhole. Not everyone has to or should be a wage slave.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that even the economical arguments against UBI tend to only compare the cost to the services it would replace, and not look at the broader economic impacts of people with steady income. People without a steady income often can't ever save, because they can't effectively budget when they don't know how much money they'll have next month. Once you have a steady income, it becomes a lot easier to plan your life around. And once you've got a workable plan, you can add saving money into that, for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Valid arguments against basic income are economical, not moral. There is legitimate concern about the inflationary effects of society-wide basic income.
Is forcibly taking money from one person who works and giving it to someone who doesn't is morally acceptable?
Re:The Results (Score:4, Insightful)
Is forcibly taking money from one person who works and giving it to someone who doesn't is morally acceptable?
It depends on which side has more people.
Actually, have extra and giving some away USED to be called charity, or 10% to the church, tithing. But the ones giving decided how much and exactly where it went.
NOW we seem to be pushing more for the government to take "what's necessary" and to decide "who has extra." Gee, isn't that sliding into communism, where everyone gets just what they need? (I need a porsche BTW -- one for each day of the month.)
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
And who are you to demand that everyone needs a job?
I don't think everyone needs a job. But I do think if I'm paying to support you, you in turn should making an effort to be self sufficient. If you don't want a job or my money then by all means do as you wish. But if you are asking for something from me, I'm well within my rights to ask something from you in exchange.
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno.l have a few relatives who talk about this, but when push comes to shove I'm actually doing more volunteer work than they are, and I have a full time job.
They like the idea of helping the destitute, they just can't motivate themselves to do it. And when they eventually do, it's a never ending litany of how much of a difference they made- meanwhile I'm buying the sandwich they're eating while telling me what a capitalist I am.
I also believe that work can beneficial on it's own.
Re:The Results (Score:5, Insightful)
/sarcasm Because having a job is the only source of meaning in a person's life.
Devil's advocate:
Maybe economy shouldn't be the driving factor? Open Source exists regardless of financial compensation.
Animals have lived on this planet for millions of years without money. Why are humans the only stupid animal who haven't figured this out?
> We'd all love to sit around all day and just be mailed cheques for doing nothing
Speak for yourself. In my free time I'm building, creating, inventing, researching, work on my games, etc. That is a far cry from "nothing."
Yes, people can get bored doing nothing. While some will continue to due nothing, most people want to feel useful, needed, and accomplish something meaningful to THEIR life.
--
"NEVER mix business and pleasure; for someone will take pleasure in fucking your business over."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, people can get bored doing nothing. While some will continue to due nothing, most people want to feel useful, needed, and accomplish something meaningful to THEIR life.
I'll go a step further. If you prevent people from working, they become restless and aggravated. That's how revolutions start. [wikipedia.org] Some people think it's the poor and hungry masses that overthrow governments. However, I don't see North Koreans overthrowing the government. Idled able-bodied workers are the ones who start trouble.
"Idle hands are the devils playground" and all that.
Re:The Results (Score:4, Insightful)
Get WHAT job? Do you offer one?
You might have missed it, but there's a HUGE number of unemployed people, especially among those with lower levels of education. Take a wild guess why this could be the case.
a) Because they don't enjoy eating.
b) Because they love living in a roach motel.
c) Because there are no fucking jobs.
And no, you don't get to call someone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It did not reduce unemployment, but it reduced the stress of that situation for people. That social impact of that cannot be ignored.
The social impact of making people comfortable with being unproductive members of society can't be ignored either....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Results (Score:4, Interesting)
Trouble is, if you're using something like UBI to replace SS, or food stamps, etc....what happens with irresponsible people (and yes, there are a number of them today on these welfare programs), goes out 2-3 months in a row and blows their entire UBI income check on drugs, partying, etc.?
SO, no you have given this person money, they blow it and now have no money for food, shelter, etc.
Do you now give them MORE money or just let them starve on the street.
If you say the former...then, when does it stop?
These would not be isolated cases mind you.
Re:The Results (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The Results (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
But....people have tried to say that TODAY, when people fuck up, and someone says "well, let them starve to death"....and you are painted as a horrible person.
Also, "what about the children"?
Do you let the kids starve too, or, do we also take on the added expense of keeping them?
How do we keep the person we're talking about...from reproducing even more???
That's the thing....you can't force everyone to be taken care of. At so
Re: (Score:2)
It did not reduce unemployment, but it reduced the stress of that situation for people. That social impact of that cannot be ignored.
The social impact of making people comfortable with being unproductive members of society can't be ignored either....
I imagine that depends on the definition of "unproductive members of society" and if there are ways of contributing w/o having a job. The money offered isn't really enough to be *that* comfortable, especially assuming one were previously making more and living at a commensurate level, but it might be enough to keep one from becoming homeless, destitute or a criminal -- which all have higher costs and negative impacts on society. I'll note that Finland also has universal healthcare.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be glad that the stress of going to a job and paying taxes reduced the stress of someone who can't be bothered.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, in the behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner's novel, Walden Two, he posited a society where people were paid *more* to do crappy jobs. That's actually the opposite of the real world where crappy jobs pay little and nice jobs tend to pay more.
This kind of addresses the problem where you (a) want to make sure everyone has enough to live on and (b) feel that everyone ought to do some kind of work as a matter of principle. There are jobs that nobody would do if they had any other choice, like the pe
Re:The Results (Score:5, Informative)
The Finnish Social Insurance Institution (KELA), i.e the people who manage social security and other benefits payments, has been a massive hassle to deal with that constantly screws things up for as long as I can remember. Anyone who's dealt with them to any significant extent will have personal horror stories to share so and they're more or less universally reviled. Thus it's pretty clear that these people are happier most probably because they don't have to deal with KELA, not because of the unconditional benefits payment.
Re: (Score:3)
*This is NOT a bad thing UNLESS your entire society chooses this path
It's also a bad thing if nobody wants to do dirty jobs anymore. Who's going to pick up garbage if you can just sit on your ass ?
Re:The Results (Score:4, Interesting)
People with some money, but not lots, tend to spend it on local goods and services rather than imported luxuries,
I often see people with some money, but not lots, walk around with an iPhone.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience, most low cost items are cheap foreign imports. Think plastic crap from Amazon or Wallmart.
Even cheap food is imported. Only the people with money can afford the good, local stuff.
People for & against UBI have a lot of arguments, but claiming it would reduce unemployment is a new one on me.
The study here seems to say that UBI has no measurable impact on unemploment, and a very very real impact on government spending.
Re:Have you considered (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Size of the experiment matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In addition, it depends on if the goal was/is to help people find jobs or be happier and/or more secure. From TFA:
So, did it work?
That depends what you mean by 'work'.
Did it help unemployed people in Finland find jobs, as the centre-right Finnish government had hoped? No, not really.
But for many people, the original goal of getting people into work was flawed to begin with. If instead the aim were to make people generally happier, the scheme would have been considered a triumph.
"I am still without a job," he explained. "I can't say that the basic income has changed a lot in my life. OK, psychologically yes, but financially - not so much."
Finland has universal healthcare and I think people also having some financial security regardless of job status, perhaps even just enough to help offset basic bills, is helpful in many ways -- not just financial.
We have unemployment insurance here in the US (paid into by companies), but (from my experience) it's a very, very small amount that's not anywhere near enough to actually live on, e
9 hour days doing repetitive tasks. (Score:2)
Still better than current policies (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's important to remember that we subsidize laziness by encouraging wealth transfer by inheritance and under taxing income from rent seeking behavior. We have divorced work from money a long time ago. Pension plans, retirement savings, 401(k) etc. are all sources of money without working. Yes work does create the initial seed capital but it's only through rent extraction (money without work) do these money piles grow so you can afford to live without working.
So the way I look at it, UBI extends the bene
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The State of Homeless (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Next time subsidize wages! (Score:2)
If you want people to work low-end jobs, subsidize wages so employers can take useful advantage of that labor pool.
Everyone wins.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every business owner is wealthy... something the liberal left believe...
Nevertheless "free money" to "wealthy business owners" or to lazy people only results in inflation eventually.
Good study! (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Sounds good to me! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Administration Cost Savings? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
UBI (Score:5, Insightful)
One of several societal conundrums... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One of several societal conundrums... (Score:5, Insightful)
So why do we promote basic-income programs for younger, healthy people?
Because humans are a wee bit more complicated than animals, and have desires beyond mere survival.
The experiment showed the UBI group got jobs at the same rate as the control group. That means the program did not make those people lose their "foraging skills".
People don't work if they don't have to (Score:3)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to the crime and traffic rates?
What is the cost of living in Finland?
Not enough info in the story.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, if you really want to test UBI, deploy an UBI set instead of something which doesn't resemble it in the slightest.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:OK, plan B then (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
There is one modifier to that I'd add.
Statistically, the people that are most likely to win the lottery are the ones that play the most. Which would have a high correlation with people with gambling addictions. Winning a lot of money for a gambling addict means they can gamble more at a higher level.
If you only followed people who won the lottery who previously only bought 1 ticket a week, they would be closer to the average person.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Of course I would quit (Score:3)
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.
Re: Of course I would quit (Score:3)
$16K/year in free money is not worth the cost of everyone else getting it, to me.
If youâ(TM)re not going to give me enough money to quit my job, then I am not going to support giving to anyone else, thus supporting their privilege of not NOT working through my requirement to work. I mean, FUCK THAT.
Re: (Score:3)
"Yeah, I guess ... where does government get the money from then?"
The federal reserve tap is one option. Money is already being pumped out to banks for lending, just pump it via UBI instead. Ideally don't give the new money away directly though, give the task of investing it and keeping it solvent to the Fed. Since the Fed will be investing that money it will boost the economy. It'll do wonderful things to tax revenues. I wouldn't tax the UBI but I'd count it toward SS tax and your tax bracket. Probably add
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't productive activity have to be involved somewhere?
It's usually done by the people that aren't satisfied with taking home $600/month.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there anything dumber in this world (that are still recognisable human) than socialists?
I would say capitalists, but they are not still recognisable as humans. Darn.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything dumber in this world (that are still recognisable human) than socialists?
I would say capitalists, but they are not still recognisable as humans. Darn.
I would have said Viol8, but ditto.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, they back you up and help you because they want to get your movement and warp and distort it to their true goal.
I don't know if you noticed, but the political systems we have don't exist in a vacuum.
There is the old and dreadful monarchy trying to get back, its the natural human system and it sucks. All capitalism does is promise every greedy piece of lard on this planet the chance of being a king, but then yanks it, unless the system gets corrupted enough one gets to buy it which is what is happening.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow, well I'm shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The reporting so far is both preliminary as well as pretty biased. One of the things that's not coming out of this so far is the personal and societal cost savings due to that happiness and reduction in stress.
We know that stressed, unhappy people don't preform as well at work or as parents, they tend to be sicker and have more chronic illnesses, and in general are less willing to take risks. If UBI doesn't change their ability to get a job in the short-term, it might in the long-term. It might also let the
Its an experiment (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything dumber in this world (that are still recognizable human) than socialists?
Apparently, you.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you are putting it makes it sound like unemployment would rise as a consequence. That however can not be inferred by the information we're provided with.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 s
Re:fixes benefit cliffs that make it better to not (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:fixes benefit cliffs that make it better to not (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> 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.
Re: (Score:3)
No you don't. Welfare hasn't given "checks" in a LOOOOONG time. Hell, about the only way you are getting any welfare *money* is TANF. It is very temporary, you have to be practically homeless, and it isn't enough to cover even a fraction of basic necessities
Re: (Score:2)
This didn't require you to seek work, and would still be paid if you got a job (providing bonus income)
Re:There is a basic law (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:There is a basic law (Score:4)
Re:There is a basic law (Score:5, Informative)
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.]