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

Related Stories

Finland: Universal Basic Income Planned for Later in 2016 154 comments

Common Dreams reports

As a way to improve living standards and boosts its economy, the nation of Finland is moving closer towards offering[1] all of its adult citizens a basic permanent income of approximately 800 euros per month.

[...] The monthly allotment would replace other existing social benefits, but is an idea long advocated for by progressive-minded social scientists and economists as a solution--counter-intuitive as it may first appear at first--that actually decreases government expenditures while boosting both productivity, quality of life, and unemployment.

[...] The basic income proposal, put forth by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution, known as KELA, would see every adult citizen "receive 800 euros ($876) a month, tax free, that would replace existing benefits. Full implementation would be preceded by a pilot stage, during which the basic income payout would be 550 euros and some benefits would remain."

[...] Under the current welfare system, a person gets less in benefits if they take up temporary, low-paying or part-time work--which can result in an overall loss of income.

[...] As Quartz reports, previous experiments with a basic income have shown promising results:

Everyone in the Canadian town of Dauphin was given a stipend from 1974 to 1979, and though there was a drop in working hours,[PDF] this was mainly because men spent more time in school and women took longer maternity leaves. Meanwhile, when thousands of unemployed people in Uganda were given unsupervised grants of twice their monthly income, working hours increased by 17% and earnings increased by 38%.

[1] Link to The Independent in TFA was redundant IMO.

...and, before anyone shouts SOCIALISM!, this is actually Liberal Democracy (of the Bernie Sanders type).

An actual move toward Socialism would subsidize the formation of worker-owned cooperatives. An initiative to do that was floated in 1980. 5 percent of taxes would have gone into a pool (kinda like USA's Social Security fund). The Finns rejected it. Source: Prof. Richard Wolff


Original Submission

Finland Launches Basic Income Experiment With Jan. 1 Cheques for Those in Pilot Project 108 comments

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Justin Case on Friday April 20 2018, @12:07AM (18 children)

    by Justin Case (4239) on Friday April 20 2018, @12:07AM (#669407) Journal

    I'm using my free money to buy a pickup-truck-load of popcorn and an easy chair.

    Wait, what? Mabel, where's the check?

    Oh, damn, the check didn't come yet. Now what am ah gonna do?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Friday April 20 2018, @12:09AM (17 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday April 20 2018, @12:09AM (#669408) Journal

      Grow your own popcorn, Comrade Justin.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday April 20 2018, @12:13AM (14 children)

        by Justin Case (4239) on Friday April 20 2018, @12:13AM (#669410) Journal

        I figured it out. The letter carrier told me he was going to start drawing basic income. So, no mail today, or tomorrow... or checks for anybody. Who could have seen that one coming?

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday April 20 2018, @12:24AM (13 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday April 20 2018, @12:24AM (#669417)

          You don't seem to be aware of the cost of living in Finland. $690 is survival mode: unpleasant.
          The number is set low to encourage people to supplement that income ASAP with a job, without losing that income as a disincentive.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:40AM (9 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:40AM (#669420)

            And so in the future where automation has taken almost every job, I suppose everyone will just "survive"?

            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday April 20 2018, @12:43AM (2 children)

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday April 20 2018, @12:43AM (#669421) Journal

              They will hunt and eat Amazon-built robots (Amazonk Prometheans).

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:49AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:49AM (#669424)
              Possibly so. Food means power. "It's good to be King!"
            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 20 2018, @01:12AM

              by Arik (4543) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:12AM (#669435) Journal
              "And so in the future where automation has taken almost every job, I suppose everyone will just "survive"?"

              In a future where automation has taken most jobs, people of means will own robots.

              And, really, people in developed countries at least have, and have, for decades. Ovens that regulate themselves replaced bakers, lights that turn themselves on and off replaced lamplighters, robotic horses under the hood (and other places) replaced a host of professions with the general mechanic. We eat meat sliced by machines, shipped by machines, tracked and sorted by machines, harvest by machines from the corpses of cattle that have been (mostly) raised and guarded by machines. You may quibble with how I used the word 'robots' but replace with 'automation' without changing the point. There has to be a transition from living off a job to living via ownership of automation, or yes, everyone left out of that will 'just survive' - or be used as pawns of some sort, perhaps serving as cannon fodder, or competing in the most cut-throat manners possible in order to get gigs in 'entertainment.'

              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:03AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:03AM (#669540)

              No. In the future when all the jobs are taken, everyone will be eating each other since there will not enough government money to cover even the basic survival mode checks. Which is what everyone saying UBI is so perfect fail to realize. If there are no jobs, or not enough jobs, paying into the government to fund the ubi, then wtf is the ubi suppose to do.

              Right NOW in all the test scenarios, the ubi is being funded by normal tax dollars since everyone outside the program is still working and paying taxes.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @01:01PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @01:01PM (#669616)

                If there are no jobs, or not enough jobs, paying into the government to fund the ubi, then wtf is the ubi suppose to do.

                If there is no UBI, what are the robots doing? If nobody has any income, then nobody can buy anything, which means there is no reason to have robots make anything.

              • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:02PM (#669686)

                Not everyone who is paying taxes is earning the money by working. The simplest and most obvious case being property owners renting out their property.

              • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday April 21 2018, @05:17AM

                by deimtee (3272) on Saturday April 21 2018, @05:17AM (#669969) Journal

                The obvious answer is to start taxing wealth. 1% per year should do it. Taxing only (or mainly) income was one of the biggest con jobs ever pulled on the middle and working classes.
                And I don't mean Capital Gains tax either, that is just another form of income. I mean, if you own $10Billion worth of assets, you pay $100Million tax. That's the price of society respecting and protecting your ownership of those assets.

                --
                If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
          • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 20 2018, @04:12AM (1 child)

            by driverless (4770) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:12AM (#669498)

            You don't seem to be aware of the cost of living in Finland. $690 is survival mode: unpleasant.

            Oh, I dunno, for $690 you can buy a ton of Dragster 3000, that's both food and heating all in one. Then all you need is a roof over your head.

            • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 20 2018, @04:15AM

              by driverless (4770) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:15AM (#669501)

              Oh, I dunno, for $690 you can buy a ton of Dragster 3000, that's both food and heating all in one./quote.
              Also entertainment, if you feed it to someone else.

          • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday April 20 2018, @05:16AM

            by legont (4179) on Friday April 20 2018, @05:16AM (#669526)

            Well, any of them could just spend $10 for a 3 hour bus to St. Petersburg, Russia where it is 150% of average salary and just enjoy easy free life with a young blond girl or boy.

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday April 20 2018, @01:04AM (1 child)

        by Sulla (5173) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:04AM (#669431) Journal

        Grow your own... Comrade

        Got a problem with this. I dont know if I should point out a simple
        >communism
        >food

        Or that anything you grow belongs to the state and any grains left over/missed by the threshers also elongs to the state so don't be a thief

        Or that kulak undermine the state and must be destroyed

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday April 20 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday April 20 2018, @12:09AM (#669409)

    How about hiring those software engineers aged 50+ to, I dunno, take the jobs of H1-B holders who are half their age, 1/3 as good, and get paid 1/4 as much.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 20 2018, @01:01AM (2 children)

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:01AM (#669430) Homepage Journal

      I can't blame the companies. Very foolish to pay 4 times the money for 3 times the work. Need to pay our H-1B workers much more. Jobs must be offered to American workers first. Does that make sense? Our H-1B program should include only the most skilled and highest-paid applicants and should never, ever be used to replace American workers. I ordered a FULL REVIEW!!!

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 20 2018, @02:33AM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday April 20 2018, @02:33AM (#669459) Homepage

        I can't blame the welfare queens on disability. In California they make as much as $1500 bucks-ish when you include food programs and other benefits. That's a very livable amount even in California if you have roommates or a small studio in a cheap area. I'd do the same damn thing rather than make less than that working at McDonald's and putting up with abuse and the hi-jinks of minorities all day. No sane person, insanity disability or not, would choose making less and a constant stream of abuse as an alternative to free money to beat one's dick and video-game all day.

        The only problem is getting in on the action now. A member of my family and a couple of my friends were awarded the retard-pension years ago when any quack doctor rubber-stamped the applications. Now, they will fight you and fight you and maybe the courts will grant it to you on your fourth appeal. If you can survive years of appeals and examinations while "being too crazy to" find work. My friend has a good attitude about it, he thinks about it as giving back to the county in the form of creating jobs for counselors and shrinks.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 20 2018, @06:31PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @06:31PM (#669752) Journal

        First, our H1B program should only give H1B status to Americans.

        Second, if we must hire more H1B workers, they need to be US Citizens, born, raised, and employed on American soil.

        Please sign an executive order.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:18AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:18AM (#669414)

    khallow is going to be so disappointed! He was going on constantly about the UBI, just a while ago! But, turns out Marx was right, and capitalism, and even "market socialism" depend of the vast army of the unemployed to make the economy work. Lazy bums! The bums have lost, Mr. Lebowski! Why don't you get a job, sir?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @01:19AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @01:19AM (#669438)

      Uh... no. Capitalism depends on people interact through voluntary agreement, as defined by contracts in advance of interaction. That's it.

      In essence, then, Capitalism depends on people being productive, not unemployed.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday April 20 2018, @04:40AM (1 child)

        by captain normal (2205) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:40AM (#669511)

        "Capitalism depends on people being productive, not unemployed."
        OK...then how do you explain Lawyers, Investors, Politicians, Trustfundians etc seeming to be successful in our so called Capitalist society?

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @04:48AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @04:48AM (#669516) Journal

          OK...then how do you explain Lawyers, Investors, Politicians, Trustfundians etc seeming to be successful in our so called Capitalist society?

          What is there to explain about them? Lawyers - you can lose a lot from a badly worded contract. Investors - it is unproductive if someone has capital that they can't lend to other people. Politicians - society level crap has to be handled somehow in a predictable manner. It's unproductive to destabilize your society. And trustfundians are just an exit strategy for wealth building. Not much point to working hard and such, if the rewards for such aren't going to things you care about.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:39PM (#669602)

        Capitalism depends on people being productive, not unemployed.

        Well, if there is no unemployment, workers might start asking for higher wages... and you can't threat them to get them replaced by someone else.
        Your profit will drop. OTOH unemployed people are subsidized publicly, so that doesn't munch into your private profits.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @02:43AM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @02:43AM (#669463) Journal
      Here, I am! Anyway, I wrote a journal [soylentnews.org] on the matter asking for peoples' opinions on the matter. As you might guess, there were a number of insensitive clods who were more interested in my no-doubt sinister, ulterior motives for the journal than in having an honest discussion. Since, I've heard a bunch of very uncompelling reasons such as not having to work any more or because the lower classes will riot, if they don't get their free shit. Hate to say it, but I don't support UBI these days.

      But, turns out Marx was right, and capitalism, and even "market socialism" depend of the vast army of the unemployed to make the economy work.

      If you're unemployed, you're not working and thus, not generating profit for the capitalist fat cat. Your assertion doesn't make sense even from the Marxist point of view.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @03:16AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @03:16AM (#669482)

        Even you, khallow, can see that the existence of the Lumpenproletariat is to scare the working class into accepting whatever terms the Capitalist masters wish to offer them, or you could end up pushing a grocery cart full of plastic bags, or, living in a van, down by the river [youtube.com]!!

        • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @04:03AM (1 child)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @04:03AM (#669492) Journal

          Even you, khallow, can see that the existence of the Lumpenproletariat is to scare the working class into accepting whatever terms the Capitalist masters wish to offer them

          Can't say that Marx didn't have a sense of theater. Doesn't make his economics viable though.

          As to your assertion, a scared working class saves money rather than spends it. Not good for the narrative.

          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday April 21 2018, @05:30AM

            by deimtee (3272) on Saturday April 21 2018, @05:30AM (#669973) Journal

            As to your assertion, a scared working class saves money rather than spends it. Not good for the narrative.

            While I agree with this in regards to the economy, in something akin to a tragedy of the commons it is still to the benefit of each employer to have their own workforce be too scared to unionise and demand better wages/conditions.

            --
            If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Friday April 20 2018, @12:36AM (2 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday April 20 2018, @12:36AM (#669419) Homepage Journal

    Their Country is dieing, it's sad. Very sad, and bad, situation. But in the U.S.A. we're adding MILLIONS OF JOBS. We should have more people from places like Finland. Not the sick ones (AIDS). Get out before it's too late!!!

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 20 2018, @04:56PM (1 child)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:56PM (#669711)

      But seriously, I remember reading a comment on The Other Site awhile back (2016) about how the politicians in Finland are being particularly fun.

      https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8674435&cid=51387465 [slashdot.org]

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @09:48AM (#670017)

        Damn. I just followed that link back to 'the other site' for the first time in about a year. It has gone seriously bad.
        I can remember when the trolls were nasty but erudite. Now it is just one long crapfest of repetitive shit. A Groundhog Day of boring garbage.

        RIP slashdot, you were one of the best, now you're just a pile of dogshit. You will be missed.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday April 20 2018, @01:04AM (15 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:04AM (#669432) Journal

    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)

      by Justin Case (4239) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:07AM (#669433) Journal

      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

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday April 20 2018, @02:37AM (#669461) Homepage

        Nice! They could call it, "The Affordable Care Act."

        Oh, wait.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday April 20 2018, @04:54AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:54AM (#669519)

        Or we could cut the so-called Defense Budget.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @09:35AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @09:35AM (#669579)

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @02:01PM (#669642) Journal

          The problem is that labour as a means to keep the distribution of wealth somewhat balanced seems to be failing

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @07:38PM (#669783)

            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)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @08:33PM (#669806) Journal

              No, the world has been improving in such a manner since recorded history, capitalism is not some magic force.

              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)

                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.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:44PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:44PM (#669604)

        but then we'd have to raise taxes on the workers.

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @02:04PM (#669645) Journal

          extra tax on pollution/unhealthy food

          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

          by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday April 20 2018, @05:48PM (#669728)

          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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:11AM (#669453)

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:45AM (#669513)

      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

        by Wootery (2341) on Friday April 27 2018, @09:19AM (#672528)

        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.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Friday April 20 2018, @01:47AM (2 children)

    by looorg (578) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:47AM (#669444)

    Overall fairly interesting. Sad that they won't conclude the project before starting to messing with the model. But they seems to be quite clear on a few issues that have popped up. While I'm not completely familiar with the Finnish welfare system I do assume it's somewhat similar to the systems of the other Nordic countries. From that one can fairly easily conclude that the amount offered really isn't high enough and that is probably one of the reasons this isn't really working. There are other social welfare systems that are kicking in that are just more beneficial.

    $690 or 560 euro is just to little. That isn't even an average weekly salary for most employed people so it's just to little. But you are somehow supposed to last a month? You could get more money then this by just going down to Social Services and apply for welfare. You probably have to cause you probably just can't survive on it up here in the north of Europe. If you do apply for welfare benefits all incomes will be deducted so this UBI scheme will have been nullified right there, unless they somehow made a specific exception for it but there are no mention of that. The second option would be that you are long term unemployed but you are still getting some kind of benefit from that, long-term tho is normally reserved for people that have been unemployed here for several years. The amount you get then is tiny and you will once again need social welfare just to survive. What this might do is that it allows the UBI + unemployment benefits to possibly come up to the levels of social welfare so you don't have to apply for it. So all this really does then is save you the hassle of filling in a few forms.

    Did a quick check with KELA/FPA (government agency that handles pensions, welfare, disability pay etc) and the minimum cost of living amount per month is almost twice the UBI amount. So this quite clearly isn't or wasn't supposed to be all that you should live on and your only income source.

    In the first link of the article (SVD, paywalled) we learn something interesting in the first few lines and that is that there was no opt-out. They just picked some people at random from the selected population and then started. She expresses some concern and says she felt it was weird. You don't have to apply or do anything to get it. But as noted you can't really live on this amount alone. If it's her in the image we can assume she has a husband and they have a child. His employment status is unknown but he will bring in something and they would get money for the child - somewhere in the range of 100-200 euros per month. We can conclude that she was long-term unemployed since that was the criteria. The once that pay out unemployment benefits tho might have something to say about the whole "not having to look for work", normally if you don't you would lose your unemployment benefits. If you are on social welfare you are also required to look for jobs. So there are a lot of potential issues here.

    The second link in the article (HBL, paywalled). To short to really learn much. But according to the free sentence they are already looking at other models, apparently the mentioned UK model is apparently the favorite.

    Without workers in the project, researchers are unable to study whether basic income would allow people to make new career moves, or enter training or education.

    This was probably the main interesting part that is missed out. You wanted to see if people would stop their boring work, get a new fun work, or work less. If one assumes that 560 euro is about a week of a normal salary that mean if you got this you could go down in work hours to 75% instead of working full time at no financial loss. You could do something fun with that time, or something productive. One would assume this would actually have been the main potential benefit otherwise they might as well just have called the whole scheme automatic-welfare where they just had hoped to save some time and money on having less Social workers employed to process welfare applications.

    As noted a big problem here might be the Nordic welfare and benefit systems. Assuming they are similar across the Nordic countries if you become unemployed and have paid into your unemployment scheme you could get up to 80% of your previous salary (up to a limit) for about a year, then it gradually starts going down and after a couple of years you would normally be at about social welfare level and then you might as well just switch over to that. There are "unemployment insurance" if you have some really high paying job to break the various limits but you pay for those yourself while you are still employed. They are only really useful if you make a lot of money. So once again 560 euro is more or less chump change for most people. It won't really be a life changing amount.

    To actually live on 560 euro you probably need to get a cheap airplane ticket to some warm third world country. There you could possibly live fine on 560 euro per month. But in Finland? Nope.

    That said I'm fairly sure other countries, possibly even Finland -- the second link seems to indicate as much, might try some other models in a few years or so after proper evaluation as to what went wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:19AM (#669456)

      proper evaluation as to what went wrong.

      Politicians got cold feet is what went wrong. At this point, there's no indication of anything actually wrong with the policy, especially when the full study (to include workers) isn't even going to happen.

    • (Score: 2) by canopic jug on Friday April 20 2018, @04:47AM

      by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @04:47AM (#669515) Journal

      To actually live on 560 euro you probably need to get a cheap airplane ticket to some warm third world country. There you could possibly live fine on 560 euro per month. But in Finland? Nope.

      You might be able to manage 560 a month, for just the rent, if you inherited your own place or bought it via a bankruptcy sale or something similar and have your own cars for you and your family to drive the long commute between there and anywhere you actually need to be and have other funds for that and the parking fees. However, an unofficial estimate is that just the apartment rent alone is over 700 per month.

      There is no information in that particular article about why they actually cancelled the program. It quite likely could have worked 30 years ago in Finland and was definitely needed 25 years ago. However, now everything is privatized that the prices would just adjust accordingly the very next month. Say they raise it to 1000 EUR per month, within the quarter basic housing would readjust up to 1001 per month.

      Any country interested in growing is going to have to invest in growth. All I ever read about anywhere instead is about both politicians and businessmen finding new ways to cut. That leads to more unemployment and far lower quality of service. We haven't begun to see the nasty fallout yet from when individual people realize they will never be able to do the work tasks of three or four people laid on them and ease back en masse.

      --
      Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 20 2018, @02:22AM (8 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @02:22AM (#669457) Journal

    ”Two years is too short a timeframe to be able to draw extensive conclusions from such a vast experiment. We ought to have been given additional time and more money to achieve reliable results,” professor Olli Kangas, one of the experts behind the basic-income trial, told Finland’s public-service broadcaster YLE.

    A lot of people have big ideas that might work, if they are just given more money. Few of them are willing to put their own money up front. Nothing stops Olli Kangas from distributing his own money among the unemployed, or even among Finland's greater population. If it's such a great idea for him to distribute taxpayer money, why won't he distribute his own money?

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 20 2018, @02:46AM (2 children)

      He's a socialist. Socialists deal in Other People's Money, not their own.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @03:26AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @03:26AM (#669483)

        Excuse me, but your money is other people's money, because if it were not their money, they would not accept it from you. Buzzard, you need to start your own, very private currency, so you can keep your vital bodily fluids and fluid assets safe from the violent imposition. I suggest "BuzzardCoin", a crypt currency based on offal and road-kill, an actual libertarian currency stemming where from there are no property rights but what who gets there first!

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 20 2018, @04:49AM (1 child)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:49AM (#669517) Journal

      Yeah sure, because a professor has enough income to pay thousands of people hundreds of Euros each month. </sarcasm>

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @05:56AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @05:56AM (#669533) Journal
        You're saying that he'll need to get a bunch of like-minded people to spring for it? Alright then, better get started!
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:56AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @04:56AM (#669521)

      Because that's not how that works. First off, this pilot didn't fail, it was stopped a year early for political reasons. We won't know for some time whether it worked or not as the numbers haven't yet been crunched.

      Secondly, that's not how monetary policy works. Money that the government spends doesn't ever need to be paid back. Money spent by individuals does. The worst thing that happens is that if you run up a deficit that you wind up with inflation. Potentially a lot of inflation which is why governments generally have taxes that allow them to remove some of the money that they injected into the economy by spending it.

      In this case, the money that they spend in terms of an UBI is would mostly come back in the form of taxes and increased economic activity as the poor usually don't have enough money to where they can throw it under the mattress.

      Honestly, this is why rightwing economic policy invariably fails. It's based upon a bunch of ignorance and a lack of subject area research.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by tangomargarine on Friday April 20 2018, @04:51PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:51PM (#669706)

      Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

      Matthew 19:24

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @06:57AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @06:57AM (#669539)

    This article gives me serious doubts about whether a program like this can work

    The problem is that the alternative is that we continuously move towards a society with fewer and fewer people owning more and more resources, until people get enough and roll out the guillotines.

    Notice how the people *for* UBI are rich, and those against generally aren't... That's because the rich know who's going to be the first to lose their heads.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @01:09PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @01:09PM (#669622) Journal

      Notice how the people *for* UBI are rich, and those against generally aren't... That's because the rich know who's going to be the first to lose their heads.

      I think there's an alternative here not being considered. Namely, that the rich are status signalling here. They can afford UBI. Those against, can't.

      As a practical point, no one in the developed world is losing their head over not having UBI. And we've figured out how to employ most people.

    • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday April 20 2018, @07:05PM

      by crafoo (6639) on Friday April 20 2018, @07:05PM (#669764)

      Well, maybe. But not until they force everyone to disarm and submit fully. and also regain full control and censorship of all communication mediums.

  • (Score: 3, Disagree) by bzipitidoo on Friday April 20 2018, @07:42AM (6 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday April 20 2018, @07:42AM (#669549) Journal

    I'd rather there be jobs for everyone, because it is good for one's self-esteem and health to have something to do that is at least marginally useful. Restart the Depression Era government agencies-- the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Dr Spin on Friday April 20 2018, @09:12AM (4 children)

      by Dr Spin (5239) on Friday April 20 2018, @09:12AM (#669570)

      The theory is that if you have your basic needs met, you can invent your time in a long-term plan to get rich/make money.

      Unofficially, that is what happened a lot in the UK in the 1960's: if you were unemployed (and lied a lot) you could get enough benefits
      to survive on, at the cost of going to the dole office once a fortnight, and signing your name.

      This left you a lot of free time to learn to play the guitar and start a rock band or start a fashion house, or go and live somewhere else where jobs are to be had,
      or become a dope dealer and learn practical capitalism.

      As a result of this, eventually, the economy started booming (the singing 60's, The Beatles and Rolling Stones, etc), and then computers became widely used,
      so it was harder to get away with lying to the dole office, without which your income was inadequate, so you had to turn to organised/disorganised crime.

      Over all, I would say the experiment was a blinding success (although my pop group was a miserable failure). The official data is probably less well informed about reality,
      as the officials in those days had no access to the truth, so many may think otherwise.

      Later, the Socialists were elected to power (Harold Wilson) and the economy tanked.

      --
      Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 20 2018, @01:13PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 20 2018, @01:13PM (#669623) Journal

        This left you a lot of free time to learn to play the guitar and start a rock band or start a fashion house, or go and live somewhere else where jobs are to be had, or become a dope dealer and learn practical capitalism.

        As a result of this, eventually, the economy started booming (the singing 60's, The Beatles and Rolling Stones, etc), and then computers became widely used, so it was harder to get away with lying to the dole office, without which your income was inadequate, so you had to turn to organised/disorganised crime.

        An alternate explanation is that the UK's economy did the inevitable jump upwards after the mess of the Second World War.

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @02:20PM (#669651)

        Easy with the line,
          feeds tiger, other people have,
          different,
          width monitors/viewport than you...

        Just let the computer worry about them.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 20 2018, @04:49PM (1 child)

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday April 20 2018, @04:49PM (#669704)

        Later, the Socialists were elected to power (Harold Wilson) and the economy tanked.

        Heh--how's that for irony? People whose platform is to do these sort of things on purpose fail, while the previous setup accomplished those same goals via incompetence.

        Yes I know I'm probably massively oversimplifying.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @10:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @10:46PM (#669835)

          As seems to very often be the case with politics you end up with corruption and greed dictating behavior. Here is what one site had to say about Harold Wilson https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/29929/Harold+Wilsons+legacy [socialistworker.co.uk]

          Socialist Worker’s Paul Foot argued in a book on Harold Wilson, “The supreme achievement of Harold Wilson has been his ability to proclaim such transparently capitalist policies as stark necessities, not only forced upon British Labour but also adapted by them in the most pragmatically socialist manner.”

          As we should all be painfully aware, labels and campaign promises are hollow words. Look at the actions if you want to make such judgment calls, your oversimplification only serves to bolster the mistaken idea around here that socialism destroys everything. All the evidence points the other way, programs that support the public and prevent massive wealth disparity result in better outcomes.

          Look to the US. The 80s with Reagan destroyed a massive amount of successful social programs, and that trend has continued with de-funding and "accountability" measures that actually cost more and produce worse results. We are now in a situation where the average family struggles to survive and is one disaster away from true crisis. Wheeeee.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @02:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @02:08AM (#669896)

      I'd rather there be jobs for everyone, because it is good for one's self-esteem and health to have something to do that is at least marginally useful.

      So you say, but being extremely introverted, I'd rather sit around watching anime, playing games, and developing free software (Is that useful? Does that count?) all day. Maybe doing busywork is good for your self-esteem, but I don't care about it. Not everyone is eager to waste their time serving corporations and/or governments. I don't buy into this 'You have to do busywork or else you won't be fulfilled!' nonsense. Speak for yourself.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 20 2018, @12:55PM (#669611)

    But not why other than the parliament voted to go in a different direction.
    Without such information it's idiotic to judge the program as a failure. We need results to do that.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday April 20 2018, @01:59PM (2 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday April 20 2018, @01:59PM (#669639) Journal

    A) It wasn't Universal. This could be regarded in two different forms. First, it was a pilot so it did not apply to an entire population. I'm sure certain things can be learned by limited studies, but to get the full effect you have to allow it to apply to all persons and not a limited subset. Second, what little bit of UBI I know (mostly from 60s/70s sci-fi, so I'm ignorant) always had this as a minimum benefit paid to ALL persons, not just the unemployed, and not as a safety net if your income passes below subsistence level. (There was another system I read of a "negative income tax" from Mack Reynolds that sounds much like this.) But such a UBI requires strict price controls so that the added income stream isn't soaked up in inflation. So would a NIT if it become common enough - I don't see how you could give 4-10% of the population a subsistence wage without having the market instinctively react by raising prices by the same fractional amount on everyone to soak up the money.

    Anyhow, it was a pilot, sure. But not a Universally applying program.

    B) It wasn't Basic. As in, from this website [expatistan.com], my best thumbnail calculation says that just on survival mode a person is paying somewhere between $1000-$1500 per month to exist (studio apartment, food, clothing, minor miscellaneous expenses). So $690 isn't basic, it is subsidiary income. Dunno, maybe if someone lives out in the country they could make do, but even a studio apartment in normal area in Helsinki was reported as $1,000 per month.

    And while it was Income, I suppose (and therefore not a triple lie), this was very roughly .007% of Finland's GDP (33.1 million to 245 billion annual GDP but over two years). Doing this experiment was going to break nobody's back.

    As to the submitter's opinion..... I completely disagree that a program like this can work. But no, no country will dare try it on any large scale - beneficial or not (depending on how beneficial is defined) it would upset the status quo too much. A miracle plan tomorrow that found a way around conservation of energy such that all people would immediately have food and adequate shelter for life at zero cost would be rejected as well - people are too wedded to what we have and radical ideas are rejected.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday April 20 2018, @06:04PM

      by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday April 20 2018, @06:04PM (#669739)

      Probably not a large scale, but Canada is also doing a similar experiment [theguardian.com].

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 20 2018, @06:19PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday April 20 2018, @06:19PM (#669748) Journal

      Also, ending a 2-year project at the end of 2 years doesn't really meet the definition of "killing" to me.

  • (Score: 2) by crafoo on Friday April 20 2018, @07:07PM

    by crafoo (6639) on Friday April 20 2018, @07:07PM (#669768)

    Show of hands, who thinks we will get The Lottery before we get a UBI. I think so.
    I don't think either is a particularly good idea.
    The reality of the situation is that as our population grows exponentially, the value of human life decreases exponentially.

(1)