Universal basic income trial in Finland

professore · 10-02-2019 2:48pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think that one of the reasons the UBI will not take off is simply if all these "one-man bands" only work enough to provide for themselves and their families, the "employers" will lose out as the "flow up" business model is not used.

You can't pick and choose if you're a one man band. "I'll only do half your project and deliver it 6 months late" doesn't cut it (except with big government tenders...)

As a 2 man band myself I'd welcome it. Gives a floor to my income. Also would have a lot more options to hire freelancers than currently - often need someone for a few weeks or a month but couldn't hire them full time.

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-02-2019 2:52pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What would be a fair amount in Ireland per month?

It would need to be slightly higher than current average JSA type payments*. The whole point of it would be to allow specifcally for individual enterprise, training, study and more likely joining the coming gig-economy as a drone personal services employee.

*As it is 'universal', having extra offspring (element of personal responsibility here), health issues (partial responsibility), disability you won't get any more than anyone else, so savings can actually be made.

Afterall it, would still be very reasonable amount, perhaps similar to what the disabled or overly fertile couples already get.

Yes taxes on the rich would be required (stealth/loophole closing, rather than direct income taxes).

But gains in national productivity would also come from all the extra (no-risk) individuals doing gigs as hairdressers, deliveroos, bouncers, call-centre or whatever other variable hour zero contract {demand-supply-reactive] work is available.

10-02-2019 2:54pm

professore wrote: »

You can't pick and choose if you're a one man band. "I'll only do half your project and deliver it 6 months late" doesn't cut it (except with big government tenders...)

As a 2 man band myself I'd welcome it. Gives a floor to my income. Also would have a lot more options to hire freelancers than currently - often need someone for a few weeks or a month but couldn't hire them full time.

Depends entirely on the type of work you do, the flexibility is almost limitless. You work with a partner, so it would also work for both of you.

Many people prefer to have fixed hours as well as a regular work environment, UBI works is all these situations.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 5:35pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

It would need to be slightly higher than current average JSA type payments*. The whole point of it would be to allow specifcally for individual enterprise, training, study and more likely joining the coming gig-economy as a drone personal services employee.

*As it is 'universal', having extra offspring (element of personal responsibility here), health issues (partial responsibility), disability you won't get any more than anyone else, so savings can actually be made.

Afterall it, would still be very reasonable amount, perhaps similar to what the disabled or overly fertile couples already get.

Yes taxes on the rich would be required (stealth/loophole closing, rather than direct income taxes).

But gains in national productivity would also come from all the extra (no-risk) individuals doing gigs as hairdressers, deliveroos, bouncers, call-centre or whatever other variable hour zero contract {demand-supply-reactive] work is available.

We should be able to figure out the numbers, if we say e.g. 1k EUR per month (although that would be enough to entice a not too insignificant number of people to live abroad in countries where that would be a considerable monthly salary)

Over 18 in Ireland would be around 3.5 mm people, they all get UBI.

That's around EUR 42 bn per year (not including the administration)

Currently the bill for total social is around 20 bn

UBI would need to be closer to 500 per month to be affordable for the country, which is less than the current social welfare

Water John · 10-02-2019 7:16pm

It would be around UB 750/800 month IWT.
Admin is quite low, it's one of the positive points. All the checking and CE Schemes are no longer needed.
What total is that? I think it's a shortfall of 10/12 Bn Iv'e seen as the figure given.

Arthur Daley · 10-02-2019 7:45pm

But tax revenues will suffer a significant collapse from higher rate taxpayers being replaced by automation, and living off the UBI with a bit of gig work on top.

So it's not just the cost of the UBI, it will also need an adjustment so that corporates are taxed more to account for the shortfall coming from paye workers disrupted by AI and to account from the higher profits created by this new world order of AI and automation.

Water John · 10-02-2019 7:51pm

Don't see the higher tax payers as the ones whose jobs will be automated. I do agree, it isn't just about Income Tax rates.

10-02-2019 8:07pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

But tax revenues will suffer a significant collapse from higher rate taxpayers being replaced by automation, and living off the UBI with a bit of gig work on top.

So it's not just the cost of the UBI, it will also need an adjustment so that corporates are taxed more to account for the shortfall coming from paye workers disrupted by AI and to account from the higher profits created by this new world order of AI and automation.

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.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 8:09pm

Water John wrote: »

It would be around UB 750/800 month IWT.
Admin is quite low, it's one of the positive points. All the checking and CE Schemes are no longer needed.
What total is that? I think it's a shortfall of 10/12 Bn Iv'e seen as the figure given.

EUR 800 per month would mean the plan would cost a minimum of around 33.6 bn per year (taking 3.5 mm over 18's in Ireland)

Actually it would be a lot more due to pensions (the original 20 bn social includes pensions)

The current administration of social welfare is around EUR 800 mm

The country would have to find 13-20 bn extra minimum. For that amount they could easily double the budget for justice, agriculture, transport, plus 50% to education and plus 33% to health - there 'd be few voters who'd go for UBI over that

Arthur Daley · 10-02-2019 8:09pm

Water John wrote: »

Don't see the higher tax payers as the ones whose jobs will be automated. I do agree, it isn't just about Income Tax rates.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, as AI is replacing high end skills too, from sugeons and doctors down. Indeed when justifying automation or AI investment you are seeking to take out cost, and ironically it may be the likes of the struggling artist/creative types or certain jobs that relatively pay damn all that are in a position to weather the storm. Because they can't be automated, or aren't worth automating.

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-02-2019 8:18pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

But tax revenues will suffer a significant collapse from higher rate taxpayers being replaced by automation, and living off the UBI with a bit of gig work on top.

So it's not just the cost of the UBI, it will also need an adjustment so that corporates are taxed more to account for the shortfall coming from paye workers disrupted by AI and to account from the higher profits created by this new world order of AI and automation.

Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.

The most at risk is young males with average, or below average education/skills and literacy.

Agree the corporate tax 12.5% isn't sustainable (never mind the dutch sandwich with sweeteners on top). Most Western govs will have a choice between UBI or managing something that makes France's yellow vest look like a dress rehersal weekly street pantomine. There is another ultimate solution, but not worth thinking about due to it's consequences

There will of course be savings made, e.g. Mrs/Ms Cash with so many offspring, will be much worse off than currently. But will also be able to earn freely from regular tabloid/radio show appearances.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 8:33pm

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.

Worth bearing in mind that automation has been happening for centuries, on a massive worldwide scale. There isn't a finite amount of jobs in the world, and not all countries are on the "same page" regarding technology. I heard 20 years ago that automation (computers, robotics) was going to have a significant impact on jobs - yet here we are with 5% unemployment

Indeed automation does have an impact on jobs, but it's always had an impact on jobs. As jobs are phased out, other jobs are phased in. Our ever-increasing needs in relation to virtually everything; health, safety, products, education, technology, food variety, hobbies, travel, etc, etc has a positive impact on the constant creation of jobs and new vocations/professions that has mitigated the effects of automation

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 8:34pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Agree the corporate tax 12.5% isn't sustainable (never mind the dutch sandwich with sweeteners on top). Most Western govs will have a choice between UBI or managing something that makes France's yellow vest look like a dress rehersal weekly street pantomine. There is another ultimate solution, but not worth thinking about due to it's consequences

Hysteria

mvl · 10-02-2019 8:36pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.

Don't bet on it

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-job-risk/

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-02-2019 8:52pm

mvl wrote: »

Don't bet on it
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-job-risk/

Not sure what you point is, that graphic shows low educated and low paid are at the highest risk.

The only (small) well paid category at risk is fiscal/insurance risk assessors/administrators, and this is well known already.

It's also a very small sector overall. Automated algorithm scripts using bigdata (ideally quantum scenarios) can easily envisage or compile outcomes much better than humans.

The single most high-volume and at risk group in the US is the 3.5m truck drivers. Pretty sure you don't need a M.Sc to move a gear stick.

Locally and more immediately it's 'retail' that is in for a kicking.

The Amazon chap is perhaps tax adverse, and rarely even needs humans in his mammoth warehouses. When humans do enter that robot space they can detected using simple beacons them to avoid collision all while it manages logistics for outflow.

10-02-2019 8:53pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Worth bearing in mind that automation has been happening for centuries, on a massive worldwide scale. There isn't a finite amount of jobs in the world, and not all countries are on the "same page" regarding technology. I heard 20 years ago that automation (computers, robotics) was going to have a significant impact on jobs - yet here we are with 5% unemployment

Indeed automation does have an impact on jobs, but it's always had an impact on jobs. As jobs are phased out, other jobs are phased in. Our ever-increasing needs in relation to virtually everything; health, safety, products, education, technology, food variety, hobbies, travel, etc, etc has a positive impact on the constant creation of jobs and new vocations/professions that has mitigated the effects of automation

Who decides that we have ever increasing needs?
Many of these jobs are complete nonsense if the truth be known, they're just created to keep unemployment figures lower, with UBI there would be no need to pretend.

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-02-2019 8:56pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hysteria

Well the other final solution is the 'culling' of unrequired resources. Not to mention protection of Earth's now limited resources.

That can be anything from Spanish Flu v2, to a simple 4hr exchange of hypersonic throwing sticks.

Hopefully Mars & Moonbases will create some extra space for 10bn hungry folks by 2050.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 8:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Who decides that we have ever increasing needs?

We do

Many of these jobs are complete nonsense if the truth be known, they're just created to keep unemployment figures lower

???

Examples of these "many jobs"?

10-02-2019 9:06pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Examples of these "many jobs"?

Anyone who works in telesales to get you to change your phone, internet, gas or electricity supplier for starters, then all those extra people who are involved in keeping all the subcontractors in order at a business premises after the work was outsourced instead of one line of command. Plus the multitude of jobs that support the above.

Government quangos and all the spin-offs from them

All the weird and wonderful jobs created to identify your gender....

I could go on.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 9:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who works in telesales to get you to change your phone, internet, gas or electricity supplier for starters

They make money for those respective companies by bringing in customers, they wouldn't be employed otherwise

then all those extra people who are involved in keeping all the subcontractors in order at a business premises after the work was outsourced instead of one line of command. Plus the multitude of jobs that support the above.

So the HR department of any company. There have always been and will always be contractors, not every company can afford to have full time specialists. The company I work for has many contractors and subcontractors - none of which have been created for the purpose of "job figures"

Government quangos and all the spin-offs from them

All the weird and wonderful jobs created to identify your gender....

Yeah tiny amounts of people

I could go on.

You're describing a minuscule number of jobs, not "many" jobs. They aren't "created" by some nefarious homogeneous entity with the purpose of keeping unemployment figures "lower". That notion is beyond ridiculous.

10-02-2019 9:22pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They make money for those respective companies by bringing in customers, they wouldn't be employed otherwise

That's all they do, they provide no useful service at all.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So the HR department of any company. There have always been and will always be contractors, not every company can afford to have full time specialists. The company I work for has many contractors and subcontractors - none of which have been created for the purpose of "job figures"

Many companies that have outsourced their employee jobs, need to have additional staff to interface between the company & subcontractors. plus the fact that with two companies the main contractor and the subcontractor both have separate HR, payroll entities staffed separately.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah tiny amounts of people

You're describing a minuscule number of jobs, not "many" jobs. They aren't "created" by some nefarious homogeneous entity with the purpose of keeping unemployment figures "lower". That notion is beyond ridiculous.

Not at all, in a business run country where the people are "consumers", unemployed people are seen as "idle resources" that must be put to work.

This is one of the reasons that UBI will be deemed a failure.

Arthur Daley · 10-02-2019 9:23pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Higher rate tax payers will be the only folks 'not' getting replaced. Only the most skilled, educated and talented will have steady-ish work in the future.

Ok, we've been told by the likes of google that 50% of jobs could be lost by 2030. We can argue about who exactly this is or isn't but you don't have to earn much to get into the higher rate tax bracket and losing so many jobs is going to have to be recouped by the state somehow. The logical conclusion would be that the corporate will have to pay a lot more tax. Doesn't mean it will happen but some people will follow the audit trail and agitate for the likes of google and the rest to fund the UBI.

mvl · 10-02-2019 9:28pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Not sure what you point is, that graphic shows low educated and low paid are at the highest risk.

The only (small) well paid category at risk is fiscal/insurance risk assessors/administrators, and this is well known already.

It's also a very small sector overall. Automated algorithm scripts using bigdata (ideally quantum scenarios) can easily envisage or compile outcomes much better than humans.

(guess I am the worrying type) I'd be feeling "safer" only if I were to be in a category less than 5% vulnerable. My current role is around 20% vulnerable. While I can try to progress it towards least vulnerable meanwhile, part of me thinks that I might be content with the UBI 12/15 years from now - while minding my grandchildren

.

Geuze · 10-02-2019 9:34pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Am very skeptical about it

1. What would be an acceptable amount in Ireland?
2. Who would be entitled it?
3. How would it be funded?
4. How would we stop people from getting it then going and living in e.g. Thailand?
5. If it were a decent enough amount I know plenty of people who would dump their jobs instantly and never work again, how would this be avoided?

1. Similar to current welfare rates.

2. Everybody

3. Taxes

4. Only residents get it

5. That may happen, yes, but a UBI encourages people to take up employment, as it isn't lost when getting a job.

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-02-2019 9:55pm

Arthur Daley wrote: »

Ok, we've been told by the likes of google that 50% of jobs could be lost by 2030. We can argue about who exactly this is or isn't but you don't have to earn much to get into the higher rate tax bracket and losing so many jobs is going to have to be recouped by the state somehow. The logical conclusion would be that the corporate will have to pay a lot more tax. Doesn't mean it will happen but some people will follow the audit trail and agitate for the likes of google and the rest to fund the UBI.

More so the OECD, PWC etc that forecast this. Yes the responsibility falls on corporates, and also govs, and mega-rich individuals who dream of buying a Limited Ed 5m Bugatti (built using valuable earth resources) that will never see a drop of rain, covered in sheds for decade long value appreciation.

Another factor with UBI, is that it's a digital currency, (cash) money won't exist so less fraud, robberies or stuffing matresses, and restrictions on amount folks can spend on duff beer or smokes with it. The black economy will shrink.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 12:47am

Three has never been more automation than now.

Yet employment is at an all time high in the UK.

I would not believe headlines that say automation will destroy huge numbers of jobs.

Some jobs, yes.

Twenty Grand · 11-02-2019 12:49am

Geuze wrote: »

Three has never been more automation than now.

Yet employment is at an all time high in the UK.

I would not believe headlines that say automation will destroy huge numbers of jobs.

Some jobs, yes.

Focussing on one country that's mainly service based will not give you a clear idea on the impact of automation.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 12:52am

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Issue is the trials (of sorts) of a couple of thousand at a time can't be compared to a nationwide rollout.

If any country rolled out UBI en masse they'd see many positive and negative effects

Positve: Spending surge for essential items, mid-range and investments in capital assest for the above

Negative: Gross price inflation, if everyone is buying better brands of bread/milk, up the prices.

Please explain further.

People would face a 45% income tax rate on all earned income, with all tax credits and tax bands abolished.

Why do you think there would be a surge of spending?

Taking somebody on 50k wages, they would receive approx 10k UBI, but their income tax would rise to 22.5k.

I don't see any huge change in personal disposable income there, so no great change in consumption?

Dravokivich · 11-02-2019 12:53am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Focussing on one country that's mainly service based will not give you a clear idea on the impact of automation.

Automation can be programmed to do services tasks also. I do t think it'll be too long before its going to be an issue for entry level and simple work.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 1:25am

Geuze wrote: »

Please explain further.

People would face a 45% income tax rate on all earned income, with all tax credits and tax bands abolished.

Why do you think there would be a surge of spending?

Taking somebody on 50k wages, they would receive approx 10k UBI, but their income tax would rise to 22.5k.

I don't see any huge change in personal disposable income there, so no great change in consumption?

Nope, income tax rates not affected, there would still be a decent tax free allowance as there is now and only around 20% upto about 40k.

Tax credits may or may not be merged into a UBI payment system. But mainly UBI is intended to replace all other (non-working) benefits e.g. jsa, children allowances, disability, sickness etc.

Credits are slightly different as are income dependent/supplimental, not (non-workers) benefits.

Spending would increase as UBI folks would be able to gig freely without fear of being investigated for welfare fraud. So more fiscal powers for those who choose to suppliment income. With no repercussions, motivational factors would increase.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 1:37am

Dravokivich wrote: »

Automation can be programmed to do services tasks also. I do t think it'll be too long before its going to be an issue for entry level and simple work.

Already is, seen just one human manage a row of 8 self-service tills, and online chatbots are the new defacto for online support issues.

In the past 3yrs, no human has been involved in preparing and assessing my complex car insurance requirements.

It's the 2nd/3rd wave of AI that will become the real challenge for 'more complex' service tasks.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 2:20am

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland

https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/4642/spcpresentationrevised.pdf

The studies I've seen describe all tax credits being abolished.

One single tax rate on all earned income.

I have seen 45%, this study above has 40%.

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 2:40am

Geuze wrote: »

https://www.socialjustice.ie/content/policy-issues/costing-basic-income-ireland

https://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/files/attach/policy-issue-article/4642/spcpresentationrevised.pdf

The studies I've seen describe all tax credits being abolished.

One single tax rate on all earned income.

I have seen 45%, this study above has 40%.

Fairly interesting but is just one 'proposal' by a couple of folks, years ago, rather than a full proper economic study or active trial.

Even so, at that, it suggests someone on 15k, is 2k better off, as is someone on 60k, 3k better off.
Assuming they still keep the tax-free allowance up to 20k or so?

That diagram suggests it's only 150+38pwk, UBI would really need to be closer to 250+ for UBI to be meanginful.

250 sounds alot for nothing, but single johnny will either spend it all back into the economy, or use it with more purpose, while single janey will have to stretch it account for six kids.

One single tax rate (after allowance) would sure simplify things, but UBI rollout along with (working) tax credits removal at the very same time might perhaps be a bit too sudden.

Dr. Bre · 11-02-2019 3:15am

We are heading to a future we’re robots will take our jobs. So a universal income isn’t a bad idea..

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 3:41am

Deleted User wrote: »

That's all they do, they provide no useful service at all.

It's sales. They literally make money for their respective companies. Otherwise they wouldn't be employed.

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 3:56am

Geuze wrote: »

1. Similar to current welfare rates.

2. Everybody

3. Taxes

4. Only residents get it

5. That may happen, yes, but a UBI encourages people to take up employment, as it isn't lost when getting a job.

1. Cost of UBI in Ireland. With rough calculations, it would work out at about 34 bn a year excluding administration and pensions, something the country can't afford - or would have to make dramatic cuts to health/schools/justice/transport/other

3. Which taxes and how? ("tax the rich" is not an answer). There would have to be a very significant rise in taxes to cover the astronomical cost of such a program

4. Only residents get it, so what's stopping Irish people claiming it and going abroad and living comfortably? an army of administrative people to make sure that doesn't happen? (800 euros of guaranteed free cash per month is significantly higher than the average wage in many countries)

5. UBI clearly doesn't encourage people to take up unemployment (Finnish findings)

I've dipped into a few of these UBI threads and they always seem to be high on speculation and very low on actual details/maths/economics

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 4:10am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

1. Cost of UBI in Ireland. With rough calculations, it would work out at about 34 bn a year excluding administration and pensions, something the country can't afford - or would have to make dramatic cuts to health/schools/justice/transport/other

Costs would be roughly the same, some folks with a dozen kids who get large welfare payments now, would be much worse off. National productivity would be vastly improved, thus +GDP.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

3. Which taxes and how? ("tax the rich" is not an answer). There would have to be a very significant rise in taxes to cover the astronomical cost of such a program

Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

4. Only residents get it, so what's stopping Irish people claiming it and going abroad and living comfortably? an army of administrative people to make sure that doesn't happen? (800 euros of guaranteed free cash per month is significantly higher than the average wage in many countries)

Leave the country for 3/12mths and your payments cease. It's more than 800, then again you can buy a house in timbucktu for just a few pennies, comparisons to other locations is largely irrelevant as long as there is strict migration controls.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

5. UBI clearly doesn't encourage people to take up unemployment (Finnish findings)

Small sample group, maybe they were in locations where enterprise/work was limited no matter the resources. Maybe they knew it was a time-limited trial and didn't want to jump on the work-train knowing they'd loose benefits when the temporary track ended.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've dipped into a few of these UBI threads and they always seem to be high on speculation and very low on actual details/maths/economics

The thing is more and more countries realise it's on the way, hence the preperations and trails increase.

Annasopra · 11-02-2019 9:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

I mostly agree with this except the negatives, the migration issue is a diversion - it's for citizens only

the inflation would be very limited as the UBI is replacing welfare payments in the main so most unemployed people who choose not to work part time will be no better off.

One disadvantage would be for employers who have really bad working conditions will find it almost impossible to find workers.

Thats not a disadvantage because it means they would have to offer improved working conditions

Annasopra · 11-02-2019 9:35am

There is also a HUGE cost saving to the state because they could massively cut the number of Social Welfare civil servants and sell off most of the social welfare offices in the country.

Ush1 · 11-02-2019 10:58am

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There is also a HUGE cost saving to the state because they could massively cut the number of Social Welfare civil servants and sell off most of the social welfare offices in the country.

:pac:

UBI is a silly concept and trying to force it on some macro scale doesn't really prove anything.

Automation and loss of jobs is a separate issue, one that is very open to debate.

Arthur Daley · 11-02-2019 11:10am

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.

Yes the Corporates benefit from significant cost savings from automation and AI, so they need to be taxed more as a result to fund the UBI. The biggest taxpayer group should shift from labour to wealth/capital, as the labour taxes will certainly be eroded. Existing levels of Corporate welfare will also need to end as big government will simply not have the resources to prop up various 'industries' anymore. We will have to cut our cloth.

Water John · 11-02-2019 11:30am

'UBI is a silly concept' Quote.
That really added to my knowledge on the subject. I am leaning towards it but open to persuasion on various points.
There are different models. That is what we are doing, teasing it out, hoping to add to our understanding of the positives and negatives.

conorhal · 11-02-2019 11:36am

Well the Finn's have concluded their experiment and the results are in, showing that UBI had no impact on the employment rate of the recipients. It simply didn't encourage any higher participation in the workforce by those given a basic income and told any work they took wouldn't impact their benefits, so the theory that it would seems not to be true.

klaaaz · 11-02-2019 11:39am

conorhal wrote: »

Well the Finn's have concluded their study and the results are in, showing that UBI had no impact on the employment rate of the recipients. It simply didn't encourage any higher participation in the workforce so the theory that it would seems not to be true.

It's not as simple as that. Factors like lack of employment opportunity, the geography on the availability of jobs and the level of pay in those jobs as well as ageism in the hiring process affect Finland just as it affects here.

Water John · 11-02-2019 11:43am

Any new concept, or agency, from my experience needs about 3 years up and running for it to catch with the public. I think any trial would have to run for 3/5 years, without political interference.

conorhal · 11-02-2019 11:44am

klaaaz wrote: »

It's not as simple as that. Factors like lack of employment opportunity, the geography on the availability of jobs and the level of pay in those jobs as well as ageism in the hiring process affect Finland just as it affects here.

Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?

Ush1 · 11-02-2019 11:53am

conorhal wrote: »

Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?

Not to mention doing it at such a small scale would not have the very real problem of hyper inflation was it to be applied "universally".

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 12:11pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Costs would be roughly the same, some folks with a dozen kids who get large welfare payments now, would be much worse off. National productivity would be vastly improved, thus +GDP.

This is not correct

Current cost, including pensions for social is 20 billion

For UBI in Ireland of 800 EUR per month for all over 18's would be approx 34 billion, excluding pensions and administration

Corp tax, and upper earnings. Closing loopholes and evasion, which is commonplace.

Possibly, but with no figures it's vague/random speculation. Where do they get the extra 15 to 20 billion from? With figures

Leave the country for 3/12mths and your payments cease.

Can easily live in Eastern Europe and fly back every 3 months to "sign on". The administration required to check everyone would be astronomical

Small sample group, maybe they were in locations where enterprise/work was limited no matter the resources. Maybe they knew it was a time-limited trial and didn't want to jump on the work-train knowing they'd loose benefits when the temporary track ended.

Perhaps, but these are the tangible results we have. They are real vs your guesswork/speculation

The thing is more and more countries realise it's on the way, hence the preperations and trails increase.

It's your personal opinion. In reality however countries/parties may reject the notion (as too costly/economically risky) Switzerland has rejected it in a direct vote.

I have come across a lot of wishful thinking/speculation but little in the way of solid economic reasoning for such a project

klaaaz · 11-02-2019 12:26pm

conorhal wrote: »

Those factors also effect the unemployed that were not part of the experiment, it STILL had no impact on employment rates, and that's about what you'd expect.

What's your motive to take a bad, lowpaying, back-breaking job to top up your earnings if you don't have to?

That's not the fault of the unemployed, that's the employers taking advantage of the subsidy(the UBI enrolled)and generally not paying good enough wages for the non-UBI enrolled.

conorhal · 11-02-2019 12:39pm

klaaaz wrote: »

That's not the fault of the unemployed, that's the employers taking advantage of the subsidy(the UBI enrolled)and generally not paying good enough wages for the non-UBI enrolled.

Not true, those taking part could take some part time work, get a bit of extra spending money, ease their way back into the jobs market without risking a shortfall in income by doing and yet they chose not to at any greater rate then other non participants.
If those on UBI are disinclined to take a low paid job to suplement their income or work their way up the ladder, your suggesting seems to be, well then those employers need to hike up wages to make those jobs more attractive. As has been pointed out, that would lead to massive inflation as burger flippers suddenly need to be paid 20 euro an hour instead of 10, well that cost will get passed on to the customer and suddenly your UBI payment can't meet basic living costs.

Universal basic income trial in Finland

Comments