Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 01:55PM

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.

Yes. And some servants were "upper middle class". Actually middle income.

We are most of us working class.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 01:57PM

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

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 for a generation or more?

I think that's a big challenge. The pace of change is a lot faster now and people are generally better educated, so with good policies I think this could be minimised.

The whole automated driver thing could bring a massive shock - the economic factors are so big, as is the size of the industry, and I don't see obvious alternatives. If I was a young person in that industry, i'd be looking to get out.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 02:00PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

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.

Have a look at a factory floor producing cars pre robot era and have a look a car manufacturing plant now, making 100x the number of cars.

It was always about headcount.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 02:12PM

Phoebas wrote: »

Have a look at a factory floor producing cars pre robot era and have a look a car manufacturing plant now, making 100x the number of cars.

It was always about headcount.

You keep missing my point.

What exact effect on GDP will replacing drivers (and most car manufacturing) have? How can it cause GDP to grow to offset the jobs lost?

That's clearly different from older Robotics.

Companies with automation build more stuff. But workers - often unionised - get higher wages for increased productivity. Across the economy therefore, until the manufacturing Base was destroyed and exported, workers earned more and bought more of the increased production elsewhere. Wages are the main way of increasing demand in the economy.

I see no comparison here with driverless cars. In fact productivity may not change at all. If it does it all be marginal.

steddyeddy · 30-12-2016 02:15PM

This is a test guys. Surely this is something everyone can get behind. We had multiple commentators on here saying that handouts lead to lack of work motivation, well what better way to test it than here?

If it fails everyome can say I told you so.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 02:22PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

You keep missing my point.

What exact effect on GDP will replacing drivers (and most car manufacturing) have? How can it cause GDP to grow to offset the jobs lost?

That's clearly different from older Robotics.

Companies with automation build more stuff. But workers - often unionised - get higher wages for increased productivity. Across the economy therefore, until the manufacturing Base was destroyed and exported, workers earned more and bought more of the increased production elsewhere. Wages are the main way of increasing demand in the economy.

I see no comparison here with driverless cars. In fact productivity may not change at all.

First, car manufacturing is older robotics. It was probably the first industry that Introduced robotics on a wide scale.
The productivity gains from driverless cars is an arguable point. From what I can see, it does allow for much more efficient use of the infrastructure (roads) and much less fuel use by efficient and constant speeds.

But I think you're conflating growth (through productivity) with the distribution of the benefits of that growth.
Traditionally we did this through wages to the workers and income taxes on those wages, and some taxation on the corporations. Maybe that needs to be rebalanced to take a bigger slice from the corporations.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 02:31PM

Phoebas wrote: »

First, car manufacturing is older robotics. It was probably the first industry that Introduced robotics on a wide scale.
The productivity gains from driverless cars is an arguable point. From what I can see, it does allow for much more efficient use of the infrastructure (roads) and much less fuel use by efficient and constant speeds.

I can't see how any of that adds to productivity in terms of more goods and services being produced. Or makes up for the lack of demand.

But I think you're conflating growth (through productivity) with the distribution of the benefits of that growth.
Traditionally we did this through wages to the workers and income taxes on those wages, and some taxation on the corporations. Maybe that needs to be rebalanced to take a bigger slice from the corporations.

I'm not. You don't seem to get that the productivity is dependent on (anticipated) demand to begin with.

Companies anticipate demand and don't spend on capital in recessions. There's a feedback loop you don't get. Supply doesn't produce its own demand despite what Says law predicts. Product can remain unsold.

Producing more stuff with robotics is only useful if there is somebody there to buy it. So it needs wage increases (or price deflation but that has nasty side effects).

Dr Crayfish · 30-12-2016 02:32PM

I was thinking this may need to happen sooner or later with automation etc. My only problem is people like inner city Dubliners who have for generations never worked, get free housing in prime real estate areas, and they have that sense of entitlement. The one time I tried to claim the scratcher after being encouraged by my mother and having been away for a couple of years, they started blabbing on about stamps or something and wouldn't give me a penny. I got a job soon afterwards but that really p*ssed me off.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 02:35PM

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I was thinking this may need to happen sooner or later with automation etc. My only problem is people like inner city Dubliners who have for generations never worked, get free housing in prime real estate areas, and they have that sense of entitlement. The one time I tried to claim the scratcher after being encouraged by my mother and having been away for a couple of years, they started blabbing on about stamps or something and wouldn't give me a penny. I got a job soon afterwards but that really p*ssed me off.

Yeh. Stamps time out. Which is ridiculous.

Palmach · 30-12-2016 02:36PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

(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 only thing loonies like the two above will guarantee is bankruptcy.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 02:44PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

I can't see how any of that adds to productivity in terms of more goods and services being produced. Or makes up for the lack of demand.

You can't see how a more efficient supply chain doesn't tend towards increased productivity?

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'm not. You don't seem to get that the productivity is dependent on (anticipated) demand to begin with.

Companies anticipate demand and don't spend on capital in recessions. There's a feedback loop you don't get. Supply doesn't produce its own demand despite what Says law predicts. It can remain unsold.

You're making a massive assumption about demand, presumably based on the idea that the automation makes workers redundant, reducing demand.

I don't buy that. We already have a huge amount of automation in one form or another throughout the economy, but unemployment hasn't suffered (even in Ireland, we were at or about full employment prior to the financial crisis) and nor has demand.

New jobs will replace old jobs - and where there is a timelag between these things in certain industries, better redistribution policies fill that gap.

KyussBeeshop · 30-12-2016 02:45PM

Palmach wrote: »

The only thing loonies like the two above will guarantee is bankruptcy.

Yet the money for a Basic Income is going to come from where exactly?

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-12-2016 02:45PM

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 02:57PM

Phoebas wrote: »

You can't see how a more efficient supply chain doesn't tend towards increased productivity?

Supply chains are plenty efficient as it is. Mostly by being close to suppliers. What massive increase in productivity will make up for the job losses for drivers? How? Is the time to get a component to Foxconn a huge hindrance? Even if that is true how does more efficiency in Foxconn benefit a New York taxi driver now unemployed? And we already know that productivity increases can go to capital (increase profits) not wages.

You're making a massive assumption about demand, presumably based on the idea that the automation makes workers redundant, reducing demand.

I don't buy that. We already have a huge amount of automation in one form or another throughout the economy, but unemployment hasn't suffered (even in Ireland, we were at or about full employment prior to the financial crisis) and nor has demand.

Please. I said no such thing. I said until now robotics didn't cause unemployment or reduce wages because the remaining workers negotiated wage increases (although outsourcing charged that). I am saying that this new AI and automation is not going to do that. If it happens as described.

New jobs will replace old jobs - and where there is a timelag between these things in certain industries, better redistribution policies fill that gap.

This argument isnt an argument. The past is not the future.

Yourself isit · 30-12-2016 03:01PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

I can play already. One again you are missing the demand element. Magic new jobs will no doubt appear, but that will not replace the older jobs automatically because that's not inevitable.

Growth in golf clubs assumes more income and more leisure. That is not the way the western economies are going even now. Maybe for the top 30%.

4068ac1elhodqr · 30-12-2016 03:06PM

UBI is both more/greater (basic) income and more leisure time.

The one single commodity that people cannot buy, is that of time.
Thus, it should be viewed as a gift and not a challenge.

New jobs will appear, but people who want them, will have to adapt.

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 03:11PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

Supply chains are plenty efficient as it is. Mostly by being close to suppliers.

I'm not swayed by arguments that we have already reached the pinnacle.
Nor am I convinced that in our globalised economy that manufacturers are close to their suppliers (or to their customers for that matter). Supply chains have grown larger and more dispersed, not the other way around.

Yourself isit wrote: »

What massive increase in productivity will make up for the job losses for drivers? How?

I don't know what you mean by 'make up for' job losses of drivers. If drivers are engineered out of a system, then there is nothing to make up for in productivity terms.

Yourself isit wrote: »

This argument isnt an argument. The past is not the future.

Its just my own prediction, based on a pattern we've seen again and again.

BrokenArrows · 30-12-2016 03:23PM

I dont understand what the difference is between "Universal Basic Income" vs The Dole.

So in finland they are receiving 560 euro a month with no strings attached. In Ireland you get 814 euro a month with strings attached.

What difference does the strings make?

Phoebas · 30-12-2016 03:26PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I dont understand what the difference is between "Universal Basic Income" vs The Dole.

So in finland they are receiving 560 euro a month with no strings attached. In Ireland you get 814 euro a month with strings attached.

What difference does the strings make?

They continue to get it, even if they get a job.

Its a big incentive to get a job in this limited study, because you can have the best of both worlds - the UBI income without the taxes to pay for it.

peasant · 30-12-2016 04:05PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I dont understand what the difference is between "Universal Basic Income" vs The Dole.

So in finland they are receiving 560 euro a month with no strings attached. In Ireland you get 814 euro a month with strings attached.

What difference does the strings make?

If everybody (and I mean everybody) received an unconditional basic income, enough to satisfy their basic needs, this creates a new and totally different workforce.

No longer are you tied to an 8-5 mundane job with paltry wages just in order not to starve ...you don't starve for a start, without doing anything.
This means you can choose where you work, how long you work and how much you earn (if anything) without existential pressure.

If you want to, you can continue climbing the corporate ladder. Or you could decide to do nothing but watch TV and eat cheap food.
But hopefully this would enable society as a whole to become more creative, more caring and a overall a nicer place to live in.

MrPudding · 30-12-2016 04:40PM

peasant wrote: »

If everybody (and I mean everybody) received an unconditional basic income, enough to satisfy their basic needs, this creates a new and totally different workforce.

No longer are you tied to an 8-5 mundane job with paltry wages just in order not to starve ...you don't starve for a start, without doing anything.
This means you can choose where you work, how long you work and how much you earn (if anything) without existential pressure.

If you want to, you can continue climbing the corporate ladder. Or you could decide to do nothing but watch TV and eat cheap food.
But hopefully this would enable society as a whole to become more creative, more caring and a overall a nicer place to live in.

There is also an argument that it will stop the race to the bottom with wages. If people don't need to work, or aren't desperate. The old "well, if you don't take this jib with minimum wage and sh1tty conditions then there are 20 people behind you that will" argument simply won't have the same force.

I quite like the idea of UBI. There are a number of things I would like to do, that would be beneficial for society and other people, but I simply can't afford to do them. I need to earn more money than I could possibly make doing them. UBI make doing otherwise financially unviable jobs viable.

MrP

Nika Bolokov · 30-12-2016 04:41PM

Who is going to fund a basic income when we have a massive fall in income tax receipts due to mass unemployment?

In addition corporate tax receipts will fall as many business will no longer exist in Ireland as there will be no need for them.

The gains from automation , in particular self driving cars, could be much smaller than anticipated as a rise in unemployment leads to a fall in demand for transport for example.

Essentially the invisible forces of capitalism which drive automation will eliminate the demand for the services provided as the mass market won't exist and there will be nobody to buy or who can afford to use these new inventions as the buyers will now be unemployed !

Cue social unrest and another era of experimentation with communism.

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Kind of thing doesn't react well to human nature though.

Mass social assistance doesn't lead to a good economy.

Personal responsibility and self agency play a huge part in every individual. We're not owed anything in life, we work hard and and we make things for ourselves.

You will be rewarded if you put in the graft. A working life makes a life.

All honourable comments, but what if there is simply not enough work to go around?
This is the situation that we will see in the near future (again), these days most families require both parents to work full time to provide a decent standard of living.
Back in the 1960s only the man was expected to work and support the family, in fact women were sacked when they got married back then.

Having a UBI would allow women (or men) to stay and bring up their children if they choose to do so without feeling that they must work to support the family.

The problem will he is that the UBI will simply be a base whereby prices will be ratcheted up from.

So similar to the situatjon where mortgages expanded to the credit limit of a double income couple, costs could expand to reflect the additional money in the system from the U i.

This is why I expect anybody depending on UBI to still be classed as poor, -and that working will still be something that will be necessary for many .

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Kind of thing doesn't react well to human nature though.

Mass social assistance doesn't lead to a good economy.

Personal responsibility and self agency play a huge part in every individual. We're not owed anything in life, we work hard and and we make things for ourselves.

You will be rewarded if you put in the graft. A working life makes a life.

All honourable comments, but what if there is simply not enough work to go around?
This is the situation that we will see in the near future (again), these days most families require both parents to work full time to provide a decent standard of living.
Back in the 1960s only the man was expected to work and support the family, in fact women were sacked when they got married back then.

Having a UBI would allow women (or men) to stay and bring up their children if they choose to do so without feeling that they must work to support the family.

The problem will be that the UBI will simply be a base whereby prices will be ratcheted up from.

So similar to the situatjon where mortgages expanded to the credit limit of a double income couple, costs could expand to reflect the additional money in the system from the U i.

This is why I expect anybody depending on UBI to still be classed as poor, -and that working will still be something that will be necessary for many .

MrPudding · 30-12-2016 05:03PM

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

Who is going to fund a basic income when we have a massive fall in income tax receipts due to mass unemployment?

In addition corporate tax receipts will fall as many business will no longer exist in Ireland as there will be no need for them.

The gains from automation , in particular self driving cars, could be much smaller than anticipated as a rise in unemployment leads to a fall in demand for transport for example.

Essentially the invisible forces of capitalism which drive automation will eliminate the demand for the services provided as the mass market won't exist and there will be nobody to buy or who can afford to use these new inventions as the buyers will now be unemployed !

Cue social unrest and another era of experimentation with communism.

This is where there will need to be some creative thinking. I am not an economist, but in the reading I have been doing there are come suggestions. One of the big ones is the system will be considerably cheaper to administer. I don't have the figures for unemployment benefit in, but I know that the UK government pays a private company somewhere in the region of £700m per year to administer the PIP system. I don't think UBI would necessarily be a replacement for PIP, I simply give that figure as one that has come out fairly recently, and it is also interesting because the number of people claiming PIP is small compared to the number of people claiming benefits that would be replaced.

I would also be broadly supportive of a robot or AI national insurance charge. I don't think it would be simply to implement, but it could be worth the effort. If there is mass unemployment due to automation then there will have to be some mechanism to redistribute wealth. If organisations are increasing profits by reducing the cost of their workforce, by getting rid of jobs, then they must contribute to the cost of dealing with that. Additionally, there will have to be some redistribution or there will be no market for their products, no matter how cheap they are.

How it would work, I don't know. A simplistic way would be to look at how many people a robot or AI replaced. For example, if I had a call centre that employed 300 people and I replaced 280 of them with an AI system then I would have to pay 280 x whatever the charge would be. Even if the charge was the same as I would have paid in National Insurance for a human, I am still making a massive saving compared to a human. Obviously it needs thought out, but I think it is an interesting concept.

MrP

The Legend Of Kira · 30-12-2016 05:07PM

With automation & self service being more available its inevitable more jobs will be cut or lost in the longer term,, although Im kinda on the fence about the basic income idea- I do think governments need to do something to protect people from job losses due to improvements in technology & more self service, when I say more self service some people may or may not have heard about this new type of self service,, self service in bars/pubs it was reported this month in some bars in London there is self service tap and pay for your own pints .

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/16/contactless-beer-pump-worlds-first-london-bar

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/techandgadgets/selfserving-beer-pump-could-cut-queues-during-busy-times-of-the-year-a3421836.html

+ there is also self service wine bars in parts of America also,, chances are that once this newer type of self service has being introduced - it will slowly take off over time & lead to a cut in the availability of bar jobs .

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:13PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

This is what Keynes predicted in the 1930s.

Instead lots of people are still working 40,50,60 even a hundred hours a week in industrialized countries.

What really happens is that money is not divided equally. We live in capitalist societies.

The extra money saved from cutting that job?
Goes straight up to the shareholders and the management bonus.

You get zilch because hey you are now unemployed. Congratulation.

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:13PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

This is what Keynes predicted in the 1930s.

Instead lots of people are still working 40,50,60 even a hundred hours a week in industrialized countries.

What really happens is that money is not divided equally. We live in capitalist societies.

The extra money saved from cutting that job?
Goes straight up to the shareholders and the management bonus.

You get zilch because hey you are now unemployed. Congratulation.

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:13PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

This is what Keynes predicted in the 1930s.

Instead lots of people are still working 40,50,60 even a hundred hours a week in industrialized countries.

What really happens is that money is not divided equally. We live in capitalist societies.

The extra money saved from cutting that job?
Goes straight up to the shareholders and the management bonus.

You get zilch because hey you are now unemployed. Congratulation.

maninasia · 30-12-2016 05:13PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Worth remembering that although 50% of current roles will be lost, there will also be plenty (perhaps not as many) new roles.

As well as the growth occupations listed here (written 4yrs ago) there is even newer roles that weren't considered on the list, at time of writing.
e.g. VR 360 Environmental Media Engineers.

If all the drivers, farmers, builders, nurses, teachers are replaced by something that can do this job better, faster, cheaper and non-stop, it shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing in terms of progress or use of human energy.

People will always have needs, these needs will always change slightly, but will still nevertheless need to be met.

Sure a robot can fly a plane, but there will be a demand for 'human interfacing travel experience specialists' on that plane also as many people will request this service, and pay for it. Expect to see growth in golf courses, artistic and leisure pursuits also. Always wanted to learn the piano? You'll get time to do that in 2030.

This is what Keynes predicted in the 1930s.

Instead lots of people are still working 40,50,60 even a hundred hours a week in industrialized countries.

What really happens is that money is not divided equally. We live in capitalist societies.

The extra money saved from cutting that job?
Goes straight up to the shareholders and the management bonus.

You get zilch because hey you are now unemployed. Congratulation.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments