Universal basic income trial in Finland

klaaaz · 11-02-2019 12:51pm

conorhal wrote: »

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.

The UBI ran for a very short period of time, that part time job would have been useless when the UBI trial ended. I don't know of many people who can "work their way up the ladder" in a burger joint, that is just stereotyping just like saying "it's their choice not to work"

And it is also stereotyping that workers would be seeking double pay to just flip a burger, they like many low pay workers realise it's low pay and just want to be paid a living wage just like Lidl and Aldi have implemented here. Both discount stores have not seen a huge rise in consumer prices just to pay their staff a living wage. By the way Lidl have a minor presence in Finland(unlike here), Aldi do not exist there at all.

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 1:17pm

klaaaz wrote: »

The UBI ran for a very short period of time, that part time job would have been useless when the UBI trial ended. I don't know of many people who can "work their way up the ladder" in a burger joint, that is just stereotyping just like saying "it's their choice not to work"

And it is also stereotyping that workers would be seeking double pay to just flip a burger, they like many low pay workers realise it's low pay and just want to be paid a living wage just like Lidl and Aldi have implemented here. Both discount stores have not seen a huge rise in consumer prices just to pay their staff a living wage. By the way Lidl have a minor presence in Finland(unlike here), Aldi do not exist there at all.

The UBI trial ran for 2 years. More than enough time for the "gig" economy and temp working. Even part time work (I've known several on 6 month to 1 year contracts)

Geuze · 11-02-2019 2:20pm

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

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

1. 2015 SJI study, cost = 31.3bn.

2. Yes, SJI study means all tax credits and SRCOP abolished, replaced with a single 40% income tax rate. Also er PRSI increased.

5. Yes, the Finnish result isn't supportive of the employment take-up aspect.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 2:21pm

Key Figures (€m)

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

SJI figures

Total cost of UBI payments 31,298
Cost of welfare payments maintained under UBI, and Administration 3,843
Total cost of UBI 35,141

Total savings under UBI in other Departments 729
Net cost of UBI 34,412

Total expenditure of Department of Social Protection in 2015 19,893
Current funding from Income Tax, PRSI, USC etc. in 2015 26,763
Surplus of Income Tax over DSP expenditure 6,870

Funding requirement: Net cost of UBI + surplus of existing system 41,281
Employer PRSI 7,704

Yield required from a single rate of income tax on all personal income 33,577
Rate of Income Tax required on all personal income 40%

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 4:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Costs are irrelvant if they can be met, through savings, GDP (+national productivity levels), taxations, closing loopholes etc.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

When you leave a country you pass something called the 'passport desk', citizens can easily be identified anyway of location via numerous means, by numerous agencies.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

The only way to test would be in it's 'natutal environment at full-scale'. Small independent remote nations should try this e.g. Iceland.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

The Swiss is a landlocked nation with high variance of political ideals and migration issues, not to mention a holiday destination for folks with large deposits to make into secret accounts, they would not favour a fair tax system.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Automation replacement by itself is reason enough. Then theres wealth equality, crime, the coming economic surrender to China etc etc.

Dohnjoe · 11-02-2019 7:06pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Costs are irrelvant if they can be met, through savings, GDP (+national productivity levels), taxations, closing loopholes etc.

Which loopholes and what is the gain in each case minus the negative effect of closing that loophole? (backed by proper sources), otherwise the above is pure speculation

To again put the figures in some perspective

3.5 mm people collecting 800 euros a month in "UBI" is around 34 bn annually. Add in pensions and administration (tracking 3.5 million people, all of their travel abroad, tracking all immigrants to make sure the system isn't abused, etc). We could be looking at close to 40bn

40bn is what the Irish government currently spends on the entire health service, all education, justice, agriculture, the entire transport system with 5 bn left over

Essentially UBI would cost the country more than all those put together. I wouldn't have much hopes on any party touching that notion with a bargepole.

mvl · 11-02-2019 7:11pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which loopholes and what is the gain in each case minus the negative effect of closing that loophole? (backed by proper sources), otherwise the above is pure speculation

To again put the figures in some perspective

3.5 mm people collecting 800 euros a month in "UBI" is around 34 bn annually. Add in pensions and administration (tracking 3.5 million people, all of their travel abroad, tracking all immigrants to make sure the system isn't abused, etc). We could be looking at close to 40bn

And what if the pension is meant to replaced by UBI in the end - they don't call it universal for nothing

4068ac1elhodqr · 11-02-2019 8:20pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which loopholes and what is the gain in each case minus the negative effect of closing that loophole? (backed by proper sources), otherwise the above is pure speculation

If you want every single incidence/type of avoidance and every single corporate/person listed out for you on a spreadsheet maybe invest in a 'genie in a lamp' to rub.

One quick example, from Techcrunch:

18 Sep 2018 - Apple has finished paying $15 billion European fine. Apple has finished wiring billions of euros to pay back 'illegal tax benefits' to the 'Irish government' according to Reuters. Overall, Apple has paid $15.3 billion (€13.1 billion) for the original fine as well as $1.4 billion (€1.2 billion) in interests.

Equally it's pure speculation that costs of UBI (can't) be recovered or balanced out by reducing some current benefits, or that national productivity (wouldn't) receive an enormous boost, increasing overall GDP and improving standards of living.

It's also (very wild) speculation that millions living abroad would magically avail of it, easily lining their pockets on tepid beaches of Thailand, discos of 'Frisco or manbags up in Moneymore.

Water John · 11-02-2019 8:31pm

I wouldn't see under 18s availing. It would be UBI or pension or other state and EU payments, is what I would favour.
Not sure what the net cost of that would be.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 9:44pm

Water John wrote: »

I wouldn't see under 18s availing. It would be UBI or pension or other state and EU payments, is what I would favour.
Not sure what the net cost of that would be.

UBI can replace CB.

There can be different age-related rates of UBI.

Geuze · 11-02-2019 9:45pm

NBER article on UBI published this month:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25538#fromrss

Universal Basic Income in the US and Advanced Countries
Hilary W. Hoynes, Jesse Rothstein
NBER Working Paper No. 25538
Issued in February 2019
NBER Program(s):Children, Labor Studies, Public Economics

We discuss the potential role of Universal Basic Incomes (UBIs) in advanced countries. A feature of advanced economies that distinguishes them from developing countries is the existence of well developed, if often incomplete, safety nets. We develop a framework for describing transfer programs, flexible enough to encompass most existing programs as well as UBIs, and use this framework to compare various UBIs to the existing constellation of programs in the United States. A UBI would direct much larger shares of transfers to childless, non-elderly, non-disabled households than existing programs, and much more to middle-income rather than poor households. A UBI large enough to increase transfers to low-income families would be enormously expensive. We review the labor supply literature for evidence on the likely impacts of a UBI. We argue that the ongoing UBI pilot studies will do little to resolve the major outstanding questions.

11-02-2019 9:55pm

Copy of the publication https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jrothst/workingpapers/w25538.pdf

Dohnjoe · 13-02-2019 12:43pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

If you want every single incidence/type of avoidance and every single corporate/person listed out for you on a spreadsheet maybe invest in a 'genie in a lamp' to rub.

Nope, just account for the "loopholes" you mentioned and the what areas of tax you would increase and the amounts they would raise (and the negative net effects of those rises)

This isn't squeezing a few hundred mm from the economy, it's an eyewatering 15 to 20 bn. Your vague "down the pub" calculations don't mean anything if they aren't based on any actual figures

Dohnjoe · 13-02-2019 12:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Copy of the publication https://eml.berkeley.edu/~jrothst/workingpapers/w25538.pdf

Thanks. Summary for those who don't want to read the whole thing -

VIII. Conclusion
Interest in universal basic income is on the rise in the U.S. and other advanced countries.
Decades of wage stagnation and concerns about automation, robots, and job destruction, as
well as discontent with the current social safety net, provide the foundation for interest in this
area. Support for UBIs has led to several pilot programs and policy proposals in the U.S.,
Canada, Finland and Switzerland. Despite all of this, there is a lack of clarity on what makes a
UBI, what problem it is meant to solve, whether the social safety net can or is providing these
benefits, and what (if anything) can be learned from the pilot programs that we don’t already
know from the decades of existing research on individual and household responses to the social
safety net, and wages and income opportunities more broadly. Our paper seeks to fill this gap.
A “pure” UBI (providing a set benefit to all regardless of income, age, etc.) funded to meet basic
needs for a household without earnings would be extremely expensive, about twice the cost of
all existing transfers in the U.S. Funding this would require substantial new revenue. The source
of the new funds is a first order issue, and will have substantial impacts on the distributional
effects of the policy and its ability to target those most in need of assistance. In particular,
replacing existing anti-poverty programs with a UBI would be highly regressive, unless
substantial additional funds were put in.
Much about the effects of a UBI on labor supply, income and family wellbeing can be gleaned
from the existing research, which we briefly review here. We identify a few outstanding
questions, such as the impact of a truly universal program (presumably without stigma) as well
as the effects on human capital and, hence, labor supply in the longer run. Unfortunately, the
planned and ongoing pilots are not well suited to answer these questions. Experimentation
aimed at identifying parameters and mechanisms (Deaton and Cartwright 2018; Ludwig, Kling,
and Mullianathan 2011; Rothstein and von Wachter 2017) would be more useful than
evaluations of small UBI pilots

Water John · 13-02-2019 1:01pm

Basically saying, full blown UBI would have very significant cost that is a major stumbling block.
Really doesn't look at various levels of UBI.
Also the pilots don't answer the key questions.

Conclusion: this desk top study doesn't offer any insight.

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-02-2019 2:38pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This isn't squeezing a few hundred mm from the economy, it's an eyewatering 15 to 20 bn. Your vague "down the pub" calculations don't mean anything if they aren't based on any actual figures

Nope, your vague 15-20bn (ah sure what's 5bn) 'down in the pub figure' could nearly be cleared by one single corporation.

Apple has finished paying $15 billion European fine. Apple has finished wiring billions of euros to pay back 'illegal tax benefits' to the 'Irish government'

Even BillGates yesterday was complaing to the press that he felt he never paid enough taxes.

Whilst tax 'avoidance' is currently perfectly legal (unlike evasion) it depends simply on moral outlook. But shareholders/stakeholders don't want morals, they want dividends returns.

Irish 2017 GDP was $333.7bn, with +5% 2018, and forecast +4% 2019 ($14bn) it's an ideal time to consider. If UBI can add another 4% to GDP, it would be getting past Chinese growth levels.

Dohnjoe · 13-02-2019 3:01pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Nope, your vague 15-20bn (ah sure what's 5bn) 'down in the pub figure' could nearly be cleared by one single corporation.

Not correct. The Apple tax bill is a one-off, a single amount representing over a decade. Apple (and other corporations) could leave Ireland - there can be a negative net of closing "loopholes"

You didn't disagree with the UBI calculations, which I have shown (on the conservative end) It's not hard to calc the basic cost when its a rudimentary "set amount" for everyone over 18. EUR 800 x [population over 18] x 12 = minimum annual cost

The minimum cost of such a program is not possible unless immense sacrifices are to be made to almost every other program (health, education, etc) and/or some extreme hypothetical tax overhaul (which you are suggesting). However you haven't demonstrated the tax savings/maneuverings to raise that astronomical amount merely alluded to them

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-02-2019 3:05pm

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.

Yes, and no.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs shows that yes indeed physiological needs such as food shelter are primary demands. But once they are met, new needs arise.

2. Safety (bigger cars, housing in better areas) then 3. social (social activities, travel, outings) 4. Esteem needs: various but incudes 'esteem' (reputation and respect), and so on.... up towards full self-actualisation.

Ask a chap in an old Ford Mondeo would he like to upgrade to a AudiR8 for little money (some slight cost, but at very large discount) and you can presume his immediate response.

Summary: Everyone want's a bigger TV irrelevant of current size.

4068ac1elhodqr · 13-02-2019 3:13pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not correct. The Apple tax bill is a one-off, a single amount representing over a decade. Apple (and other corporations) could leave Ireland - there can be a negative net of closing "loopholes"

You didn't disagree with the UBI calculations, which I have shown (on the conservative end) It's not hard to calc the basic cost when its a rudimentary "set amount" for everyone over 18. EUR 800 x [population over 18] x 12 = minimum annual cost

(Net) UBI costs have to be offset by cost savings (which you ignore) and GDP/Productivity growth estimates (which you igonre). All figures are complex so not worth you, me or anyone trying to pin a figure on them.

Closing 'loopholes' is occuring as we speak (the Dutch sandwich isn't as tastey), and sweetners are 'no longer as sweet'.

Even if the 12.5% CT was raised by 2% would the extra income not be in the 'bn's'. And would Ire still have one of the lowest rates in the world: yes & yes.

Essentially UBI presents the option to add 127,600 (nov 18) people instantly to the new gig-economy, not to mention pensioners and even perhaps those with some lower levels of sickness or disability.

Water John · 13-02-2019 4:55pm

It would take a good bit of time for a significant section of the population to change to the notion of work not just being defined as 39 hr/wk.
I know some one who recently moved to another country. The first question they were asked by their new employer was, how many hours per week do you want to work? The person replied that they would work the full 39 hour week. The employer said, nobody here does a 39 hour week.
I think it would take some time for most to adopt this type of thinking.
UBI would create that environment. Depending on your circumstances at any time, you'd vary your work hours, without damaging your position, standing and promotional prospects.

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