Universal basic income trial in Finland

KyussB · 07-04-2018 1:35pm

I really wish people would stop backing this trojan horse...a Basic Income is no replacement for a job, and the focus needs to be on making sure there are enough jobs.

I mean it's not hard to see how the Basic Income is a weapon that would be used to dismantle the Welfare State and create a business subsidy - replace all welfare with BI, then gut the BI when an economic crisis hits - businesses slash wages over time, by the same amount as the BI payments.

How the fuck do people propose to make the UBI survive an economic crisis, when the government is going to engage in cutting the budget?

I mean please, it's going to be the very first thing on the chopping block...

Come the fuck on - it's not a solution for anything, it's a trojan horse used to subsidize businesses and undermine the welfare system, by first replacing it and then by being cut to ribbons in the first economic crisis that occurs...

There are actual working solutions out there - like funding a program to employ all of the unemployed (with useful training and work - e.g. building infrastructure, or publicly owned housing etc.), instead of pissing it away with free money - and that, publicly funded jobs when the private sector fails, is pretty much the only game in town, if you want to see government funded support against inequality.

I mean look at the state of this countries infrastructure - and people think we're anywhere near a point, where there won't be any work left to do? Complete nonsense. I don't see any mythically advanced AI or automated robots building up our infrastructure or houses, do any of you? It's total bullshit.

The problems with the Basic Income have been well discussed before, and nobody has a solution for avoiding it being turned into a trojan horse. People need jobs and secure employment, not free money that's just going to be siphoned away by smaller paychecks anyway.

All of the 'trials' for Basic Income's are nonsense as well - the most important thing about a BI is its macroeconomic effects, and not a single one of the trials is 'Universal' - i.e. not one of them tests the policies macroeconomic effects, which is the no.1 primary point of criticism of the policy.

It is a dead policy, that if it were enacted would be used to achieve the exact opposite of what it promises - becoming a trojan horse used to perpetuate INequality, and REgressive destruction of the welfare system - and it distracts from far more important policies, that need to take its place in the public discourse, which actually can reduce inequality and promote progressive gains for workers - yet are ignored.

suicide_circus · 07-04-2018 2:51pm

I can't get my head around the concept at all. It must surely involve a complete overhaul of the world's economies, financial systems and social structures. Where does the money come from? How do you prevent inflation?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-04-2018 4:57pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Two things.

1. That will still cause inflation. I'm not bothering explaining if you don't understand how.
2. If nothing changes, why bother?

1) Inflation isn’t as simple as that.
2) the idea is that you can leave the job with fewer repercussions.

Not that I’m certain about UBI

Franz Von Peppercorn · 07-04-2018 4:58pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

How do you prevent inflation?

Supply more goods.

Owryan · 07-04-2018 5:01pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I can't get my head around the concept at all. It must surely involve a complete overhaul of the world's economies, financial systems and social structures. Where does the money come from? How do you prevent inflation?

One way is the removal of say medical cards, instead you have health insurance alongside limited free services.

Tax credits are no more since the ubi element of your income is in effect a credit. Instead you pay tax on everything over the ubi rate.

07-04-2018 5:14pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I can't get my head around the concept at all. It must surely involve a complete overhaul of the world's economies, financial systems and social structures. Where does the money come from? How do you prevent inflation?

It does require a rethink in what people think of "worth" , the concept of work is really a means of rewarding people for doing tasks that they would rather not do, which is a big step up from slavery or serfdom. But what do you do when so many jobs are automated?

You have a surplus of resources (people) and these people are unable to spend money on the products that are being mass produced, bad for business.

It's better to just give people a small amount of money while allowing then to retain their dignity by calling it universal income rather than social welfare.

The elite have to finance this otherwise they have to finance a private army to keep them safe from the dissatisfied population, it is in their interests that the general population have money and are spending as that ensures that they continue to earn a dividend from the businesses they own.

Just looking at this as a "who will pay" perspective is simply too narrow, we are now in a world where robots can do many of the tasks that required huge numbers of people to sweat over in the past. Why not benefit from these advantages, as opposed to continuing the old script of penalising the unemployed as scroungers.

OK we all know that there are a small number that are, and that some game the system, But UBI will render the scams pointless.

The only checks that will be needed would be to ensure that a person does not have more than one social security (or whatever it's called) number.

07-04-2018 5:21pm

Ush1 wrote: »

Two things.

1. That will still cause inflation. I'm not bothering explaining if you don't understand how.
2. If nothing changes, why bother?

It only causes inflation if the supply fails to expand to match demand, in this scenario people will not be going on spending sprees, they'll just be buying better quality products.
Fewer "yellow packs" and more Aldi finest for example.

youreadthat · 07-04-2018 5:26pm

Automation is overstated as a reason for UBI. Most people work for small to medium sized companies that struggle to afford the huge capital costs of automation. And that’s buying mature technologies that have existed for 30 years, let alone stuff released in 2030.

07-04-2018 5:34pm

youreadthat wrote: »

Automation is overstated as a reason for UBI. Most people work for small to medium sized companies that struggle to afford the huge capital costs of automation. And that’s buying mature technologies that have existed for 30 years, let alone stuff released in 2030.

Until your job is lost to a mega factory in China that completely undercuts your business, I agree that there will always be small niches in the market for products that will not scale up enough for automation, but most don't work for these manufacturers, it's service sector that is absorbing all the jobs, but you can only have so many barmen before they outnumber customers.

Water John · 07-04-2018 5:41pm

Some seem to feel, very threatened by the alternative notion of UBI, mainly because it's different than models there are used to and think they know.
An example, of a present model, which if anyone described as a new notion, I would go, WTF?
It happened quite recently to get economies out of the depression after the 2008 collapse. Central Banks printed extra money, in effect, created it, out of thin air, as since the days of Ronald Reagan, it was no longer matched to a precious metal.
The CBs simply gave this new money to the Commercial Banks. They then lent it to customers, like you and me, at an interest rate. They also heavily penalised you, if you defaulted and failed to pay interest on this , new money, which the Bank had actually got for nothing. Moreso, your assets could be seized to repay this new money, that was originally created by CBs, out of thin air.

UBI seems very sensible compared with, that feature of present day economics, called Quantative Easing (QE).

suicide_circus · 07-04-2018 5:46pm

As long as they don't raid my pension fund to finance it

07-04-2018 6:01pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

As long as they don't raid my pension fund to finance it

They won't need to, they'll just tax it somewhere, extra VAT or the like. but in reality it won't be new money (printed out of thin air) but money that would have mostly been paid out in benefits.
Money has been purely faith based since the 1970s when the US dropped the USD - Gold peg, the value of money only exists because we need it to pay taxes and buy goods & services.
Without that faith, a €10 note is just a fancy piece of paper!

german_mark_wallpaper-jpg.2384366

Water John · 07-04-2018 6:16pm

Just try getting your head around Crypto Currency. UBI is very simple.

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:05pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Supply more goods.

Except the UBI pays people to do nothing - providing money without providing a boost in GDP - which is more prone to excessive inflation.

This is why paying people to work instead (aiming for permanent Full Employment), is a far better use of the money - efforts can be directed into boosting GDP.

Water John · 07-04-2018 7:11pm

People spend the money. Especially if they know it's coming again, next week.

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It does require a rethink in what people think of "worth" , the concept of work is really a means of rewarding people for doing tasks that they would rather not do, which is a big step up from slavery or serfdom. But what do you do when so many jobs are automated?

You have a surplus of resources (people) and these people are unable to spend money on the products that are being mass produced, bad for business.

It's better to just give people a small amount of money while allowing then to retain their dignity by calling it universal income rather than social welfare.

The elite have to finance this otherwise they have to finance a private army to keep them safe from the dissatisfied population, it is in their interests that the general population have money and are spending as that ensures that they continue to earn a dividend from the businesses they own.

Just looking at this as a "who will pay" perspective is simply too narrow, we are now in a world where robots can do many of the tasks that required huge numbers of people to sweat over in the past. Why not benefit from these advantages, as opposed to continuing the old script of penalising the unemployed as scroungers.

OK we all know that there are a small number that are, and that some game the system, But UBI will render the scams pointless.

The only checks that will be needed would be to ensure that a person does not have more than one social security (or whatever it's called) number.

Your premise is that there is or will be a lack of work to be done. That premise is wrong - and it will continue to be wrong, permanently into the future.

There will never, in history, be a lack of useful work for people to do - not even AI and automation advances will change that, it will only change the area of useful work that people will focus on.

Don't peddle the myth that AI or automation is going to obsolete work - that's a talking point used to fool people into accepting policies that are against their own (collective) best interests.

You give people jobs and useful work to do, in exchange for money - you don't just give it away for free, people are expected to contribute to society, and that needs to stay the case, and there is always going to be shitload of work to do, that will contribute to society - it will never end.

Dignity is having the guaranteed opportunity to work and earn. The indignity today, is caused by failing to provide everyone with the opportunity to work - when society expects them to - and then humiliating and blaming them, for a predicament which is a failure of society and the economy, rather than the individual people.

The solution is and always will be, providing enough jobs for all - not with free money.

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They won't need to, they'll just tax it somewhere, extra VAT or the like. but in reality it won't be new money (printed out of thin air) but money that would have mostly been paid out in benefits.
Money has been purely faith based since the 1970s when the US dropped the USD - Gold peg, the value of money only exists because we need it to pay taxes and buy goods & services.
Without that faith, a €10 note is just a fancy piece of paper!

The only tax policy I ever see paired with the UBI proposal, is a Flat Tax. Yet another way the UBI is a trojan horse - being used to promote the destruction of progressive taxation.

Even with a Flat Tax, nobody has presented a credible costed plan for the UBI, that doesn't involve printing money.

You can't fund it through taxation, as it's unsustainable.
You can't print and fund it, because you need to boost GDP enough to prevent inflation.

You can print and pay people to work, giving them jobs - as this boosts GDP and prevents inflation. That's why aiming for permanent full employment, is the better and more sustainable policy.

Water John · 07-04-2018 7:18pm

Dignity is about being able to make a positive contribution to society. That does not need to be, in the form of work. Very restrictive thinking. Industrial work actually hasn't been around, that long. About 300 years in UK, much less in other countries. There is no economic law that states the, the available population will always find enough to do fill their work time, in the industrial or post industrial society that we have today.
It is a fallacy to insist for it to be so. You have no proof. It has satisfied the industrial owners of the past, to endow the paid work ethic with extra powers in satisfying the human need.

07-04-2018 7:19pm

KyussB wrote: »

Your premise is that there is or will be a lack of work to be done. That premise is wrong - and it will continue to be wrong, permanently into the future.

There will never, in history, be a lack of useful work for people to do - not even AI and automation advances will change that, it will only change the area of useful work that people will focus on.

Don't peddle the myth that AI or automation is going to obsolete work - that's a talking point used to fool people into accepting policies that are against their own (collective) best interests.

You give people jobs and useful work to do, in exchange for money - you don't just give it away for free, people are expected to contribute to society, and that needs to stay the case, and there is always going to be shitload of work to do, that will contribute to society - it will never end.

Dignity is having the guaranteed opportunity to work and earn. The indignity today, is caused by failing to provide everyone with the opportunity to work - when society expects them to - and then humiliating and blaming them, for a predicament which is a failure of society and the economy, rather than the individual people.

The solution is and always will be, providing enough jobs for all - not with free money.

A classic disciple of the belief that money must be earned!
Yes there will always be work if you intend to pay one man to dig a hole and another one to fill it in, Millions of jobs could be created that way, but you can just give them the money instead, they'll spend it the same way.

07-04-2018 7:26pm

Water John wrote: »

Dignity is about being able to make a positive contribution to society. That does not need to be, in the form of work. Very restrictive thinking. Industrial work actually hasn't been around, that long. About 300 years in UK, much less in other countries. There is no economic law that states the, the available population will always find enough to do fill their work time, in the industrial or post industrial society that we have today.
It is a fallacy to insist for it to be so. You have no proof. It has satisfied the industrial owners of the past, to endow the paid work ethic with extra powers in satisfying the human need.

Your comment reminded me of this story.

There was once a businessman who was sitting by the beach in a small Brazilian village.
As he sat, he saw a Brazilian fisherman rowing a small boat towards the shore having caught quite few big fish.
The businessman was impressed and asked the fisherman, “How long does it take you to catch so many fish?”
The fisherman replied, “Oh, just a short while.”
“Then why don’t you stay longer at sea and catch even more?” The businessman was astonished.
“This is enough to feed my whole family,” the fisherman said.
The businessman then asked, “So, what do you do for the rest of the day?”
The fisherman replied, “Well, I usually wake up early in the morning, go out to sea and catch a few fish, then go back and play with my kids. In the afternoon, I take a nap with my wife, and evening comes, I join my buddies in the village for a drink — we play guitar, sing and dance throughout the night.”
The businessman offered a suggestion to the fisherman.
“I am a PhD in business management. I could help you to become a more successful person. From now on, you should spend more time at sea and try to catch as many fish as possible. When you have saved enough money, you could buy a bigger boat and catch even more fish. Soon you will be able to afford to buy more boats, set up your own company, your own production plant for canned food and distribution network. By then, you will have moved out of this village and to Sao Paulo, where you can set up HQ to manage your other branches.”
The fisherman continues, “And after that?”
The businessman laughs heartily, “After that, you can live like a king in your own house, and when the time is right, you can go public and float your shares in the Stock Exchange, and you will be rich.”
The fisherman asks, “And after that?”
The businessman says, “After that, you can finally retire, you can move to a house by the fishing village, wake up early in the morning, catch a few fish, then return home to play with kids, have a nice afternoon nap with your wife, and when evening comes, you can join your buddies for a drink, play the guitar, sing and dance throughout the night!”
The fisherman was puzzled, “Isn’t that what I am doing now?”

There's more to life than just work(ing for others).

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:29pm

Water John wrote: »

Dignity is about being able to make a positive contribution to society. That does not need to be, in the form of work. Very restrictive thinking. Industrial work actually hasn't been around, that long. About 300 years in UK, much less in other countries. There is no economic law that states the, the available population will always find enough to do fill their work time, in the industrial or post industrial society that we have today.
It is a fallacy to insist for it to be so. You have no proof. It has satisfied the industrial owners of the past, to endow the paid work ethic with extra powers in satisfying the human need.

The UBI doesn't guarantee that anyone getting the money, makes a positive contribution, does it? It pays people who sit on their hole and contribute nothing, as well as those who are destructive to society, equally compared to those who do contribute.

You need an authority (and/or a market system) to decide what is and is not a contribution to society - and to discriminate on who does and does not get paid, and on how much they get paid.

If you want to expand the definition of what a contribution to society is, and include things like intellectual pursuits, art, even just making life better for people socially - then you set up a job program, which decides whether or not these things count as positive work, which verifies that this work takes place - and which pays people for this work.

Expand your definition of what useful/productive work encompasses - don't just give everybody free money, regardless of their contribution to society.

The government is the only authority with the economic power to sustainably pay people for unprofitable work, which contributes to society - it is perfect for that.
A jobs program aimed at permanent Full Employment, can provide everything you want there - and it can do it in an economically sustainable way.

The UBI can not achieve that.

Water John · 07-04-2018 7:32pm

What is the obsession with control? We give every parent, a childrens allowance. Most use it very wisely, a few drink and even others put it, up their nose. We don't have a Dept of Social Welfare Police, checking it use against a list.
Trust humanity.

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A classic disciple of the belief that money must be earned!
Yes there will always be work if you intend to pay one man to dig a hole and another one to fill it in, Millions of jobs could be created that way, but you can just give them the money instead, they'll spend it the same way.

I really hate this 'dig a hole and another to fill it in' stuff - I mean you do understand what you are saying there? You are saying that there is no useful work to be done.

Why the fuck would people be paid to do useless stuff like that? Just look at the state of Ireland's infrastructure and our urgent need for housing - there is enormous amounts of useful work to be done - and a serious lack of effort at engaging in that work, despite still not being at Full Employment yet...

Money being earned, with useful and fulfilling work, is still the best way to manage things economically - and the most sustainable - that's not going to change anytime soon, and the UBI doesn't provide an economically sustainable alternative.

Water John · 07-04-2018 7:39pm

Just by stating your beliefs, emphatically, without proof, doesn't give them any more credence.
So you believe that their is useful work, always available or in need of doing. That is the central tenet of you argument. Proof please.

suicide_circus · 07-04-2018 7:48pm

I thought I was beginning to understand the concept in the abstract but I just can't nail down how it will be executed in practical terms. The money comes from additional taxes and current social welfare budgets while the "elites" give money to the plebs ....what?

I understand how social welfare works but I can't extrapolate a universal version of that which is available to everyone while no one has to work. It's the end of the concept of money isn't it?

Water John · 07-04-2018 7:56pm

People will work. Very few will decide to simply live frugally on it. However, there would be a wider choice of the amount of time and at what you work. For instance you could work 25 hours and that gives you enough to live on. You can use the other time as you wish.
There would be far less, tying the working population to 39 hrs in a job, per week.
The self employed already decide how much they work at what they make their income from. UBI gives an extension of that, to all workers.
UBI opens possibilites and frees a broader population to pursue interests. Certainly I would see it, expanding the whole creative area.

The alternative is to expand the concept of paid work. The parent staying at home. The person who coaches the u12s, all get paid.

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:56pm

Water John wrote: »

Just by stating your beliefs, emphatically, without proof, doesn't give them any more credence.
So you believe that their is useful work, always available or in need of doing. That is the central tenet of you argument. Proof please.

You're aware of the long list of infrastructure and transport projects in need of doing in Dublin and around Ireland, right?

The massive and urgent need for houses to be built - going back years?

The need for an overhaul of our entire power infrastructure and energy efficiency throughout the whole country, in order to reduce our carbon footprint? (and eventually achieve a neutral, and preferably negative, footprint)

I mean for fuck sake, it's not hard to see all the work that needs doing Right. Now. - you see how obstructionist it looks, when you play blind to all that?

KyussB · 07-04-2018 7:59pm

Water John wrote: »

People will work. Very few will decide to simply live frugally on it. However, there would be a wider choice of the amount of time and at what you work. For instance you could work 25 hours and that gives you enough to live on. You can use the other time as you wish.
There would be far less, tying the working population to 39 hrs in a job, per week.
The self employed already decide how much they work at what they make their income from. UBI gives an extension of that, to all workers.
UBI opens possibilites and frees a broader population to pursue interests. Certainly I would see it, expanding the whole creative area.

The alternative is to expand the concept of paid work. The parent staying at home. The person who coaches the u12s, all get paid.

Okey, being self employed and mostly taking it easy myself, I can see the benefit of reduced work hours - but do it in a sustainable way, e.g. the way France limits the working week to 35 hours - the UBI isn't a sustainable way to do that.

I completely agree with expanding the concept of paid work - a jobs program aimed at permanent Full Employment is the way to do that.

Most of the benefits you're looking for through the UBI, can be achieved better in other ways, with a lot more benefits.

Water John · 07-04-2018 8:06pm

Not very long ago, we had too many houses being built. The country needs about 30,000 per year. We hit 90,000 at one stage. Will employ some, but not a lot.
The Eirgrid system is largely upgraded. Very aware of the carbon issue. Enough solar farms to max out the need, could be installed in less than 2 years. 20Mw would take about 100 people to build, in a year.

These are just details you mention and iv'e dealt with. This doesn't deal with the broader thesis. Except you can use the option I mentioned above and broaden the whole definition of what constitutes work that should be paid for.

We might meet a bit, in the middle. I simply don't believe in the need to police it. I trust that most people will use it to enhance their lives and make a better contribution to society. You find it difficult to relenquish that control. I accept a few make lie on their back or go to the bookies with it. But, the same goes for any present day state payments.

Harika · 07-04-2018 8:13pm

For the usefulness of jobs there I can recommend this article http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/
Basically he states that capitalism creates useless jobs, what is contrary to the theory of capitalism. Instead of working 15 hours a week having an impact we work 40 with no impact whatsoever.
I can think of a lot of work, that would be useful, that needs to be done but wouldn't be paid so none is doing it. Instead we are wasting our time doing what has no usefulness but is paid.

Universal basic income trial in Finland

Comments