Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 12:56PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The Basic Income is a Trojan Horse policy - it is really a business subsidy, not an income subsidy, because businesses are just going to slash the wages they pay workers over time, until they soak up the gains workers make from the Basic Income.

All that has to be done to transform it from an income subsidy to a business subsidy, is to slash wages.

The Basic Income will also legitimize politically, the destruction of the entire welfare system - because the purpose of the Basic Income, is to replace all other forms of welfare payments, and unify them into one easy to attack target: The Basic Income.

So, once a big enough economic crisis hits, and the deficit scaremongering reaches its height, the first policy on the chopping block will be the Basic Income - and when that is slashed down to a pittance (without any discrimination between different types of welfare recipient, like there is today - making it much harder to justify cuts in todays system), it will pretty much take out the whole welfare system with it.

The Basic Income is also a Trojan Horse policy aimed at destroying progressive taxation. It is almost always paired with a policy aimed at introducing a Flat Tax system, which means that when businesses undermine the Basic Income by slashing wages, and when deficit scaremongering leads to a slashing of the Basic Income, we will be left with a Flat Tax system where lower income people pay more taxes than before, but without the Basic Income redistributing those taxes back to lower income people.

Effectively, once the policy is implemented and then slashed, it will lead to a massive reduction in tax for higher income people and the wealthy, and a massive increase in taxes for lower income people and the less-well-off.

The Basic Income is easily the most dangerous Trojan Horse policy that exists right now - and people generally seem to be completely blind to that.

In addition to that, we are nowhere near a level of automation advancement, that there will not be enough jobs for everybody - it should be obvious to people, just by looking at the massive amount of work we need to do to stop climate change, that there is no shortage of urgent work left to be done, in massive infrastructural redevelopment and R&D aimed at stopping climate change as soon as possible.

The entire automation argument, is aimed at fooling people into believing that long-term-unemployment is an acceptable state of affairs (despite there being no end of urgent work that needs doing), and for supporting a push to a Basic Income.

The thing is long term large scale unemployment can't help capitalism. It can only destroy it.

I'm fairly dubious about automation myself. There's an AI panic every generation. I don't even think that driverless cars will be a thing. But that's a different discussion.

peasant · 30-12-2016 12:58PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Automation = productivity gains = growth.

Why would anyone want to limit that? The real question is how you share the benefits of it with the people left behind by it. Fighting automation is just tilting at windmills.

This is where we need to look at a much bigger picture ...our growth based economy has to come to an end, for several reasons:

- automation does not just eliminate jobs, it eliminates wages and social contributions. Theoretically a factory could produce something (and profit) without contributing anything to society bar a little tax on profits while on the other hand consuming resources and land and creating pollution and waste.
We need to introduce a machine tax to make up for the lost social contributions at least.

- the fixation on continuous growth leads to ever more resources being depleted to make ever more disposable goods that nobody REALLY needs. This has to stop. we are already at a point where it has become totally unsustainable,
some reading here: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

- lastly a more philosophical issue: Being productive, earning our keep in this growth based economy has reduced us humans to mere cogs in the machine. All human achievements (health,art, social values, ingenuity etc) have become subservient to growth. Growth always has to be achieved first before there is money for anything else. Individuals need a job first before they can look after other things that make life worth living. This has to change. This is our life, our planet, we need to shape it, not the economy.

A universal basic income is a first step towards these changes. Free people from having to have a job to secure their existence, leave them free to develop other means of living their lives and contribute to society and open revenue streams outside of the classic growth economy.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 12:58PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sure...if pack animals had a Luddite movement when the internal combustion engine was invented.

Haha, very good analogy. Also the Luddites are unfairly maligned. They were affected by the machines they destroyed. They weren't anti progress in general.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:01PM

peasant wrote: »

This is where we need to look at a much bigger picture ...our growth based economy has to come to an end, for several reasons:

- automation does not just eliminate jobs, it eliminates wages and social contributions. Theoretically a factory could produce something (and profit) without contributing anything to society bar a little tax on profits while on the other hand consuming resources and land and creating pollution and waste.
We need to introduce a machine tax to make up for the lost social contributions at least.

- the fixation on continuous growth leads to ever more resources being depleted to make ever more disposable goods that nobody REALLY needs. This has to stop. we are already at a point where it has become totally unsustainable,
some reading here: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

- lastly a more philosophical issue: Being productive, earning our keep in this growth based economy has reduced us humans to mere cogs in the machine. All human achievements (health,art, social values, ingenuity etc) have become subservient to growth. Growth always has to be achieved first before there is money for anything else. Individuals need a job first before they can look after other things that make life worth living. This has to change. This is our life, our planet, we need to shape it, not the economy.

A universal basic income is a first step towards these changes. Free people from having to have a job to secure their existence, leave them free to develop other means of living their lives and contribute to society and open revenue streams outside of the classic growth economy.

Most people without work will just be depressed. And opposing growth is fine in theory, in practice austerity is opposed by nearly everyone.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:03PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

God's sake man. Try and abandon econ 101 and think about the problems here.

Why would anything be produced, or the economy grow if unemployment is destined to increase over time.

I thought I'd answered that earlier - with increased automation we need fewer human inputs into the system to produce more. It's been the basis of much of our productivity growth since the steam engine was invented.

It's econ 101 - let's build on it, not abandon it.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:06PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I thought I'd answered that earlier - with increased automation we need fewer human inputs into the system to produce more. It's been the basis of much of our productivity growth since the steam engine was invented.

It's econ 101 - let's build on it, not abandon it.

Who is buying this increased production? Why are companies producing more if there is lower demand. Robots don't buy Robots.

Arcade_Tryer · 30-12-2016 01:06PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The Basic Income is a Trojan Horse policy - it is really a business subsidy, not an income subsidy, because businesses are just going to slash the wages they pay workers over time, until they soak up the gains workers make from the Basic Income.

All that has to be done to transform it from an income subsidy to a business subsidy, is to slash wages.

The Basic Income will also legitimize politically, the destruction of the entire welfare system - because the purpose of the Basic Income, is to replace all other forms of welfare payments, and unify them into one easy to attack target: The Basic Income.

So, once a big enough economic crisis hits, and the deficit scaremongering reaches its height, the first policy on the chopping block will be the Basic Income - and when that is slashed down to a pittance (without any discrimination between different types of welfare recipient, like there is today - making it much harder to justify cuts in todays system), it will pretty much take out the whole welfare system with it.

The Basic Income is also a Trojan Horse policy aimed at destroying progressive taxation. It is almost always paired with a policy aimed at introducing a Flat Tax system, which means that when businesses undermine the Basic Income by slashing wages, and when deficit scaremongering leads to a slashing of the Basic Income, we will be left with a Flat Tax system where lower income people pay more taxes than before, but without the Basic Income redistributing those taxes back to lower income people.

Effectively, once the policy is implemented and then slashed, it will lead to a massive reduction in tax for higher income people and the wealthy, and a massive increase in taxes for lower income people and the less-well-off.

The Basic Income is easily the most dangerous Trojan Horse policy that exists right now - and people generally seem to be completely blind to that.

In addition to that, we are nowhere near a level of automation advancement, that there will not be enough jobs for everybody - it should be obvious to people, just by looking at the massive amount of work we need to do to stop climate change, that there is no shortage of urgent work left to be done, in massive infrastructural redevelopment and R&D aimed at stopping climate change as soon as possible.

The entire automation argument, is aimed at fooling people into believing that long-term-unemployment is an acceptable state of affairs (despite there being no end of urgent work that needs doing), and for supporting a push to a Basic Income.

This is a good post. But it's only as good as the countless posts in this thread telling us that most people won't have jobs in a few decade's time and automated vehicles will be the norm within ten or fifteen years. Too much certainty about something nobody is certain of. The technology might already exist, but any economist or historian, or even a politician, will tell you that many other factors also exist. The ability of grown adults to transform into excited, giggling children when talking about technology is wonderful. But also terrifying at the same time. Progress, technological progress is good. Fanatical preaching and prophesying is pretty pointless. And leads to end of days type discussions about universal basic income, which if introduced even, would only be a small part of a much larger solution, similar to something like the minimum wage as it exists today.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:10PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This is a good post. But it's only as good as the countless posts in this thread telling us that most people won't have jobs in a few decade's time and automated vehicles will be the norm within ten or fifteen years. Too much certainty about something nobody is certain of. The technology might already exist, but any economist or historian, or even a politician, will tell you that many other factors also exist. The ability of grown adults to transform into excited, giggling children when talking about technology is wonderful. But also terrifying at the same time. Progress, technological progress is good. Fanatical preaching and prophesying is pretty pointless. And leads to end of days type discussions about universal basic income, which if introduced even, would only be a small part of a much larger solution, similar to something like the minimum wage as it exists today.

This thread basically assumes that this modern forum of AI will replace loads of workers. 50%.

I personally don't agree. But that's the premise. Assuming that case is the UBI enough to save capitalism? I don't think so.

redcup342 · 30-12-2016 01:12PM

I was looking at this while watching Terminator

Lets hope Skynet is as generous

Billy86 · 30-12-2016 01:13PM

redcup342 wrote: »

I was looking at this while watching Terminator

Lets hope Skynet is as generous

You'd hope so - http://www.skynet.net/

0byme75341jo28 · 30-12-2016 01:14PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Money will only be available electronically shortly, paper-printed notes will become void.

To see if you'll become a 'UBI recipient', read the occupation checklists for 2030 and beyond...

That is absolute nonsense. Not a chance in hell that teachers etc. will be losing their jobs to automation by 2030. These futurists live in absolute Cuckoo land...

30-12-2016 01:19PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I thought I'd answered that earlier - with increased automation we need fewer human inputs into the system to produce more. It's been the basis of much of our productivity growth since the steam engine was invented.

It's econ 101 - let's build on it, not abandon it.

I think it's a complete pipe dream to imagine anything other than a miserable dystopian-esque future for those who find themselves on the wrong side of automation. Every shred of evidence in the past 30-40 years has shown us that the benefits of these productivity gains have mostly skewed upwards towards the haves, something that at this point seems to be accelerating incredibly post-crash. If anything, it seems that people who come along, a la Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders et al, and talks about economic fairness and using public monies for the betterment of society as a whole will be mocked as unrealistic lunatics by a sizeable portion of society.

Things will reach a breaking point once there is a certain level of automation, potentially the first big shock will be when all driving jobs become redundant in a few years. And I think that will mark the turning point as to whether the authorities seek to assist these people at great cost to private profit, or control these people through force.

I'd love to think that things will turn out great for everyone, it's just hard to believe it will when all evidence is pointing in the exact opposite direction.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:19PM

peasant wrote: »

This is where we need to look at a much bigger picture ...our growth based economy has to come to an end, for several reasons:

- automation does not just eliminate jobs, it eliminates wages and social contributions. Theoretically a factory could produce something (and profit) without contributing anything to society bar a little tax on profits while on the other hand consuming resources and land and creating pollution and waste.
We need to introduce a machine tax to make up for the lost social contributions at least.

- the fixation on continuous growth leads to ever more resources being depleted to make ever more disposable goods that nobody REALLY needs. This has to stop. we are already at a point where it has become totally unsustainable,
some reading here: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

- lastly a more philosophical issue: Being productive, earning our keep in this growth based economy has reduced us humans to mere cogs in the machine. All human achievements (health,art, social values, ingenuity etc) have become subservient to growth. Growth always has to be achieved first before there is money for anything else. Individuals need a job first before they can look after other things that make life worth living. This has to change. This is our life, our planet, we need to shape it, not the economy.

A universal basic income is a first step towards these changes. Free people from having to have a job to secure their existence, leave them free to develop other means of living their lives and contribute to society and open revenue streams outside of the classic growth economy.

Being more productive doesn't necessarily mean that we use more resources - quite the opposite, productivity should mean that we make better use of the resources that we have (including increased productivity enabled by technology). Nor does it mean that we consume more or produce more waste.
That's a pretty dystopian view of the future.

I tend to agree with another poster who said that technology can free us up to tackle all of the other work that needs to be done - more and better infrastructure for example and r&d into how to better use the resources we have.
There's loads of work still to do. We just need to figure out how to transition through the digital revolution.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:21PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

Who is buying this increased production? Why are companies producing more if there is lower demand. Robots don't buy Robots.

I'm not seeing lower demand. The number of humans is still increasing and the number of middle class humans is increasing faster than ever before.

peasant · 30-12-2016 01:24PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Being more productive doesn't necessarily mean that we use more resources - quite the opposite, productivity should mean that we make better use of the resources that we have (including increased productivity enabled by technology). Nor does it mean that we consume more or produce more waste.
That's a pretty dystopian view of the future.

The way the system is currently skewed towards easy profit, it is still easier to make money from consuming resources and producing waste than to be sustainable.

30-12-2016 01:26PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not seeing lower demand. The number of humans is still increasing and the number of middle class humans is increasing faster than ever before.

Middle class? Ha. The working poor, more like.

KyussBeeshop · 30-12-2016 01:27PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

This is a good post. But it's only as good as the countless posts in this thread telling us that most people won't have jobs in a few decade's time and automated vehicles will be the norm within ten or fifteen years. Too much certainty about something nobody is certain of. The technology might already exist, but any economist or historian, or even a politician, will tell you that many other factors also exist. The ability of grown adults to transform into excited, giggling children when talking about technology is wonderful. But also terrifying at the same time. Progress, technological progress is good. Fanatical preaching and prophesying is pretty pointless. And leads to end of days type discussions about universal basic income, which if introduced even, would only be a small part of a much larger solution, similar to something like the minimum wage as it exists today.

You're right that I present my points with too much certainty - I do that to highlight the massive dangers of the Basic Income policy, mainly.

However, if you think about each of the points I raise, and look at existing economic trends that we see today, then you can already see that the points I raise happen already, in different forms.

1: Slashing wages: Wages have stagnated for decades now, and are not growing in line with productivity increases - so the trend already exists right now, where businesses can transform the Basic Income from an income subsidy, to a business subsidy, by continuing to erode wages over time.

2: Destruction of welfare: The Basic Income is almost always proposed as a replacement for the current welfare system. Deficit scaremongering that can be used to destroy the Basic Income (and thus the remainder of the whole welfare system), has already hit us harder in the last ~10 years than we've seen in decades - and we have every reason to expect that it will happen again, when another economic crisis hits (and that the Basic Income will be a lot easier to attack politically, than unemployment and other welfare payments it replaces - and will be the first thing to receive massive cuts).

3: Destruction of Progressive Taxation with a Flat Tax: Quite simply, how are we going to pay for a Universal Basic Income? It is almost always paired with a Flat Tax system. Points 1 and 2, show how tax redistribution going to lower income workers and the less-well-off, through the Basic Income, is likely to be slashed/redirected - leaving us with a Flat Tax system, which will tax the lower income and less-well-off far more than in the current system, and higher income and the wealthy, far less than in the current system.

The trends that would lead to those outcomes, already exist right now. There is no reason to believe those trends will change.

Ignoring these massive dangers, when there are already massive warning signs that this is what will happen (since all that has to happen, is for current trends to remain in place and not change), would be incredibly foolish.

30-12-2016 01:30PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

This thread basically assumes that this modern forum of AI will replace loads of workers. 50%.

I personally don't agree. But that's the premise. Assuming that case is the UBI enough to save capitalism? I don't think so.

I still remember when I was in school in the late 1960s there was talk about the future being all about leisure time as robots will do all the work!

Never really worked out that way, but the 1980s saw a massive de-industrialisation of many western countries as companies took the jobs East or mechanised the process.
Millions of jobs vanished, many of those made unemployed then never worked again.

Many of the jobs created in recent years are in retail, hospitality and care homes all of which are traditionally low paying.

I'm not so sure that UBI is a trojan horse as the people who pull the strings are very aware of the fact that if they try to screw the general population that there'll be blood on the streets.

The poll tax revolt in the 1990s in the UK being one of many examples.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:32PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I think it's a complete pipe dream to imagine anything other than a miserable dystopian-esque future for those who find themselves on the wrong side of automation. Every shred of evidence in the past 30-40 years has shown us that the benefits of these productivity gains have mostly skewed upwards towards the haves, something that at this point seems to be accelerating incredibly post-crash. If anything, it seems that people who come along, a la Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders et al, and talks about economic fairness and using public monies for the betterment of society as a whole will be mocked as unrealistic lunatics by a sizeable portion of society.

Things will reach a breaking point once there is a certain level of automation, potentially the first big shock will be when all driving jobs become redundant in a few years. And I think that will mark the turning point as to whether the authorities seek to assist these people at great cost to private profit, or control these people through force.

I'd love to think that things will turn out great for everyone, it's just hard to believe it will when all evidence is pointing in the exact opposite direction.

I don't share your dystopian view, but I do think that there will be a lot of losers from automation, particularity at the lower end of the food chain (people higher up will be effected, but overall will be gainers).

I'd be fairly confident that their will be a generation of politicians that will come up with sensible responses that will be listened to. I see Trump and Brexit as representing the people angrily kicking the system i.e. calling for some/any change . That won't work, but the next response will be more sensible.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:35PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Middle class? Ha. The working poor, more like.

I think you have a very local view of the problem.
We've seen a massive rise in the middle class throughout the world, made possible by many of the same things that cause us stress here.

KCross · 30-12-2016 01:36PM

Automation and AI is a good thing and nothing new. It has always displaced jobs and world keeps spinning!

Where do all the farm labourers now work who got done out of a job when the tractor etc was invented?

Why do we still have nurses considering all the "new" equipment they now have at their disposal? It's more nurses we need,not less, as a result of the automation they have.

You could go on and on with examples of automation that have taken jobs for decades.

What automation does is free people up to do more meaningful tasks. In the short term people lose jobs but the next generation find different jobs. It's called progress!

This talk of AI taking all our jobs and everyone sitting at home on UBI is just ridiculous. It's a cover for those who don't want to work and want free money.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:37PM

One of the differences between modern automation and factory robots is - it seems - the older robots were designrd to increase productivity. New AI is purposely about increasing profits and not about producing more. Letting people go.

Why would driverless cars be more productive? In what measurable way can driverless cars increase GDP to offset the losses of all the jobs? Not just all drivers (if you assume the worst) but a lot of manufacture. No need to own a driverless car really as you can't go faster or drive it as you prefer. Just order a bland white iCar from the iCar app, type in donegal, get there and it will pick up somebody from Derry.

mrsdewinter · 30-12-2016 01:39PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Its not a universal basic income unless everyone gets including the employed retired, student in fact everybody.

Right?? If the payment doesn't also go to people on higher incomes, how will it go back into the exchequer?

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:40PM

KCross wrote: »

Automation and AI is a good thing and nothing new. It has always displaced jobs and world keeps spinning!

Where do all the farm labourers now work who got done out of a job when the tractor etc was invented?

Why do we still have nurses considering all the "new" equipment they now have at their disposal? It's more nurses we need,not less, as a result of the automation they have.

You could go on and on with examples of automation that have taken jobs for decades.

What automation does is free people up to do more meaningful tasks. In the short term people lose jobs but the next generation find different jobs. It's called progress!

This talk of AI taking all our jobs and everyone sitting at home on UBI is just ridiculous. It's a cover for those who don't want to work and want free money.

Nobody on the dole cares about UBI, if anything it might be a reduction in their income. You can also work and receive it. That's the point in fact. It's really a subsidy of the gig economy.

The premise of this thread is that modern AI can replace human work, not augment it.

30-12-2016 01:42PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you have a very local view of the problem.
We've seen a massive rise in the middle class throughout the world, made possible by many of the same things that cause us stress here.

I think you're being very loose with the term 'middle class'. Not starving in the streets or living off scavenging from a rubbish dump does not make you middle class. By this analogy, subsistence farmers in Ireland in the 1700s were middle class because there was certainly a lower class of the land-less labourers.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:44PM

peasant wrote: »

The way the system is currently skewed towards easy profit, it is still easier to make money from consuming resources and producing waste than to be sustainable.

That's true, but I'm optimistic longer term.
Things that aren't sustainable normally aren't sustained.

Not that that will help the current generation. If you look at the textile workers in England during the industrial revolution - they were replaced by automation, but replaced by other industries and services that were better than back breaking, unhealthy mill work.
Of course it took a generation or more for the transition and thousands of individuals were left on the scrapheap. We should probably try to avoid that (but not by banning automated looms).

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:45PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you have a very local view of the problem.
We've seen a massive rise in the middle class throughout the world, made possible by many of the same things that cause us stress here.

Good for them. Globalisation wasn't sold as making the western middle classes poorer though.

30-12-2016 01:48PM

Phoebas wrote: »

That's true, but I'm optimistic longer term.
Things that aren't sustainable normally aren't sustained.

Not that that will help the current generation. If you look at the textile workers in England during the industrial revolution - they were replaced by automation, but replaced by other industries and services that were better than back breaking, unhealthy mill work.
Of course it took a generation or more for the transition and thousands of individuals were left on the scrapheap. We should probably try to avoid that (but not by banning automated looms).

The Luddite angle is a good frame of reference, the question is what happens if there are a billion or two people on the scrapheap (in addition to the billion or two who are already there) for a generation or more?

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:48PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I think you're being very loose with the term 'middle class'. Not starving in the streets or living off scavenging from a rubbish dump does not make you middle class. By this analogy, subsistence farmers in Ireland in the 1700s were middle class because there was certainly a lower class of the land-less labourers.

Its all relative - I generally equate it to having a better income and more choices. I'd certainly prefer to be the subsistence farmer than the landless labourer.

I wouldn't get hung up on the term.

KyussBeeshop · 30-12-2016 01:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not so sure that UBI is a trojan horse as the people who pull the strings are very aware of the fact that if they try to screw the general population that there'll be blood on the streets.

The poll tax revolt in the 1990s in the UK being one of many examples.

Well, think of it this way: Most people in the western world are aware there is a Serious Problem right now, with accelerating inequality and persistent unemployment - this means that there is going to be enormous growing political pressure for a solution to these problems, and that some kind of solution will be implemented.

The battle now, isn't whether or not some solution will be implemented to these problems, it's which solution.

Sectors of society which benefit from the current mess, will want to hjack the 'recovery' effort aimed at the current problems, to shape the recovery in a way that will benefit them (and to suppress competing recovery policies from people such as Corbyn/Sanders, which can provide true/lasting recovery efforts, at the expense of those currently benefiting from the mess).

The Basic Income is the perfect Trojan Horse policy, that would allow the hijacking of any recovery to these problems, so that people can be provided with temporary relief that will placate them - so that in the future, the policy used for the 'recovery' can be turned against society, to recreate the exact same problems it was supposed to fix - and make them even worse!

This is the danger. Such a policy can fool everyone in the short/medium term, into thinking the root problems have been fixed - while at the same time providing the means to bring back those problems worse than ever, in the future. That's incredibly dangerous.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments