Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday April 19 2018, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the rainbows-and-unicorns dept.

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


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This discussion has been archived.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) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @10:38PM (#669831)

    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

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 21 2018, @01:03AM (#669869) Journal

    The capitalist part is a constant with value .0000001

    At least you got the sign right.

    it is not necessary to the equation and can be replaced by a host of other economic alternatives

    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.

    The most obvious replacement is worker owned businesses.

    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?

    You khallow are a brainwashed fool. Down with the reds amirite????

    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.