SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Unexpected News that nobody could have foreseen.
Since the beginning of last year, 2000 Finns are getting money from the government each month – and they are not expected to do anything in return. The participants, aged 25–58, are all unemployed, and were selected at random by Kela, Finland's social-security institution.
Instead of unemployment benefits, the participants now receive €560, or $690, per month, tax free. Should they find a job during the two-year trial, they still get to keep the money.
While the project is praised internationally for being at the cutting edge of social welfare, back in Finland, decision makers are quietly pulling the brakes, making a U-turn that is taking the project in a whole new direction.
and . . .
Entrepreneurs who have expressed support for UBI include Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, and Google's futurist and engineering director Ray Kurzweil.
These tech moguls recognize that UBI, as well as [combating] poverty, could also help solve the problem of increased robotization in the workforce, a problem they are very much part of creating.
and . . .
The existing unemployment benefits were so high, the Finnish government argued, and the system so rigid, an unemployed person might choose not to take a job as they would risk losing money by doing so – the higher your earnings, the lower your social benefits. The basic income was meant as an incentive for people to start working.
This article gives me serious doubts about whether a program like this can work and whether other countries will try it.
Previously: Finland: Universal Basic Income Planned for Later in 2016
Finland Launches Basic Income Experiment With Jan. 1 Cheques for Those in Pilot Project
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday April 20 2018, @01:04AM (15 children)
Hmmm, I didn't read TFA, barely got through TFS when I read "The participants, aged 25–58, are all unemployed ..."
Basically, this sounds not at all like UBI and exactly like an alternative unemployment benefit. Since it does not get applied universally to all people, only those who aren't working, I would expect it to be unpopular.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday April 20 2018, @01:07AM (11 children)
Well we could give everybody a free $690, but then we'd have to raise taxes on the workers. I estimate $6,900 additional tax should do it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 20 2018, @02:37AM
Nice! They could call it, "The Affordable Care Act."
Oh, wait.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday April 20 2018, @04:54AM
Or we could cut the so-called Defense Budget.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @09:35AM (5 children)
No, you'd have to raise taxes where all the wealth is accumulating. The problem is that labour as a means to keep the distribution of wealth somewhat balanced seems to be failing, most likely because an increasing part of what needs to be done to keep us confortable is being done by machines. If UBI is to be a solution to that it needs to be funded from where the wealth is going, not from where it is already disappearing from, that won't solve anything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @02:01PM (4 children)
It's working well on a global scale. I'd look at domestic policy first before blaming something that isn't actually failing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:38PM (3 children)
No, the world has been improving in such a manner since recorded history, capitalism is not some magic force. I would say the world has been getting better despite capitalism, and on the flip-side environmental pollution and out of control growth are what might literally kill off humanity.
THANKS CAPITALISM!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @08:33PM (2 children)
You have to look at the slope, not just the sign. It's like claiming that the internet hasn't been all that important to global communication because we've been improving our communication technologies since recorded history while ignoring that nearly free, global, instantaneous communication has only been possible in the last few decades.
Here, from 1988 to 2008, two thirds of humanity increased [voxeu.org] their wages by at least 30% in wages adjusted for inflation and cost of living. That wasn't evenly distributed, but you still have things like China tripling its wages in that time period.
There is no comparable period in recorded history. This isn't just some dudes living in China or a Middle East empire having a few good decades. This is the entire world.
So what's responsible? Well, the countries that are doing particularly well, all have some characteristics in common. They're either democratic or becoming more democratic. They're technologically advanced with a lot of effort devoted to R&D. They engage in a lot of global trade. And they're capitalist. You do the math.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)
The capitalist part is a constant with value .0000001, it is not necessary to the equation and can be replaced by a host of other economic alternatives. The most obvious replacement is worker owned businesses. The downside? Very few people would have their own private jets / mega-yachts. I'm crying crocodile tears for these poor souls deprived of their multimillion dollar toys.
Upside? Corporate jets that any worker can rent out, etc.
You khallow are a brainwashed fool. Down with the reds amirite????
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 21 2018, @01:03AM
At least you got the sign right.
You know, we've been kicking around a long time. You'd think those "host" of alternatives would have turned up by now.
But ok, let's suppose alternatives exist. You still have the problem that you're implying here a far greater positive impact for capitalism than your constant factor of ".0000001". One doesn't bother to "replace" harmful or zero value activities ("I'm no longer drilling holes in my head, because snorting lit firecrackers was the better option."). One simply just doesn't do them.
That's why worker-owned businesses were left in the dust in China over the past thirty years, right? Sure, there's some big worker-owned businesses in China, but most businesses aren't that way. I'm being trolled, right?
That's a serious case of projection you got there. Why don't you look for evidence to support your claims next time? It's pretty clear that you haven't thought about this. There's a lot of evidence out there showing massive improvement in the human condition. You can even see this just by looking at city skylines, then versus now. Come on, try it out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:44PM (2 children)
Why tax workers?... there are other things you could raise taxes on. VAT on luxurious products, extra tax on pollution/unhealthy food, have international companies pay a little tax instead of nothing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @02:04PM
Tax on pollution would be to normalize the behavior so that it is in line with the externalities it creates. And sin taxes (like extra taxes on "unhealthy" food) have no place in a rational government. It shouldn't be their business in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday April 20 2018, @05:48PM
To me, it seems obvious that taxing job-stealing robots (whatever those are) is the way to fund UBI. After all, if the program is created to combat the loss of jobs to robots, it stands to reason that they should fund it. It's analogous to funding environmental clean-up with a tax on pollution. This is just another way of dealing with externalities.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:11AM
The plan was to extend it to workers as well next year, but the government decided to pull funding for the research entirely instead.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:45AM (1 child)
It was a pilot, which is why it didn't extend to everybody.
And the whole concept of the UBI is more or less a replacement for the currently existing welfare programs. One of the big improvements on this was that the jobless could keep the benefits after finding work, which meant that there was some additional cushion even after being hired.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday April 27 2018, @09:19AM
It's a meaningless pilot if there's such a selection bias.
The whole point of universal basic income is to contrast it against other forms of welfare. If all participants are unemployed out of the gate, the 'pilot' is close to meaningless.