Universal basic income trial in Finland

From that news report.

But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits. And Finance Minister Petteri Orpo already has plans for a new project once the basic income pilot concludes in December 2018.

To say it was not a success is misleading, it depends on who you ask I suppose.

Reading between the lines it appears that it may have been too successful at eliminating the stigma of unemployment and that some people realised that working for minimum wage jobs was a mugs game. Also UBI recipients are "bad consumers", they buy very little, not good for business.

KyussB

And while Finland winds down its BI test program - Bernie Sanders is creating a platform for the superior Job Guarantee policy that I discussed, which obsoletes the UBI:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/23/bernie-sanders-to-unveil-plan-to-guarantee-every-american-a-job/

This has a significant chance of being the key policy proposal in the next US election. Bringing back New Deal era politics and jobs programs, to the US.

You'll never see the UBI enter the political mainstream, the way the Job Guarantee just has.

Grayson

Tabnabs wrote: »

Not so widely reported is that the Finn's are quietly finishing this experiment and not hailing it as a success.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/Finland-is-killing-its-world-famous-basic-income-experiment--/

I saw it on the front page of the guardian.

Was it a failure? It seems like they are getting rid of it but haven't given a reason.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

I saw it on the front page of the guardian.

Was it a failure? It seems like they are getting rid of it but haven't given a reason.

Supposedly, they plan to release a report in late 2019.
Will make interesting reading, I still suspect that it was a success in its primary objective, but a failure in the secondary.

It successfully stopped recipients from feeling stigmatised for being unemployed and a failure because people realise what a mugs game unfulfilling work was and that these people all are bad consumers.

Business leaders want people to spend money UBI recipients to be spenders as well.
Maybe none of them were entrepreneurs.

Water John

Hard to judge what the final outcomes could have been. It really was a, 'toe in the water' initiative.
They didn't even implement the second part of the first phase, of incl some who were actually working as well.
In reality, we don't know, who killed it and why.

Water John

I've read the article re: Bernie Sander. My problem is seeing the inevitable ballooning of a beauracracy around it. It will become a bemoth.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

I've read the article re: Bernie Sander. My problem is seeing the inevitable ballooning of a bureaucracy around it. It will become a bemoth.

In theory, there should be far less bureaucracy, as there is only one payment per person to deal with.

Water John

In the Bernie Sanders model, you have a whole beauracracy dealing with projects. That will by its very nature, grow and grow.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

In the Bernie Sanders model, you have a whole beauracracy dealing with projects. That will by its very nature, grow and grow.

His version of UBI must be very different to the Finnish model, which was simply one payment per person and nothing else.

KyussB

Sanders proposal is a Job Guarantee - not a UBI - it's paying people to work, rather than giving money for free.

Tbh the 'bureaucracy' arguments makes no sense - all private sector industries are filled with bureaucracies, and by their very nature, they are massively inefficient through being duplicated throughout so many different competing companies.

It's not really a valid argument.

Water John

Well its one of the key advantages of UBI. We have a whole beauracracy tied up with finding work and training courses for our unemployed.

KyussB

Pretty much anything that needs administering has an associated bureaucracy - with valid, useful jobs for staffing that bureaucracy. It's not a bad or negative/pejorative word.

If that bureaucracy is putting people to work on useful projects, rather than paying them to sit on their hole - then it's inherently far more efficient than the UBI, because the useful work done boosts GDP.

That's a bureaucracy that is, in its overall economic impact, far more efficient than the situation of NOT having a bureaucracy - instead just giving the money away - which is way less efficient, economically.

Harika

KyussB wrote: »

Pretty much anything that needs administering has an associated bureaucracy - with valid, useful jobs for staffing that bureaucracy. It's not a bad or negative/pejorative word.

If that bureaucracy is putting people to work on useful projects, rather than paying them to sit on their hole - then it's inherently far more efficient than the UBI, because the useful work done boosts GDP.

That's a bureaucracy that is, in its overall economic impact, far more efficient than the situation of NOT having a bureaucracy - instead just giving the money away - which is way less efficient, economically.

What you describe is communism, where someone in Moscow decided if a job in Prague is useful and valid. Think about the situation here if someone in Dublin decides that a job in Cork is neither useful or valid.
But the next question is: What is useful and valid?
- A photographer who makes photos of old broken down buildings?
- An artisan who carves sticks in a way that was done the same way for 100s of years?
- A cleaning of the neighbourhood?

So please, what is the definition of a useful and valid job?

KyussB

Think you should look up the definition of Communism, first.

Water John

If I decide to train the u 12s, I decide that its of value. I don't need a whole system to give me the thumbs up or down, declaring it a valid or invalid, contribution to society.

KyussB

It doesn't matter what you think is useful or valuable - nobody is going to just give you money to do whatever you like - the Universal Basic Income is already a failure and a no-go, politically.

The Job Guarantee is the only option which has actual political legitimacy - and if you want to be paid to do something, you'll have to run it by someone - like the way the rest of the working world already works...

Billy86

Finland are saying the talk of "ending" the UBI is untrue.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

Although many reports claimed this meant the end of basic income in Finland, this actually means that the experiment will only run until the end of 2018, as initially planned.

“It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment,” says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. “There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information,” he adds.

Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains.

Andy From Sligo

finland-to-scrap-universal-basic-income-scheme-after-two-year-trial

Just to follow up on this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-47092727/did-finland-s-basic-income-experiment-work


Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.
The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job.
The Finnish government wanted to see if this financial incentive encouraged people to get jobs or start businesses.
The BBC followed two participants, Tanja and Tuomas, for two years to see what impact free money had on their lives.

It appears that the UBI helped one of them to take a job that wouldn't have paid enough to support them on its own and the other person was too skilled (expensive & old) to hold a full time job.
Was it a success, yes and no! Great for people at the low end of the skills range to earn money over the basic to improve their lives, not so much for the professional person.

Dakotabigone

It was basically poor mans paddy dole.

KyussB

So basically they subsidized a business that was underpaying one of their workers below the living wage, and allowed that business to pocket the money at the cost of the public, leaving the public purse to take up the slack.

As predicted, the Basic Income turns into a business subsidy - no wonder the policy is enormously popular among major tech business owners. A much more appropriate policy, being to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

Dohnjoe

KyussB wrote: »

The Job Guarantee is the only option which has actual political legitimacy - and if you want to be paid to do something, you'll have to run it by someone - like the way the rest of the working world already works...

The Job Guarantee?

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

So basically they subsidized a business that was underpaying one of their workers below the living wage, and allowed that business to pocket the money at the cost of the public, leaving the public purse to take up the slack.

As predicted, the Basic Income turns into a business subsidy - no wonder the policy is enormously popular among major tech business owners. A much more appropriate policy, being to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

This is how it was expected to work in the first place, it allows people to get part time work and have a decent standard of living as the UBI paid for the basics. As we continue down the part of automation, eliminating all the well paid jobs.

How are we going to "consume" in the future if we're only getting "slave wage" income!

In reality we need to replace debt based money that is lent into existence with money that is created and spent into existence.
Remember that money is oil to the economy's engine, for the engine to function well, the oil needs to be at the bottom and pumped up, not flow to the top and trickle down! that's why the big ends are wearing yellow vests.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

In reality we need to replace debt based money that is lent into existence with money that is created and spent into existence. Remember that money is oil to the economy's engine, for the engine to function well, the oil needs to be at the bottom and pumped up, not flow to the top and trickle down! that's why the big ends are wearing yellow vests.

But but, I like using trickle down on boards, I ll run out of things to say if we give up credit/debt based money, my boards account would be meaningless. Interesting experiment all the same.

4068ac1elhodqr

'Finland's basic income trial boosts happiness (and health) but not employment'
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0208/1028261-finland-income-trial/

With all the mindfulness/health stuff in the news, surely this is a good thing.

Simply too small a trial to gauge effects, and in particular effects on national inflation or price indices.
if it was 'rolled out' proper, effects would be more significant (inflation and enterprise development).

Billy86

I think I read a few months back that they are trialing a few different models, as was initially planned? Could be wrong but I'm quite sure I have seen stories on it ending on a few different occasions now.

4068ac1elhodqr

Issue is the trials (of sorts) of a couple of thousand at a time can't be compared to a nationwide rollout.

If any country rolled out UBI en masse they'd see many positive and negative effects

Positve: Massive SoHO enterprise movements, if it means no bureaucracy paper filling in.
Positve: Spending surge for essential items, mid-range and investments in capital assest for the above
Positve: Tax havens and tax shy loophole capitalists will be hounded to pay for it, no longer a faint 'moral' obligation.

Negative: Massive (huge) sudden gravy-train migration from regions/states towards UBI sub-state/regions
Negative: Gross price inflation, if everyone is buying better brands of bread/milk, up the prices.

Problem is UBI is inevitable regardless. It's an when, not if.

Flyingsnowball

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

'Finland's basic income trial boosts happiness (and health) but not employment'
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0208/1028261-finland-income-trial/

With all the mindfulness/health stuff in the news, surely this is a good thing.

Simply too small a trial to gauge effects, and in particular effects on national inflation or price indices.
if it was 'rolled out' proper, effects would be more significant (inflation and enterprise development).

It’s not about people’s health. It’s about making sure you get to burn all of earths resources before the Russians and Chinese do.
Nobody in power will go for this so.

Water John

Good analysis Accumulator, it has to be ring fenced to long term residents, min residency number of years.

4068ac1elhodqr

Water John wrote: »

Good analysis Accumulator, it has to be ring fenced to long term residents, min residency number of years.

Would be essential, Would need to be 5yrs minimun (such would be the temptation) Maybe also specific courses on 'basic enterprise' also to point them in the right direction.

Give someone basic trading skills, the funds to buy basic equipment, no risk of penality for 'enterprise efforts' and you've got shed loads of window cleaners, barbers, mechanics, tradesfolk instantly.