Universal basic income trial in Finland

20-04-2018 9:04pm

From that news report.

But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits. And Finance Minister Petteri Orpo already has plans for a new project once the basic income pilot concludes in December 2018.

To say it was not a success is misleading, it depends on who you ask I suppose.

Reading between the lines it appears that it may have been too successful at eliminating the stigma of unemployment and that some people realised that working for minimum wage jobs was a mugs game. Also UBI recipients are "bad consumers", they buy very little, not good for business.

KyussB · 24-04-2018 5:03pm

And while Finland winds down its BI test program - Bernie Sanders is creating a platform for the superior Job Guarantee policy that I discussed, which obsoletes the UBI:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/23/bernie-sanders-to-unveil-plan-to-guarantee-every-american-a-job/

This has a significant chance of being the key policy proposal in the next US election. Bringing back New Deal era politics and jobs programs, to the US.

You'll never see the UBI enter the political mainstream, the way the Job Guarantee just has.

Grayson · 24-04-2018 5:10pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

Not so widely reported is that the Finn's are quietly finishing this experiment and not hailing it as a success.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/Finland-is-killing-its-world-famous-basic-income-experiment--/

I saw it on the front page of the guardian.

Was it a failure? It seems like they are getting rid of it but haven't given a reason.

24-04-2018 8:09pm

Grayson wrote: »

I saw it on the front page of the guardian.

Was it a failure? It seems like they are getting rid of it but haven't given a reason.

Supposedly, they plan to release a report in late 2019.
Will make interesting reading, I still suspect that it was a success in its primary objective, but a failure in the secondary.

It successfully stopped recipients from feeling stigmatised for being unemployed and a failure because people realise what a mugs game unfulfilling work was and that these people all are bad consumers.

Business leaders want people to spend money UBI recipients to be spenders as well.
Maybe none of them were entrepreneurs.

Water John · 24-04-2018 9:31pm

Hard to judge what the final outcomes could have been. It really was a, 'toe in the water' initiative.
They didn't even implement the second part of the first phase, of incl some who were actually working as well.
In reality, we don't know, who killed it and why.

Water John · 24-04-2018 9:41pm

I've read the article re: Bernie Sander. My problem is seeing the inevitable ballooning of a beauracracy around it. It will become a bemoth.

24-04-2018 10:00pm

Water John wrote: »

I've read the article re: Bernie Sander. My problem is seeing the inevitable ballooning of a bureaucracy around it. It will become a bemoth.

In theory, there should be far less bureaucracy, as there is only one payment per person to deal with.

Water John · 24-04-2018 10:08pm

In the Bernie Sanders model, you have a whole beauracracy dealing with projects. That will by its very nature, grow and grow.

24-04-2018 10:16pm

Water John wrote: »

In the Bernie Sanders model, you have a whole beauracracy dealing with projects. That will by its very nature, grow and grow.

His version of UBI must be very different to the Finnish model, which was simply one payment per person and nothing else.

KyussB · 24-04-2018 10:31pm

Sanders proposal is a Job Guarantee - not a UBI - it's paying people to work, rather than giving money for free.

Tbh the 'bureaucracy' arguments makes no sense - all private sector industries are filled with bureaucracies, and by their very nature, they are massively inefficient through being duplicated throughout so many different competing companies.

It's not really a valid argument.

Water John · 24-04-2018 10:55pm

Well its one of the key advantages of UBI. We have a whole beauracracy tied up with finding work and training courses for our unemployed.

KyussB · 25-04-2018 12:05am

Pretty much anything that needs administering has an associated bureaucracy - with valid, useful jobs for staffing that bureaucracy. It's not a bad or negative/pejorative word.

If that bureaucracy is putting people to work on useful projects, rather than paying them to sit on their hole - then it's inherently far more efficient than the UBI, because the useful work done boosts GDP.

That's a bureaucracy that is, in its overall economic impact, far more efficient than the situation of NOT having a bureaucracy - instead just giving the money away - which is way less efficient, economically.

Harika · 25-04-2018 8:10am

KyussB wrote: »

Pretty much anything that needs administering has an associated bureaucracy - with valid, useful jobs for staffing that bureaucracy. It's not a bad or negative/pejorative word.

If that bureaucracy is putting people to work on useful projects, rather than paying them to sit on their hole - then it's inherently far more efficient than the UBI, because the useful work done boosts GDP.

That's a bureaucracy that is, in its overall economic impact, far more efficient than the situation of NOT having a bureaucracy - instead just giving the money away - which is way less efficient, economically.

What you describe is communism, where someone in Moscow decided if a job in Prague is useful and valid. Think about the situation here if someone in Dublin decides that a job in Cork is neither useful or valid.
But the next question is: What is useful and valid?
- A photographer who makes photos of old broken down buildings?
- An artisan who carves sticks in a way that was done the same way for 100s of years?
- A cleaning of the neighbourhood?

So please, what is the definition of a useful and valid job?

KyussB · 25-04-2018 5:32pm

Think you should look up the definition of Communism, first.

Water John · 25-04-2018 6:26pm

If I decide to train the u 12s, I decide that its of value. I don't need a whole system to give me the thumbs up or down, declaring it a valid or invalid, contribution to society.

KyussB · 25-04-2018 6:35pm

It doesn't matter what you think is useful or valuable - nobody is going to just give you money to do whatever you like - the Universal Basic Income is already a failure and a no-go, politically.

The Job Guarantee is the only option which has actual political legitimacy - and if you want to be paid to do something, you'll have to run it by someone - like the way the rest of the working world already works...

Billy86 · 27-04-2018 9:48pm

Finland are saying the talk of "ending" the UBI is untrue.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/finland-universal-basic-income-results-trial-cancelled

Although many reports claimed this meant the end of basic income in Finland, this actually means that the experiment will only run until the end of 2018, as initially planned.

“It seems that there is some misinformation spreading in international media about the Finnish basic income experiment,” says Miska Simanainen, a researcher at Kela, the Finnish government agency behind the trial. “There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018, but this is not new information,” he adds.

Instead, the Finnish government will wait for the results from this initial trial before making any decisions about a wider roll-out of the initiative. The results from the trial will be available by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020, Simanainen explains.

Andy From Sligo · 30-04-2018 4:05pm

finland-to-scrap-universal-basic-income-scheme-after-two-year-trial

03-02-2019 11:52pm

Just to follow up on this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-47092727/did-finland-s-basic-income-experiment-work

Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.
The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job.
The Finnish government wanted to see if this financial incentive encouraged people to get jobs or start businesses.
The BBC followed two participants, Tanja and Tuomas, for two years to see what impact free money had on their lives.

It appears that the UBI helped one of them to take a job that wouldn't have paid enough to support them on its own and the other person was too skilled (expensive & old) to hold a full time job.
Was it a success, yes and no! Great for people at the low end of the skills range to earn money over the basic to improve their lives, not so much for the professional person.

Dakotabigone · 04-02-2019 2:34am

It was basically poor mans paddy dole.

KyussB · 04-02-2019 11:08am

So basically they subsidized a business that was underpaying one of their workers below the living wage, and allowed that business to pocket the money at the cost of the public, leaving the public purse to take up the slack.

As predicted, the Basic Income turns into a business subsidy - no wonder the policy is enormously popular among major tech business owners. A much more appropriate policy, being to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

Dohnjoe · 04-02-2019 5:32pm

KyussB wrote: »

The Job Guarantee is the only option which has actual political legitimacy - and if you want to be paid to do something, you'll have to run it by someone - like the way the rest of the working world already works...

The Job Guarantee?

04-02-2019 8:36pm

KyussB wrote: »

So basically they subsidized a business that was underpaying one of their workers below the living wage, and allowed that business to pocket the money at the cost of the public, leaving the public purse to take up the slack.

As predicted, the Basic Income turns into a business subsidy - no wonder the policy is enormously popular among major tech business owners. A much more appropriate policy, being to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

This is how it was expected to work in the first place, it allows people to get part time work and have a decent standard of living as the UBI paid for the basics. As we continue down the part of automation, eliminating all the well paid jobs.

How are we going to "consume" in the future if we're only getting "slave wage" income!

In reality we need to replace debt based money that is lent into existence with money that is created and spent into existence.
Remember that money is oil to the economy's engine, for the engine to function well, the oil needs to be at the bottom and pumped up, not flow to the top and trickle down! that's why the big ends are wearing yellow vests.

Wanderer78 · 04-02-2019 8:44pm

Deleted User wrote:

In reality we need to replace debt based money that is lent into existence with money that is created and spent into existence. Remember that money is oil to the economy's engine, for the engine to function well, the oil needs to be at the bottom and pumped up, not flow to the top and trickle down! that's why the big ends are wearing yellow vests.

But but, I like using trickle down on boards, I ll run out of things to say if we give up credit/debt based money, my boards account would be meaningless. Interesting experiment all the same.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-02-2019 9:34pm

'Finland's basic income trial boosts happiness (and health) but not employment'
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0208/1028261-finland-income-trial/

With all the mindfulness/health stuff in the news, surely this is a good thing.

Simply too small a trial to gauge effects, and in particular effects on national inflation or price indices.
if it was 'rolled out' proper, effects would be more significant (inflation and enterprise development).

Billy86 · 08-02-2019 10:21pm

I think I read a few months back that they are trialing a few different models, as was initially planned? Could be wrong but I'm quite sure I have seen stories on it ending on a few different occasions now.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-02-2019 10:51pm

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: Massive SoHO enterprise movements, if it means no bureaucracy paper filling in.
Positve: Spending surge for essential items, mid-range and investments in capital assest for the above
Positve: Tax havens and tax shy loophole capitalists will be hounded to pay for it, no longer a faint 'moral' obligation.

Negative: Massive (huge) sudden gravy-train migration from regions/states towards UBI sub-state/regions
Negative: Gross price inflation, if everyone is buying better brands of bread/milk, up the prices.

Problem is UBI is inevitable regardless. It's an when, not if.

Flyingsnowball · 08-02-2019 10:55pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

'Finland's basic income trial boosts happiness (and health) but not employment'
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0208/1028261-finland-income-trial/

With all the mindfulness/health stuff in the news, surely this is a good thing.

Simply too small a trial to gauge effects, and in particular effects on national inflation or price indices.
if it was 'rolled out' proper, effects would be more significant (inflation and enterprise development).

It’s not about people’s health. It’s about making sure you get to burn all of earths resources before the Russians and Chinese do.
Nobody in power will go for this so.

Water John · 08-02-2019 10:56pm

Good analysis Accumulator, it has to be ring fenced to long term residents, min residency number of years.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-02-2019 11:07pm

Water John wrote: »

Good analysis Accumulator, it has to be ring fenced to long term residents, min residency number of years.

Would be essential, Would need to be 5yrs minimun (such would be the temptation) Maybe also specific courses on 'basic enterprise' also to point them in the right direction.

Give someone basic trading skills, the funds to buy basic equipment, no risk of penality for 'enterprise efforts' and you've got shed loads of window cleaners, barbers, mechanics, tradesfolk instantly.

08-02-2019 11:51pm

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

It’s not about people’s health. It’s about making sure you get to burn all of earths resources before the Russians and Chinese do.
Nobody in power will go for this so.

You've got it in one, plus the elite believe our only purpose in life is to increase their bank balances.

Quality of life and not having the feelings of despair due to being unemployed and never able to find a job that pays enough to come off the dole, is important as well

08-02-2019 11:55pm

Liberty Proud Rank wrote: »

Would be essential, Would need to be 5yrs minimun (such would be the temptation) Maybe also specific courses on 'basic enterprise' also to point them in the right direction.

Give someone basic trading skills, the funds to buy basic equipment, no risk of penality for 'enterprise efforts' and you've got shed loads of window cleaners, barbers, mechanics, tradesfolk instantly.

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.

Water John · 09-02-2019 12:21am

I think Dolan that is a Marxist analysis. I don't think there is a mono capitalistic grand plan. You are saying the systems preferred model would rule out independent cafes in favour of The Starbucks.
Capitalism doesn't make that conscious choice.

09-02-2019 12:28am

Water John wrote: »

I think Dolan that is a Marxist analysis. I don't think there is a mono capitalistic grand plan. You are saying the systems preferred model would rule out independent cafes in favour of The Starbucks.
Capitalism doesn't make that conscious choice.

I think that you're looking at what I said from the wrong end of the telescope.

mvl · 09-02-2019 2:08pm

Water John wrote: »

Good analysis Accumulator, it has to be ring fenced to long term residents, min residency number of years.

This is a weakness: UBI should be for citizens only (of a country or a grouping of countries that agree with the UBI principle)

- and of course, not to forget, another important matter: getting citizenship by naturalization (which is different than citizenship by descent) could be more restrictive than what Ireland currently has at the moment.

09-02-2019 2:39pm

Discussing whether foreigners should get UBI is really a diversion from discussing the benefits or otherwise of UBI.

I am disappointed for the 95% of people it would have benefited as it would have improved the well being of so many people, without holding back those who would have wanted to work hard to build and run a business as they could easily employ a large number of low waged part timers who only needed to work 20 hours a week or so to supplement their UBI income and have a decent standard of living as well.

SeanW · 09-02-2019 2:40pm

KyussB wrote: »

So basically they subsidized a business that was underpaying one of their workers below the living wage, and allowed that business to pocket the money at the cost of the public, leaving the public purse to take up the slack.

No. UBI covers the basics. If you work after getting UBI it's because your employer is making it worth your while - remember with UBI covering your basic costs, you could just sleep late every day and play videogames if you want.

Think about it - if your basic needs are met and you can have an enojyable albeit not glamorous lifestyle not working, and someone offers you a job at €1/hour, would that be worth it?

As predicted, the Basic Income turns into a business subsidy - no wonder the policy is enormously popular among major tech business owners. A much more appropriate policy, being to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.

UBI will be necessary if we get to a point where automation/outsourcing destroys many more jobs without there being new ones to replace them for the affected workers.

Additionally, UBI could be trialled early with people that are at genuine disadvantage. For example, in the U.S. people with criminal records have a very difficult time finding work, even volunteer work! If you're there and have a record, it will be difficult even to give away your labour for free! Not going to into a long story but I read a story on FB from a friend of an American family member about a guy who was fired from a VOLUNTEER job at a charity second hand shop. He'd done nothing wrong, but a colleague was stealing from the till so they investigated everyone and found that although he was totally innocent of the thefts, the upper management found out he'd had a record, so, adios amigo. UBI there would be good because not only would it excuse people from trying to do the impossible, but it might give them some better options than collecting welfare that they lose if they do get a few hours at some lousy job.

UBI for the poor is a much better policy than higher minimum wage because higher minimum wages destroy jobs. In the US for example, and here in Europe, we've had very low interest rates to make capital projects more appealing, and relatively high minimum wages (which have only ever fueled a wage-inflation cycle). The result? A.I. in the factory and self-ordering kiosks in McDonalds.

If we ever get to a nightmare situation where people en-masse cannot improve their lives through work, we'll be forced with the choice between UBI and Bolshevism, a world run by the likes of Stalin, Mao, or Alexandra Ocazio Cortez, who is basically Nicholas Maduro in heels. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which the best option.

mvl · 09-02-2019 2:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Discussing whether foreigners should get UBI is really a diversion from discussing the benefits or otherwise of UBI.

Maybe because having universal in its name can be misleading ?
- I'd think UBI would be more a matter of when/how it gets implemented, as it IS inevitable.

There will always be developed versus rest of the world on the initial implementation, wouldn't you agree ?

09-02-2019 2:49pm

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: Massive SoHO enterprise movements, if it means no bureaucracy paper filling in.
Positve: Spending surge for essential items, mid-range and investments in capital assest for the above
Positve: Tax havens and tax shy loophole capitalists will be hounded to pay for it, no longer a faint 'moral' obligation.

Negative: Massive (huge) sudden gravy-train migration from regions/states towards UBI sub-state/regions
Negative: Gross price inflation, if everyone is buying better brands of bread/milk, up the prices.

Problem is UBI is inevitable regardless. It's an when, not if.

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 worker.

SeanW · 09-02-2019 2:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

They will be fine - they'll just have to pay very well to make it worth someone's effort to deal with the bad conditions.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-02-2019 3:35pm

Worth adding, whilst the emphasis won't only be on creating one-man band enterprises (that's the most beneficial however),
the majority of 'new risk-free work' will be delivered to UBI recepitants, via 'zero-hours-contracts' i.e. The gig-economy.

Directly tied to the introduction of UBI is the rise of automation job replacement.

This risk is linked to economy structures/types and job-related training (constant training is required to avoid replacement).

Interestingly Germany is 6th most at risk within the OECD, and the larger future EU candidate (Turkey) is 3rd most at risk.
Turkey 80m, are at bottom of the pile for overall incidence of job-training.

Agree it would have be an EU-wide rollout, or strict pre-conditions set, else 10s of millions from some areas will make a bee-line for Finland or wherever come 2025+.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 11:32am

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?

Water John · 10-02-2019 11:46am

Dohnjoe, I see you have a bit of reading to do. These points have been very well debated, here and there are plenty links provided by some posters.
Similar points were made 100 years ago when they brought in the OAP.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 12:06pm

Water John wrote: »

Dohnjoe, I see you have a bit of reading to do. These points have been very well debated, here and there are plenty links provided by some posters.
Similar points were made 100 years ago when they brought in the OAP.

Have been reading up on it over the years and following the votes/trials. The answers to those types of questions always seem subjective or incomplete.

mvl · 10-02-2019 12:20pm

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?

Adding one that intrigues me ... where would ppl on UBI live / what type of housing ?

Water John · 10-02-2019 12:49pm

How many people actually consciously choose to live on Unemployment Benefit? Very few is the answer. This is despite it being easier in Ireland to do that for a long time, than most other countries.

UBI is a base, you add whatever income you can or wish to generate onto it. Very handy for self employed who may go trough cycles.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 12:55pm

Water John wrote: »

UBI is a base, you add whatever income you can or wish to generate onto it. Very handy for self employed who may go trough cycles.

What would be a fair amount in Ireland per month?

Water John · 10-02-2019 1:02pm

The whole concept is that all adults get UBI, then any extra is taxed.
It depends what model one settles on, but it seems a base tax of 40% is needed on all income above UBI.
It is a whole rejigging of the system.
UBI would be at a similar level to present day UB.

Dohnjoe · 10-02-2019 1:20pm

Water John wrote: »

The whole concept is that all adults get UBI, then any extra is taxed.

People on a certain income will be paying more in tax to support UBI than they would be receiving via UBI. What percentage of the population would that cover?

mvl · 10-02-2019 1:25pm

Water John wrote: »

How many people actually consciously choose to live on Unemployment Benefit? Very few is the answer. This is despite it being easier in Ireland to do that for a long time, than most other countries.

UBI is a base, you add whatever income you can or wish to generate onto it. Very handy for self employed who may go trough cycles.

but if we're talking about singularity and UBI, majority of humans should be on UBI one day. so in the process, I would think ppl would be given UBI to quit their jobs, and there won't be alternatives, or no ?

Universal basic income trial in Finland

Comments