Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:48AM   Printer-friendly
from the now-we-wait-and-watch dept.

Basic Income is a subject that regularly surfaces in Soylent discussions, so here's a story about Finland's impending experiment with it:

Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587 US), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.

Olli Kangas from the Finnish government agency KELA, which is responsible for the country's social benefits, said Monday that the two-year trial with the 2,000 randomly picked citizens who receive unemployment benefits kicked off Jan. 1.

Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.

The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 euros per month, according to official data.

Also at The Guardian and swissinfo.ch.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:44AM (#449313)

    No one grows up wanting to be a toilet cleaner, but (until we have much better robots) someone needs to do the job. Without something like UBI, you can pay these jobs minimum wage and you'll have people willing to do them because they have no other choice.

    I've volunteered to clean toilets, because hey guess what, moron, I can't get paid for it. You have no clue how competitive janitorial jobs are in the real world, egghead. No other choice means you don't have any job anywhere, not even at minimum wage, presumptuous asshole.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:50PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:50PM (#449331) Journal
    Aside from the invective, you've made my point. Would you want to do a janitorial job for minimum wage if your other option was doing nothing and receive enough income to live on? Demand for janitorial jobs would drop a lot if you didn't need a job to survive.
    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:42PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:42PM (#449348)

      Thats where you run into strange definition games and the experiment can be pushed to various local definitions of success or failure.

      For example, "many theoretical models" assume the janitor would continue to get the basic income regardless of other income sources, much as the police don't stop patrolling my neighborhood because I get a pay raise or the DOT doesn't stop repairing streets because incomes are too high.

      So before basic income the janitor got $0 of basic income plus $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending $285 on fixed expenses (a place to sleep, food, laundry) his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $5/wk of "fun living". Now after basic income he gets $250/wk of basic income, plus the same $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending, maybe, $300 on slightly inflated fixed expenses, his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $200/wk of "fun living" which is 40 time more "fun" than he bought before basic income. You're claiming no one will plunge toilets because with a basic income plunging a toilet will be paid by 40 times more fun.

      Now some people close to retirement are going to say "F it" and some will quit and go back to school or work on "art" or "music" or "entrepreneur" or whatever, which is all good. So there's fewer people to plunge, even though plunging toilets is 40 times more desirable work with a BI, so wages MIGHT go up. On the other hand business owners aren't going to allow employees to smile all day so wages MIGHT go down, obviously there's plenty of applicants when the job only pays $5/wk of discretionary income, so I wouldn't be surprised to see many wages collapse down to minimum wage.

      Probably the most interesting effect would be forcing people into contractor relationships where the contracted profit rate is like $1/hr and people are chill with that. The IRS and various state wage/employment departments will absolutely shit a brick when that happens. If, theoretically, you could actually live on BI alone, you have to realize that today there are a hell of a lot of people on the planet living on less than $40/week of discretionary income.

      Another fun definition game to get into is do you allow people with IRS or child support debts to get a penny? I mean if you debtor's prison kill them or force them completely off the grid you get no money from them at all ever again.