Universal basic income trial in Finland

Dohnjoe · 13-02-2019 6:24pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

(Net) UBI costs have to be offset by cost savings (which you ignore) and GDP/Productivity growth estimates (which you igonre).

Which is how much exactly? (and sources)

All figures are complex so not worth you, me or anyone trying to pin a figure on them.

Uh huh

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-02-2019 7:58pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is how much exactly? (and sources)

Clearly you have all the anwsers with that time machine you have.

Sources to something in the future, that has happened? hmmm.

The simple fact is would offering 127,600+ people the freedom or risk elimination (of loosing existing benefits), to immediately enter the ever-growing flexible, zero-contract, gig-economy...

This would be a terrible costly thing, with dire effects on total GDP?
Of course, suuuuuurrre it would.

Dohnjoe · 13-02-2019 9:06pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Clearly you have all the anwsers with that time machine you have.

You've made a claim you can't support except with rhetoric. It's an immensely expensive program, the report a few posts above makes no bones about that, there's no escaping the fact that it would require a significant jump in tax to cover. Sounds great, free money, but a program with that enormous price tag is a hard sell to the people who have to pay for it, not to mention the whole thing is quite a risk from an economics perspective. The trials held so far are not good omens either.

13-02-2019 9:06pm

Lobster Book wrote: »

What will happen in reality is a major recession, or even a depression. People need an incentive generally speaking to be productive. There is no better incentive than avoiding hunger and homelessness. Take that away and the economy implodes.

Sounds like you're describing 19th century confederate state thinking on slavery.

A decent wage and most people will willingly work, UBI will enable them to take lower paid work or part time work as needed.

It is a terrible way of thinking if you believe the best incentive to work is to state that the alternative is "hunger and homelessness!"

Capt'n Midnight · 13-02-2019 11:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't forget that corporations get literally millions of free hours labour from all the robots & IT systems that work in industry these days.
A fact that is often forgotten about.

More importantly those corporations pay next to nothing in tax thanks to loopholes.

Corporate welfare is inexcusable. IMHO it's their main competitive advantage over smaller companies.

Water John · 14-02-2019 12:31am

The Report states a full scale, for everyone UBI would be quite costly. This does not preclude variants of the extreme model being affordable to the state.

Ush1 · 14-02-2019 12:59am

I thought the left hated the gig economy because workers didn't have rights etc etc..

4068ac1elhodqr · 14-02-2019 1:44am

Ush1 wrote: »

I thought the left hated the gig economy because workers didn't have rights etc etc..

They do, and even Pres MD warned about it last year in a speech. The problem however is that it's largely unavoidable.

Looming trade wars, globalisation, Eastern wealth shifts, 24/7 operations, timezones, corporate greed, ultra-competitiveness and so on.

The biggest stumbling block to running UBI is the scale and risk of such an event. Ire with 4-5% growth is decent enough performance wise to consider it, but yes, the riss are still large.

Ideally even smaller economies would be the ideal candidates, it would have be rolled out as a permanent structure (or no one would actually risk themselves getting off the welfare bus), and it would have to be en-masse - small trials are irrelevant to the real work event response, and the further fiscal tools to manage these results.

4068ac1elhodqr · 07-03-2019 3:38am

Very interesting, a new emmerging favourite for POTUS 2020,
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner?selectionName=andrew-yang

Has just offered everyone (pending constitution alteration) in the US $1,000 per month
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.

The most direct and concrete way for the government to improve your life is to send you a check for $1,000 every month and let you spend it in whatever manner will benefit you the most. etc etc

KyussB · 08-03-2019 2:34am

It's looking like the Job Guarantee - i.e. give everyone who wants one a guaranteed opportunity of a job, rather than just a guaranteed lump-sum - is the favourite, and more realistic plan, compared to the UBI. Sanders is pushing for the Job Guarantee, and AOC is pushing to marry it with the Green New Deal - already a winning combination, the UBI is pretty much dead on its feet.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 3:45am

KyussB wrote: »

It's looking like the Job Guarantee - i.e. give everyone who wants one a guaranteed opportunity of a job, rather than just a guaranteed lump-sum - is the favourite, and more realistic plan, compared to the UBI. Sanders is pushing for the Job Guarantee, and AOC is pushing to marry it with the Green New Deal - already a winning combination, the UBI is pretty much dead on its feet.

The small problem you overlooked in that, as Yang mentions is that going forward there will be 1/3 less actual jobs, thanks to automation shortly.

This new industrial revolution is as far removed from Job Guarantees or jobs for life as you can imagine. It's a gig based economy featuring the hustle for many variable rate or part-time shifts for the lower-skilled.

The one big issue with Yang's plan is that it hasn't been fully tested before. Ideally if somewhere like Iceland or NZ could pull it off, it lessens the doubt in attempting such a switchover from the planet's primary superpower.

KyussB · 08-03-2019 4:07am

The Job Guarantee creates the jobs. The Green New Deal on its own is about half a century worth of work, at the very least.

There will never be a lack of useful work to do in your or my lifetime, or our children or grandchildrens lifetimes - hell, probably flat out never.

If there's a lack of jobs while there is an abundance of useful work to do...then that's a political problem where the economy is not being run correctly.

There's never going to be a lack of useful work to be done, in all of history, no matter how much you automate everything.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 4:19am

KyussB wrote: »

There's never going to be a lack of useful work to be done, in all of history, no matter how much you automate everything.

By humans? Well if you're exceptionally skilled, and very, very highly educated.

For the average Joe, (in the next 10/20yrs) there will be difficult times. We're hardly into wave 1, and full Autonomy isn't exactly generations away.

Wave 1. A flood of algorithms. Already, data analysis and simple digital tasks are becoming the purview of machines.

...2. Augmentation inundation. Into the late 2020s, repeatable tasks and the exchange of information, as in financial data analysis, will come to be done by humans and automated systems working together.

3. Autonomy tsunami. Starting by the mid-2030s, machines and software will make decisions and take physical actions, like driving cars, with little or no human input.

It's also likely that the young working generation of today will meet true evolved ASI (Artificial superintelligence, beyond recursive self-improvement) before they see their natural retirement.

KyussB · 08-03-2019 4:27am

Are robots going to stop climate change, then? Do please explain how we achieve the reversal of climate change, beginning today, without using any humans.

You need to be more skeptical of the AI techno-bollocks in the media. Anyone actually working with todays AI, at a practical level, doesn't believe any of that hype.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 4:42am

KyussB wrote: »

Are robots going to stop climate change, then? Do please explain how we achieve the reversal of climate change, beginning today, without using any humans.

You need to be more skeptical of the AI techno-bollocks in the media. Anyone actually working with todays AI, at a practical level, doesn't believe any of that hype.

Today?

But were you not recently suggesting (or implying at least) that automation 'wouldn't ever' take our kid's jobs, and their kid's jobs?

All while (actual experts) agree that the mid 2030's will see and Autonomy tsunami.

If you wanted today/tommorow examples of 'climate change closers'

...perhaps take a look at the likes of Google's Deepmind along with the US Department of Energy who listed 'advanced algorithms, like artificial intelligence and machine learning' as 'game changers' in the drive towards cold nuclear fusion i.e. An end to carbon based emissions for energy production.

But nevermind fancy plasma colliders on 20yr TAE Technologies, using AI. This week's weather forecast has already been splurted out for you by an ai bot's prediction model.

KyussB · 08-03-2019 6:47am

So, cutting through all the bullshit: No, no answer to climate change.

Great. That means we have multiple decades of work to do, worldwide, with an abundance of jobs, for arresting climate change through war-level efforts at infrastructural and technological redevelopment.

All that is needed are the government-led job programs to do it. Stuff like what Sanders/AOC promise.

Actual, realistic solutions. Not bullshit.

professore · 08-03-2019 9:17am

KyussB wrote: »

So, cutting through all the bullshit: No, no answer to climate change.

Great. That means we have multiple decades of work to do, worldwide, with an abundance of jobs, for arresting climate change through war-level efforts at infrastructural and technological redevelopment.

All that is needed are the government-led job programs to do it. Stuff like what Sanders/AOC promise.

Actual, realistic solutions. Not bullshit.

Building nuclear power plants and lots of them, coupled with electrification of transport - already underway by the private sector - and reduction in meat production is the only solution we have to cut carbon emissions. Fusion might be ready in 40 years, or never. We need nuclear NOW.

The Green Deal is utter bull****. It is just about spending ridiculous amounts of money in effectively. Look at Germany, shut all their nuclear plants, put in windmills and solar panels, with the result of no drop in emissions, a doubling of electricity price and a dependence on Russian gas. France have no such issues.

I do think automation will take lots of white collar jobs. Tradespeople will still be in high demand for a long time.

KyussB · 08-03-2019 12:27pm

Really - the private sector is already building enough nuclear power plants that we never have to really worry about climate change? Great news. I wonder what everyone is fussing about then...

Back in the realm of people who aren't talking utter horse shite, people are gradually starting to realize we've already left it too late to react to climate change, and are inevitably going to suffer ill effects from it - and realize that a war level mobilization of industry and people is needed, to arrest climate change fast enough.

That is, in order to be effective, you need an utter fuckload of people i.e. jobs to be mobilized, into a worldwide war effort of infrastructural/technological redevelopment, to even make the tiniest of dents in the climate change problem.

Meaning that just with that one thing alone, there are enough jobs to last every person out there, for likely up to half a century and beyond, as it's going to be a long, long time, before there's little-to-no work left to do on climate change.

People promoting the UBI soon play their hand on this: They spout off about 'inefficient' government spending - dropping the mask that they are actually playing the narrative book of those who are harrd-core anti-government-spending (unless it's a business subsidy...) types. With the UBI happening to be a massive business subsidy in disguise, through effectively subsidizing a massive part of every businesses wage bill.

A big indication for people, that the UBI is a trojan horse, being pushed by those who are hostile to strong government-led employment (yet who some judge free money as 'efficient' compared to this - which is a bit fucking ridiculous as getting actual work done in exchange for money is inherently more efficient).

Dohnjoe · 08-03-2019 1:03pm

KyussB wrote: »

A big indication for people, that the UBI is a trojan horse, being pushed by those who are hostile to strong government-led employment (yet who some judge free money as 'efficient' compared to this - which is a bit fucking ridiculous as getting actual work done in exchange for money is inherently more efficient).

UBI is largely a pipe-dream at the moment - when reality hits and everything is factored in, it generally ends up being too similar to current social welfare, just with a far, far larger cost and a pyramid style tax scheme to support it. Real world studies have shown that people are not more likely to seek work while receiving it.

If, in some alternative reality, the country did implement it, well, like many others I would be quitting my job and then spending most of my days lazing in Portugal, a cosy part-time job teaching English on the side, flying back on Ryanair to "sign on" or living like a king in India. Won't be my fault, my hand will be forced by this "automation tsunami"

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 2:26pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

UBI is largely a pipe-dream at the moment - when reality hits and everything is factored in, it generally ends up being too similar to current social welfare, just with a far, far larger cost and a pyramid style tax scheme to support it. Real world studies have shown that people are not more likely to seek work while receiving it.

There was no 'real-world' studies so far, they only litmus test would be a full scale rollout. The small random trails to date are overshadowed from the outset, by telling welfare subjects it's a 1/2yr trial. They're hardly going to invest themselves in education, enterprise nor work only to loose all UBI benefits after a set date.

It's a pipe dream that a new fav for POTUS'20 is offering as their USP. Agree its slightly pre-emptive, but not by much.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If, in some alternative reality, the country did implement it, well, like many others I would be quitting my job and then spending most of my days lazing in Portugal, a cosy part-time job teaching English on the side, flying back on Ryanair to "sign on" or living like a king in India. Won't be my fault, my hand will be forced by this "automation tsunami"

Living in India would clearly result in 'nil' UBI.

So too for Portugal, unless they introduce a similar UBI scheme, and you met the full requirements of permanent resident status there.

Yes you'd take up a/another part-time gig, and so likely would everyone else not currently able to do so. A part-time gig-economy is indeed the wealth distribution and employment solution to the automation tsunami that is forecast by experts in the early-mid 2030's.

Anyone currently in retail, may today/tommorow already be looking over a waterfall before the actual real tsunami arrives.

Harika · 18-03-2019 3:55pm

An american presidential hopeful is running with a policy of UBI, not that I give him much chance but he is refreshing and highly interesting.

4068ac1elhodqr · 18-03-2019 4:39pm

Harika wrote: »

An american presidential hopeful is running with a policy of UBI, not that I give him much chance but he is refreshing and highly interesting.

Agree, it's a very interesting offering. Ideally at least one other country would have adopted UBI by now, but for various reasons hasn't yet. Trials are largely irrelevant and poor models compared to the real thing.

In terms of 'chance' he's currently the 6th favourite. Which is better odds that Trump was, when he annouced intention to run. Went from 66/1 to 30/1 average, just in the last two weeks.

And in terms of 'persuasion' strength. Aside from the economic benefits, there is of course the 'bonustimeluckywinbingo' salaried type offer of $12,000 for everyone's pocket, in the land of dreams.

Cleverly it's called a 'dividend' not UB-'Income'. i.e. If the country does well, then you do well as a result of your 'contribution' (even if that's just breathing air), or 'dividend' (implied reward).

Ironically, if he's to run this concept as the Dem nominee... he'll very much need Trump's big bad republican wall installed beforehand. Else a shed load of bad hombres will be living like kings down in mexico way on their 12ks.

Dohnjoe · 18-03-2019 5:49pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

There was no 'real-world' studies so far, they only litmus test would be a full scale rollout.

No one will go live with a full trial when the limited trials haven't given positive results

"Fullscale rollout" has been proposed and rejected, overwhelmingly, by Switzerland, via direct democracy. That's a stark litmus test right there

We'll have to wait until the 2030's it seems

4068ac1elhodqr · 18-03-2019 7:52pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No one will go live with a full trial when the limited trials haven't given positive results

Full roll-out isn't a full 'trial', it's a roll-out.

Small limited random sample trials aren't great or accurate in any way. It's not the same as sending out a new cola and asking to a sample group do they 'dig the flavour?'.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Fullscale rollout" has been proposed and rejected, overwhelmingly, by Switzerland, via direct democracy. That's a stark litmus test right there

So far. The times are a changing. The fact that so many countries are actually having trials and discussing it means they are becoming aware.

Regardless if Yang get POTUS there would be no option to 'reject' it, it would quickly become implimented policy.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

We'll have to wait until the 2030's it seems

Or 2020, or 2024, or 2028.

By the 2030's anywhere between 30-50% of all regular jobs will vanish, if there is no alternative between now and then, you can take a look at Paris, (or even Balbriggan) last weekend, then multiply it by few thousand.

Dohnjoe · 18-03-2019 8:02pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Small limited random sample trials aren't great or accurate in any way.

The results will be seen by many as insufficient to justify further larger, more expensive trials

Regardless if Yang get POTUS there would be no option to 'reject' it, it would quickly become implimented policy.

The US would be the last type of country to touch something like UBI. Scandinavia/Europe maybe, a long way down the line

By the 2030's anywhere between 30-50% of all regular jobs will vanish

Nah

I've heard these stats for the last 3 decades, they are "projections", and they don't take into account new jobs/professions/vocations created. Not claiming that automation won't have an impact, it will, but the stats are never correct, not even close

4068ac1elhodqr · 18-03-2019 8:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The results will be seen by many as insufficient to justify further larger, more expensive trials

The trials were'nt 'universal' events, this type of program thus UBI cannot be trialed with any real accuracy. Even so, more countries are running them.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The US would be the last type of country to touch something like UBI. Scandinavia/Europe maybe, a long way down the line

Tell that to the 6th fav for POTUS, who has overtaken the many bigger established names in recent weeks.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've heard these stats for the last 3 decades, they are "projections", and they don't take into account new jobs/professions/vocations created. Not claiming that automation won't have an impact, it will, but the stats are never correct, not even close

3 decades ago, you could leave school at 16, look forward to a cushy job for life and a trade union had your back, so that the x3.5mortage was paid within 25yrs.

Your 'projections' on the experts 'projections' being incorrect are more likely to never be correct. This is only early Wave1 of automation, there's another two major waves to arrive. Throw unskilled mass-migration in the mix, maybe a couple of major global conflicts also.

Yes, there will be (some) new jobs, but they're certainly won't be for anyone without the very best education, skiils and experience. Anyone today in retail, manufacturing, warehousing, transport and so on should check their pension status.

So the question is, what do you think will become of these folks? as wealth inequality continues in an automated world.

Dohnjoe · 18-03-2019 9:42pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

The trials were'nt 'universal' events, this type of program thus UBI cannot be trialed with any real accuracy. Even so, more countries are running them.

They were trials of UBI, and they didn't do very well, so governments are likely to be highly cautious of conducting wider trials

3 decades ago, you could leave school at 16, look forward to a cushy job for life and a trade union had your back, so that the x3.5mortage was paid within 25yrs.

Unemployment in Ireland was 14% 3 decades ago. Many were emigrating due to the conditions in the country. The hysteria then was computers replacing the workforce. Before that it was robotics.

4068ac1elhodqr · 18-03-2019 10:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They were trials of UBI, and they didn't do very well, so governments are likely to be highly cautious of conducting wider trials

As they were not 'universal' how can they be considered UBI? It was more of a tick-box, toe-dipping exercise in Finland.

Only 2,000 people, only 2yrs and importantly only €560 in the land of €7 pints of beer. Halfhearted, and hardly awe-inspiring.

Try 250,000,000 with $1,000pm, 4yrs (min) and there would be some actual economic response to measure. A potential seismic shift.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Unemployment in Ireland was 14% 3 decades ago. Many were emigrating due to the conditions in the country. The hysteria then was computers replacing the workforce. Before that it was robotics.

It was high (much like Italy & Spain of today), but folks were still buying houses cheaply, jobs were usually for life, migration to the US was easier, and working the UK a very common alternative.

Early 90's computers couldn't replace a workforce, as they can't think for themselves. Self-learning/replicating/improving AI on the other hand, may well sweep up the lower skilled.

18-03-2019 10:21pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Early 90's computers couldn't replace a workforce, as they can't think for themselves. Self-learning/replicating/improving AI on the other hand, may well sweep up the lower skilled.

Computers did in fact replace an entire class of clerical officer, before the late 1970s, almost every business had a clerical staff who had the job of manually calculating the sales stock control and numerous other tasks that can these days be done with spreadsheets and basic databases.
By the 1990s, all these jobs were gone, along with most of the secreterical jobs as executives were now expected to type their own correspondance, rather than dictate it to a secretary to type up.

Dumb computers have already taken a significant percentage of jobs.

4068ac1elhodqr · 18-03-2019 10:31pm

If we did want to take Finland's (toe-dipping) exercise as anyway indicative or relative, there are a few conclusions from it:

• Physical and mental health improved by 17 per cent
• Depression decreased by 37 per cent
• Stress decreased by 17 per cent
• Life satisfaction improved by 8 per cent
• Trust in other people improved by 6 per cent
• Trust in politicians improved by 5 per cent
• Confidence in the future improved by 21 per cent
• Confidence in the ability to influence society improved by 22 per cent
• Financial security improved by 26 per cent

Universal basic income trial in Finland

Comments