Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

24567…17

Comments

  • #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Saipanne wrote: »
    I do. I earn money. The state takes half. That money goes to people who don't work. Same as before.
    Robots don't pay taxes and they do the majority of the work these days, much of the revenue that governments collect are indirect taxes, rather than income tax. That trend will only increase as fewer work and more indirect taxes are raised, just look at the recent addition of property & water* charges taxes for example.

    *well before the revolt that has stopped them for the time being.


  • #33
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Saipanne wrote: »
    Without the dedication of hard-working people like me, yes, the gravy train would derail.

    You are hard working because there is work available. UBI is designed for a future without work (if that happens).


  • #34
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »
    This will be the only option for governments worldwide due to automation/robotics/ai.

    By 2030, 2bn jobs worldwide will be lost to progress. Approx 50% of all current positions.
    Due to this efficiency and 'economies of scale' it's unlikely that many new roles will need to be created.

    I doubt that to be honest. If it does happen the world economy is fcuked.


  • #35
    Alejandra Young Sandstone
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Alejandra Young Sandstone


    It's an interesting idea, would like to see it vs the cost savings from administration and investigation into fraudulent claims etc


  • #36
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Its an interesting one. 10 years ago, I would have had no time for this sort of idea. Get an education, get a haircut, get a job would have been an accurate summary of my views. However, automation is going to destroy hundreds of millions of low skilled jobs. The idea that someone can succeed if they just work hard enough is just not going to fly when automation works harder, faster, longer and more reliably than any human. People shouldn't assume any white collar job is safe either - most trading is automated, with powerful trading software constantly monitoring prices across multiple markets and seeking arbitrage opportunities measured in split seconds. Creativity, charisma and ambiguity may become the only defining human characteristics employers are willing to pay for and those are not something you can be trained in.

    What are those hundreds of millions of educated but unemployable people going to do when there is no jobs to be found and they are not the new 'Notch' able to create economic value from sheer creativity and technical know how? Watch while wealth continues to accumulate with a increasingly smaller group of people? They cant be ignored given they will still retain their votes. Brexit and Trump signal that clearly. Society is going to have to figure that out over the next 50-100 years.

    I think experiments with universal basic income are important, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The main obstacle will be de-stigmatising the concept of unemployment in a society without jobs, but at the same time maintaining drive, ambition, endeavour.


  • #38
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's going to have to be bloated as there won't be any private sector jobs in the future.


  • #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Or never replaced as they retire, like the railways did with the firemen as the unions refused to allow them to be made redundant (British Rail had firemen on the books for over 20 years after the last regular steam train ran).


  • #40
    Ulysses Gaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,570 ✭✭✭Ulysses Gaze


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    It's going to have to be bloated as there won't be any private sector jobs in the future.

    Not a chance. And this is just in the UK.
    More than 850,000 public sector jobs could be lost by 2030 through automation, according to a study that comes as a further blow after hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared following the government’s austerity cuts.

    The research conducted by Oxford University and Deloitte, the business advisory firm, found that the 1.3m administrative jobs across the public sector had the highest chance of being automated.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/25/850000-public-sector-jobs-automated-2030-oxford-university-deloitte-study


  • #41
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sand wrote: »
    The main obstacle will be de-stigmatising the concept of unemployment in a society without jobs, but at the same time maintaining drive, ambition, endeavour.

    I think that should read:
    the main requirement will be de-stigmatising the concept of unemployment in a society without jobs


  • #43
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    If automation is as job destroying as claimed - and I have my doubts - then nothing is going to stop economic stagnation at best, decline at worst. UBI is just like the last days of the roman empire when the plebs didn't work - slaves did all the work. They didn't engage in revolution but the empires economy was static for generations.

    Wage increases along with productivity increases allowed society to get richer in a virtuous feedback loop in the last century. Workers demanded more money, employers more productivity - more money in circulation and more goods in production.

    Now automation can produce more but the demand won't be there - the best transmission mechanism for moving money through the economy is wages, as most people don't live of interest, dividends or capital.

    UBI won't make up for this lost demand.


  • #44
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    This has been tried a few times in the past (Google mincome Canada) and doubtless such experiments will become more common place in the future, the amounts involved in this experiment don't seem particularly high which may negate the effectiveness of this one.
    As others have alluded to, jobs as we know them will be changing, though, effects may not be as drastic as some think, we'll still come up with some excuse to get out of the house for 7-8 hours a day!!


  • #45
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,268 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Really excellently well put post, Sand.


  • #46
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,227 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    They'll probably have to get paid for relocating as well. This also assumes that the UBI continues to stay as simple as when first implemented. I can't see that being the case. Just look at how complex our current social welfare system is. It used to simpler than it currently is. The moment this comes in you'll have people complaining that Michael O'Leary, Denis O'Brien, other wealthy Irish people get the same as some poor, elderly pensioner. So then there will be a cut off point. Then we'll hear complaints about lazy 18 year olds who still live with their parents and don't bother their arse working getting the same as a struggling single mother. So child benefit is brought back in and young people get a lower UBI rate. Before you know it we'll have a very similar system to what we have now and we'll still have thousands of civil servants having to do the admin work for it.

    It's a nice idea but in the real world I can't see it staying as simple and reducing red tape in the long run.


  • #47
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It doesn't. You're right. But that's a failure of the private sector as much as the public sector. There won't be any jobs when you fire the public servants.


  • #48
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Pillow Feather wrote: »
    Why should some people get other people's value when they can't provide value in return?

    Ultimately? Because there is 99 of them and 1 of you. Do you really want to force things down a competitive, winner takes all environment?

    Society has always been about the wealthy and powerful securing the consent of the poor and weak. All through history, the wealthy have taken pains to present themselves as benefactors, patriarchs, concerned with their fellow man. That balance is not being struck anymore in any serious fashion. American billionaires are more likely to donate to the cause of the lesser spotted bolivian shrew, than the people who often live less than a mile from where they do.


  • #49
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Ulysses Gaze wrote: »
    Not a chance. And this is just in the UK.



    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/25/850000-public-sector-jobs-automated-2030-oxford-university-deloitte-study

    I think with automation (again I doubt the science here but let's go with it) is generally assumed that if we can do it we will. That's ignoring the political reality.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    If automation is as job destroying as claimed - and I have my doubts - then nothing is going to stop economic stagnation at best, decline at worst. UBI is just like the last days of the roman empire when the plebs didn't work - slaves did all the work. They didn't engage in revolution but the empires economy was static for generations.

    Wage increases along with productivity increases allowed society to get richer in a virtuous feedback loop in the last century. Workers demanded more money, employers more productivity - more money in circulation and more goods in production.

    Now automation can produce more but the demand won't be there - the best transmission mechanism for moving money through the economy is wages, as most people don't live of interest, dividends or capital.

    UBI won't make up for this lost demand.
    Stagnation is a given, when you consider the fact that we're mostly maxed out on just how much consumer products we can possibly possess.
    The only way we're going to continue growth is to have disposable everything, we're pretty close to that already!
    When did you last upgrade your phone and how old was the previous one when you binned it?
    Much of the growth in recent years has been as a result of planned and perceived obsolescences product lifecycle being shortened, a washing machine made in the 1980s lasted 12 years, one made last year will be lucky to be working in six.


  • #51
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Wage increases along with productivity increases allowed society to get richer in a virtuous feedback loop in the last century. Workers demanded more money, employers more productivity - more money in circulation and more goods in production.

    The middle class share of the wealth - and the virtuous feedback loop with it - has flatlined/declined for the past few decades. The economic gains are going to fewer and fewer people. People increasingly feel their children will do worse in life than they will for the first time in a long time. Things cannot continue on the current trend as a political or an economic system.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #53
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Saipanne wrote: »
    That's a no then. Guess I'll have to keep funding the lifestyle of the lazy.

    Do you feel the same about funding healthcare for diseases arising from lifestyle choices?


  • #54
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Stagnation is a given, when you consider the fact that we're mostly maxed out on just how much consumer products we can possibly possess.
    The only way we're going to continue growth is to have disposable everything, we're pretty close to that already!
    When did you last upgrade your phone and how old was the previous one when you binned it?
    Much of the growth in recent years has been as a result of planned and perceived obsolescences product lifecycle being shortened, a washing machine made in the 1980s lasted 12 years, one made last year will be lucky to be working in six.

    Yes but the washing machines today are much cheaper. I spent more on Christmas food.

    Stagnation is only a given if we assume there is no more technical innovation.

    My phone is two years old and that's about the replacement cycle. Phones are clearly getting more innovative and an example of how jobs are created by innovation eclipsing the jobs lost.

    Jobs lost: employees making non -smart phones.
    Jobs gained : smart phone employees and app developers.

    Gains > losses.

    The problem there is most industrial jobs in that manufacturing is in China. Not software though.


    So that is good innovation. The future is not so bright. However I don't think jobless automation is possible politically (and I doubt a lot of it technically)


  • #55
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Sand wrote: »
    The middle class share of the wealth - and the virtuous feedback loop with it - has flatlined/declined for the past few decades. The economic gains are going to fewer and fewer people. People increasingly feel their children will do worse in life than they will for the first time in a long time. Things cannot continue on the current trend as a political or an economic system.

    This is all very fatalistic. However I agree there will be some political reaction. If present trends continue.


  • #56
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #57
    Butters1979
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    More money for people to do nothing. And whenever anyone who earns a living challenges this subsidisation for the lazy they're told to 'become a banker' because apparently not only is that the only form of economic parasite; it's real easy for everyone to do. Socialism is a disease.


  • #58
    Butters1979
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭Butters1979


    Also understand the idea perfectly. The idea that people who get unemployment benefits are less well off after tax working if they get a low paid job is bull****. It's only true if you don't count any cash in hand work they're not paying taxes on while they're unemployed.

    Also, if it were, the solution is to not pay them better than people who are actually working. It's to pay them less.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,828 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Yes but the washing machines today are much cheaper. I spent more on Christmas food.
    Automation has made manufacturing much cheaper, plus the practice of using the flimsiest materials to shorten its working life.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Stagnation is only a given if we assume there is no more technical innovation.
    It's the marketing of the "new & improved" widget that is driving growth, the technological "arms race" will continue indefinitely.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    My phone is two years old and that's about the replacement cycle. Phones are clearly getting more innovative and an example of how jobs are created by innovation eclipsing the jobs lost.
    Do you really need to upgrade that phone?
    What does the new phone do that the old one can't?
    Perceived obsolescence most likely.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Jobs lost: employees making non -smart phones.
    Jobs gained : smart phone employees and app developers.
    Same employees just get moved to another production line and there's only a limited number of app dev jobs out there.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    Gains > losses.
    not if you look at the growth in jobs verses the growth in population plus all the job losses in declining sectors.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    The problem there is most industrial jobs in that manufacturing is in China. Not software though.
    Chinese software is crap at the moment, but I expect that they'll come good in the near future.
    Yourself isit wrote: »
    So that is good innovation. The future is not so bright. However I don't think jobless automation is possible politically (and I doubt a lot of it technically)
    The only sectors that will see real job growth are the hospitality and healthcare support areas, in other words hotel and nursing home staff. Both sectors that traditionally pay the lowest wage possible.


  • #60
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,011 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    How realistic is it that those sort of people can be produced from a educational system? And don't entrepreneurs need employees? People who have the skills and the dedication but who are willing to lend them to an entrepreneurs idea?

    I think the drive to more 'entrepreneurs' runs the risk of becoming a means whereby employers redefine their relationship with their employees so they no longer have any bothersome or costly obligations to them. Is a zero hours contractor an employee or an entrepreneur? How about an Uber driver? We might end up in a situation where people have their rights as employees stripped from them and instead get a shiny meaningless label of entrepreneur instead.

    I think in the long term, its not a solution to advise everyone to think of themselves as Bill Gates and hope they dont notice he lives in a mansion whilst they live in a slum.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,256 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Sorry that's rubbish too.

    Ignoring the boring and unsubstantiated attacks on the leaving cert - it assumes that the only worthwhile creativity is the entrepreneur in his garage. In fact most innovations and patents are produced by people working for wages.

    And successful capitalist economies have fewer self employed people than un-successful economies. The "gig economy" in Lagos employs 80% of the working population - you know as shoeshine boys and rickshaw drivers.


Advertisement