Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

4068ac1elhodqr · 01-01-2017 10:21PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Can you predict what jobs might appear with whatever new technology is invented tomorrow or next week or next year?

Nope you can't nobody cant, could anyone in 1995 have predicted ipods, iphones, wireless devices in our pockets connecting us everywhere we go?

Yes, I can, as can plenty of others and fairly accurately too, (up until 2030 anyway). The only real exception would be if some sort of ground-breaking technology such as zero-point energy, ion near-light-speed propulsion, anti-gravitation or teleportation (or such like) arrived before then.

Plenty of folks had mobile phones back in 1995 and unanimously agreed they were 'the future', just the price point was slightly high then. In '99 a couple of people also recommended buying shares in that start-up Google.

The big issue with UBI would be price-index hyper-inflation, as the base amount would need to be fairly substantial.

Royal Legend · 01-01-2017 10:26PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

our economic and financial systems are failing most if not all, so change is a must but im not sure we know how to do that yet

Blockchain will have a revolutionary effect on our financial systems, financial transactions will become one touch between two parties with intermediaries gone, probably meaning the end of companies like Uber, Paypal and Airbnb.
Coin and paper currencies will disappear too, replaced by a bit coin type currency, probably euro bit coin, sterling bit coin etc. This alone will account for serious redundancies in the financial sector.

Permabear · 01-01-2017 10:36PM

This post has been deleted.

WhiteMemento9 · 01-01-2017 10:36PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Blockchain will have a revolutionary effect on our financial systems, financial transactions will become one touch between two parties with intermediaries gone, probably meaning the end of companies like Uber, Paypal and Airbnb.
Coin and paper currencies will disappear too, replaced by a bit coin type currency, probably euro bit coin, sterling bit coin etc. This alone will account for serious redundancies in the financial sector.

Edit - oops wrong video. For those that want to learn a little more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8OlkkwRpc

WhiteMemento9 · 01-01-2017 10:41PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

As it happens I don't think that even driverless cars will work.

That is quite a novel point of view. Could you expand on why? Just as reference here is a video showing the complexity of what stage the evolution of the technology was at well over a year ago.

Start the video at about 7minutes 50 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiwVMrTLUWg

01-01-2017 10:56PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A; People are losing their homes, many more are in mortgage arrears - those people certainly can't afford to invest in the markets.

B: Investments can become worthless. Rather a lot of people can't afford to lose...

C: Knowledge. The average person has neither the knowledge, not the time required to acquire it - to invest successfully in the markets.

Furthermore - I, for one, keep hearing about how many people lost their money during the crash. How many people do you think are willing to risk that?

Water John · 01-01-2017 11:01PM

Perma, in simple language, you are saying, the poor are that way through their own fault.
It's 19th century thinking.

Permabear · 01-01-2017 11:18PM

This post has been deleted.

01-01-2017 11:21PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

these are very good points, i do beleive the powers that be or the elites of this planet actually dont care for the well being of most on this planet, leading me to beleive many are actually sociopaths and psychopaths.

Many of the elites are so detached from the consequences of their actions that they really don't care about the affects those actions have on the lives of ordinary citizens as long as they see a bigger financial return on their investments.
They are usually in competition with each other such that I don't believe in "the elite" as being one single entity, rather they are groups of individuals competing with each other for the best and most of everything, resources, politicians financial returns and of course power!

Sand · 02-01-2017 12:01AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If people who make poor financial decisions were to take their money and invest it in the markets they would be exploited by lads who are con men in better suits, and then they would be wiped out. And clearly they should not invest in any luxury/service/tourism or other consumption stocks. An economy where everyone saves and no one spends would collapse just as quickly as an economy where no one saves.

In any sense, the phenomenon that will occur over the next 50 or so years will be there will simply be less and less employable skills a human will be able to offer an employer. It will be less and less a case of can work, wont work. As someone pointed out already, the invention of the motor engine didn't spell the end of human labour but it sure finished off working horses as anything more than a novelty.

Permabear · 02-01-2017 12:13AM

This post has been deleted.

Sand · 02-01-2017 12:23AM

Geuze wrote: »

Back as far as the Luddites, people feared that machines would replace jobs.

The Luddites were a subversive group that were put down violently, sometimes with military force. I don't think you can assume the victors honestly assessed them when justifying that force.

By all accounts, the Luddites didn't fear the machines (at least some of them operated them), they were campaigning for better conditions and pay which was being eroded by the machines. It wasn't that they were losing jobs - they were getting worse, more dangerous, poorly paid jobs. They attacked and destroyed the machines because they felt it gave them leverage with the owners of those machines, and those machines were vulnerable. That's it. The campaign also included assassinations of mill owners and clashes with the British Army of the era. It was a social struggle where a group saw their livelihoods become increasingly precarious and in decline and fought violently against that.

The Luddites do demonstrate what will happen if the economic trends of the past 30 years or so continue but the damage that small groups of angry people can do are much greater these days.

pumpkin4life · 02-01-2017 12:34AM

188 euro a week if you're a single male on the dole is actually a decent amount of money to survive; provided you don't go out on massive benders or anything like that.

Thing is though: would there be some sort of, definitely more than now, a massive existential vacuum; that lads without any sort of meaning, say work, will drown in a dreary haze of the sesh, crap t.v and inter county G.A.A?

PopePalpatine · 02-01-2017 12:55AM

I've read posts detailing how a proposed UBI of €150 per week wouldn't be enough to live on. Sure, it might not be enough to live on nowadays, but there's one thing being overlooked here - producers of goods and services no longer have to worry about one big cost, and that is wages.

Sand · 02-01-2017 12:55AM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

188 euro a week if you're a single male on the dole is actually a decent amount of money to survive; provided you don't go out on massive benders or anything like that.

Thing is though: would there be some sort of, definitely more than now, a massive existential vacuum; that lads without any sort of meaning, say work, will drown in a dreary haze of the sesh, crap t.v and inter county G.A.A?

That's the key thing for a society where UBI is applied. What do people do all day when they don't need to go to work? Do they dedicate themselves to learning a craft or skill? Raising a family? Working in their community, be it being active in a club/society or restoration of public spaces? Seeking education just for the pleasure of learning? Or do they sit and watch daytime TV all day?

Its a real challenge as to how drive/initiative/endeavour is maintained if the reality is you're unlikely to get or hold a job unless you've got a minority skillset. We are talking about a significant change in the message people receive today that hard work will pay off materially, benefiting the individual and wider society. Societies which lose that initiative/hard work/hope very quickly become sick societies - white poor Americans for example are the most pessimistic group in US society when evaluating their future and that of their children, and they are also a group stricken with family breakdown, educational failure, drug abuse and decline in trust in public institutions.

Dyr · 02-01-2017 01:02AM

The Finns generally get stuff right

In comparison, You look at education and healthcare in this country and realize the reason we're fooked is there's too very powerful people trousering a fortune by perpetuating dysfunctional systems.

Sand · 02-01-2017 01:06AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am sure there are notable examples of capable people doing just that, but if average people could significantly and consistently beat benchmark returns, taking into account the charges faced to do so, then fund managers wouldn't be able to seek exceptional compensation for doing the same.

This is the key challenge - there has always been a source of employment for people who are underskilled, who often don't have a second level education, let alone a third level or further qualifications. These average people who make the poor financial decisions are not suddenly going to up-skill and become fund managers when their truck driving job is ended by automated vehicles. And there is going to be a lot of them, and they have votes, and its a democracy. We're already seeing the glee Brexiteers and Trump fans take in kicking the elites who are increasingly leaving them in the dust. Where does it end?

Ally Dick · 02-01-2017 01:12AM

The thick Irish government can bring in this scheme for it's indigenous IT work force, and hand out thousands of visas to Indians to come over and take all the IT job, and then let the indigenous staff lose their jobs to them....oh wait......

laugh · 02-01-2017 01:37AM

In my opinion the wealth of what was generally called the middle class in the US and the working class in other countries is so decimated and the influence of corporations on politics is becoming so pervasive and obvious that the entire capitalist system is going to come under serious pressure.

02-01-2017 12:29PM

Bambi wrote: »

The Finns generally get stuff right

In comparison, You look at education and healthcare in this country and realize the reason we're fooked is there's too very powerful people trousering a fortune by perpetuating dysfunctional systems.

Our education system isn't at all bad.

andekwarhola · 02-01-2017 03:18PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

So then how will you survive on UBI when it's going to give you less money per week? How will the tax base support this if people are going to be losing their jobs? How will the market cope with people have lower disposable incomes and higher taxes?

If automation does spell the end of millions of jobs and there is a subsequent huge change in the ratio of tax payers vs unemployed, then surely this will just present a similar problem re: required taxation funding?

Also UBI would mean people are more flexible to accept part time work than welfare recipients.

I'm not cheerleading UBI or saying it's ultimately feasible, just recognising a growing societal problem and being open to exploring options rather than reacting with the usual visceral hatred to the thought of people Getting Something For Nothing (tm).

Iwasfrozen · 02-01-2017 04:20PM

andekwarhola wrote: »

AnGaelach wrote: »

So then how will you survive on UBI when it's going to give you less money per week? How will the tax base support this if people are going to be losing their jobs? How will the market cope with people have lower disposable incomes and higher taxes?

If automation does spell the end of millions of jobs and there is a subsequent huge change in the ratio of tax payers vs unemployed, then surely this will just present a similar problem re: required taxation funding?

Also UBI would mean people are more flexible to accept part time work than welfare recipients.

I'm not cheerleading UBI or saying it's ultimately feasible, just recognising a growing societal problem and being open to exploring options rather than reacting with the usual visceral hatred to the thought of people Getting Something For Nothing (tm).

So you're exploring an option that may not be feasible to solve a future problem that may not exist.

There's a reason why we don't give people free money, to incentivise them to contribute to society. Even in a post automation world the need to incentivise will still exist.

andekwarhola · 02-01-2017 05:04PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you're exploring an option that may not be feasible to solve a future problem that may not exist.

As in contributing to a discussion thread on UBI on an internet forum as opposed to advising the department of social welfare to have the payments in everybody's account by Thursday week?

VinLieger · 02-01-2017 06:56PM

Matteo Fat Jug wrote: »

Yes, I can, as can plenty of others and fairly accurately too, (up until 2030 anyway). The only real exception would be if some sort of ground-breaking technology such as zero-point energy, ion near-light-speed propulsion, anti-gravitation or teleportation (or such like) arrived before then.

Plenty of folks had mobile phones back in 1995 and unanimously agreed they were 'the future', just the price point was slightly high then. In '99 a couple of people also recommended buying shares in that start-up Google.

The big issue with UBI would be price-index hyper-inflation, as the base amount would need to be fairly substantial.

Ahh so i assume your typing this on your private jet on the way to your own island in the middle of the Caribbean??

Ohh your not? Yeah cus that is absolute bull****. Nobody can predict anything like what you claim

4068ac1elhodqr · 02-01-2017 07:25PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahh so i assume your typing this on your private jet on the way to your own island in the middle of the Caribbean??

Ohh your not? Yeah cus that is absolute bull****. Nobody can predict anything like what you claim

Yes was advised in '99, but did I buy any? Regrettably not.

The employment trend pathway is clearly laid out from now until 2030c, the mentioned article is very highly likely (75-80%) to be correct.

You can of course decide to dismiss this completely.

Can even ignore the story published (just 8hrs ago) on RTE, forecasting automation will replace 1/6 of all public sector jobs in the North.

You can also dismiss similar stories just last week from CNBC or NYT
Your welcome.

Permabear · 02-01-2017 10:24PM

This post has been deleted.

Yourself isit · 02-01-2017 10:30PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you're exploring an option that may not be feasible to solve a future problem that may not exist.

There's a reason why we don't give people free money, to incentivise them to contribute to society. Even in a post automation world the need to incentivise will still exist.

Solving the future problem is what this thread is about.

Yourself isit · 02-01-2017 10:44PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They won't care.

You've heard I suppose about the test where poor people in central America refuse $300-$400, a significant sum there. There's nothing tainted about the money but they take the loss to screw other people more.

The psychological test is to have two random people "co-operate" on a game which is really played seperately. The game is impossible to lose but there is a catch - the first competitor can decide how much of the $1k prize money to give the second player. What he is not told is that the second player can refuse the entire prize money. Many split 50-50. The majority sort 60-40, and a significant number take more.

The second players will accept 50-50, of course, and most, but not all, will accept 40%. Lower than that and the second player will refuse.

From a pure economic point of view this makes no sense. Money is money. Why even refuse a dollar? And of course if they aren't told about the distribution they will take as low as $200.

If the distribution is unfair they will refuse, harming themselves, but the other guy more. They are paying to punish the other guy. To punish unfairness as they perceive it.

Muhammed_1 · 03-01-2017 12:33PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

...

There's a reason why we don't give people free money, to incentivise them to contribute to society.
Even in a post automation world the need to incentivise will still exist.

There are more ways to contribute to society than by simply getting a job and paying tax.

You could also argue that if the state fails or refuses to support people that the people would engage in crime.

In other words, broke people can either get a job if one is available, or they can become criminals.

In a universal income world people could contribute by minding children or older people, by volunteering, by engaging in research, either social or scientific. People can be good citizens by complying with th law, and by co-operating with the Guards, and by doing your jury service.

The best thing for society is a universal payment of approx 10,000 per year, paid unconditionally.

It'd completely change our societies for the better.

At the moment our societies run on greed and profit. In the new world our cosiety would run on co-operation and hedonism.

I support humans living a pleasurable existence so I support legalisation of many drugs, and a universal income. It sounds like playtime but that;s the whole point.

Why should humans work themselves into the ground if technology can do our work for us?

AnGaelach · 03-01-2017 12:54PM

andekwarhola wrote: »

If automation does spell the end of millions of jobs and there is a subsequent huge change in the ratio of tax payers vs unemployed, then surely this will just present a similar problem re: required taxation funding?

Also UBI would mean people are more flexible to accept part time work than welfare recipients.

Our current system isn't trying to increase spending and decrease taxation by anywhere near the same level of magnitude though.

UBI just doesn't seem cost effective or even plausible. The "costed" figures aren't even reliable - they're saying more people will be redundant but that somehow these people will still figure into the tax base with an average industrial wage.

andekwarhola wrote: »

I'm not cheerleading UBI or saying it's ultimately feasible, just recognising a growing societal problem and being open to exploring options rather than reacting with the usual visceral hatred to the thought of people Getting Something For Nothing (tm).

I don't have a problem with wealth redistribution for people who need it, I've already stated my support for such measures on here before, particularly for supporting families.

Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Comments