Finland: Did the basic income experiment work?

[Weeps]

Mega-tax the very rich, and give a basic income to the entire planet. And if the very rich don't comply it's time to bring back the 1789 guillotines.

There's actually a coined term that I saw somewhere, "Guillotine Insurance."

Basically, give the poor what they need and just enough to make them happy. That way they won't throw you under the guillotine like Marie Antoinette and her cuckhold King.

In today's time, that would be:

Universal Healthcare
UBI

These two are "guillotine insurance."

But of course you'll have pseudo-economists pretending ("conservatives") to know what they're talking about, shitting down these ideas.

[zorkuus]

it's just the truth.

Did I stutter?

[fothwothe]

These are failed rehashed ideas of the communist systems of old. They had universal income in the Soviet Union it failed miserably.

No, they didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

UBI is for lazy people who want to stay at home and play video games and watch TV all day. No one with a good worth ethic thinks UBI is a good idea.

Er....Grandad, Twitch is worth billions. A successful streamer is doing more for the economy than some guy in a factory making a futile attempt to manufacture a product the Chinese can do for a hundredth of the labour cost.

- - - Updated - - -

The main obstacle of UBI is societal acceptance. Far too long have people defined themselves over their jobs and their income while looking down on the people less fortunate.

That's a good point. There's a lot of people on this forum who simply define themselves by money. Give everyone a pot of money and their identity ceases to exist.

[Monster Hunter]

There won't be proper results published till the end of 2020 so it's pretty hard to know at this point in time.

Anecdotal evidence I have seen tends to suggest it has worked reasonably well.

It's biggest hurdle (not just in Finland) still remains ideologically motivated politicians and bureaucrats.

Yes there's the ideological hurdle but I don't see it as a problem.

This fundementaly isn't about making some next step in the social security system. It's a look at a possible solution to when AI becomes advanced enough that it can do most jobs and learn to do any new jobs faster than humans. At that point we need to see what humans will actually do if given a static income and left to use it how they want.

Historically when most people in a society don't have much to do during the day, they tend to get a bit rioty and a bit revolutionary.

So this experiment is important to see if given money the majority will use it to find constructive ways of keeping occupied or not.

- - - Updated - - -

You're moving goalposts. First, you stated "the economy", now you're trying to restrict it to a local scope.

This isn't something that has anything to do with UBI, you're arguing against a global economy. Which is already a fact, and one that isn't really ever going to go away, not unless we bomb ourselves back into the Middle Ages, technologically speaking. It's an inevitable outcome of modern transport technologies.



And it is. Your attempt to move goalposts, above, doesn't change that.

Tbh aside from bombs if we're gonna fuck our selves back the middle ages it will probly resemble the shit that fucked us up at the end of the bronze age.

I mean that's some scary shit. You had 4 advanced powers at the end of the bronze age with an interconnected global ish trade system, governments and society's that put the classic period to shame and wouldn't really be replicated till the 20th century.

And were still not 100% sure wtf happened that sent them from that to forgetting how to write in the space of a generation

[Endus]

Yes there's the ideological hurdle but I don't see it as a problem.

This fundementaly isn't about making some next step in the social security system. It's a look at a possible solution to when AI becomes advanced enough that it can do most jobs and learn to do any new jobs faster than humans. At that point we need to see what humans will actually do if given a static income and left to use it how they want.

Historically when most people in a society don't have much to do during the day, they tend to get a bit rioty and a bit revolutionary.

So this experiment is important to see if given money the majority will use it to find constructive ways of keeping occupied or not.

More specifically, it's about addressing weaknesses in the current economic pattern in the developed world. Poverty exists throughout, as do the incredibly wealthy; wealth inequality is a problem everywhere, though more so in some nations than others. Gluttonous excess lives right alongside those going hungry.

That's a distribution and effectiveness problem. An economy should, in an ideal world, support those members of society who compose it, and provide opportunity for new ideas to come forth and challenge the old, to create an incentive to improve over time. Now, "those members of society who compose [the economy]", that's everyone. If you're a consumer, you're a contributor to that economy. Doesn't matter if you're a housewife or unemployed or whatever. There are a tiny few who live on the fringes, the inveterate homeless for example, but they're a vanishingly small percentage.

UBI attempts to do this "better". By ensuring every member of the economy is able to engage in basic consumer activity, and not suffer hardship, it helps protect that economy, and does its job better than the current system. The wealthy may be less-wealthy, but as long as their businesses still turn profits, the only effect this could have on the economy is a small reduction in demand for some of the most ridiculously overpriced items on offer. But this is vastly offset by the increased demand for normal consumer items created by giving those currently in poverty a higher spending capacity.

The AI thing is a likely risk, but there's plenty of reason to support a UBI even without that.

A consumer-based economy needs two things; it needs producers, creating consumer goods. And it needs consumers, buying those consumer goods. It does not, fundamentally, need human workers to do the producing. That only exists to serve as a means by which to take money from producers, and pass it back to the consumers, via paychecks to workers. We can replace that entire leg of the cycle with a UBI, theoretically, if we have AI sufficient to replace human labor.

The idea that wage-earning for labor is a necessary component of an economy is just . . . wrong. It's how we've done things, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

[zenkai]

Did I stutter?

Nope, you just don't make sense, but that's what I have come to expect from your post.

[fothwothe]

I'm not against UBI, humans are just exploitative and I don't think it will work due to that reason. UBI -> inflation -> cost of goods and services increases -> cost of living is now higher, rendering UBI essentially useless.

You do understand that ever since the financial crisis governments around the globe have been printing trillions and giving it to bankers?

I think the general public could do more profitable things with the money frankly.

[Shaderas]

UBI is for lazy people who want to stay at home and play video games and watch TV all day. No one with a good worth ethic thinks UBI is a good idea.

Wow, what terrible generalizations and blanket statements. Good job jumping to conclusions on the behalf of other hard working people!

[Monster Hunter]

More specifically, it's about addressing weaknesses in the current economic pattern in the developed world. Poverty exists throughout, as do the incredibly wealthy; wealth inequality is a problem everywhere, though more so in some nations than others. Gluttonous excess lives right alongside those going hungry.

That's a distribution and effectiveness problem. An economy should, in an ideal world, support those members of society who compose it, and provide opportunity for new ideas to come forth and challenge the old, to create an incentive to improve over time. Now, "those members of society who compose [the economy]", that's everyone. If you're a consumer, you're a contributor to that economy. Doesn't matter if you're a housewife or unemployed or whatever. There are a tiny few who live on the fringes, the inveterate homeless for example, but they're a vanishingly small percentage.

UBI attempts to do this "better". By ensuring every member of the economy is able to engage in basic consumer activity, and not suffer hardship, it helps protect that economy, and does its job better than the current system. The wealthy may be less-wealthy, but as long as their businesses still turn profits, the only effect this could have on the economy is a small reduction in demand for some of the most ridiculously overpriced items on offer. But this is vastly offset by the increased demand for normal consumer items created by giving those currently in poverty a higher spending capacity.

The AI thing is a likely risk, but there's plenty of reason to support a UBI even without that.

A consumer-based economy needs two things; it needs producers, creating consumer goods. And it needs consumers, buying those consumer goods. It does not, fundamentally, need human workers to do the producing. That only exists to serve as a means by which to take money from producers, and pass it back to the consumers, via paychecks to workers. We can replace that entire leg of the cycle with a UBI, theoretically, if we have AI sufficient to replace human labor.

The idea that wage-earning for labor is a necessary component of an economy is just . . . wrong. It's how we've done things, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to do it.

i agree.

I mean for me i look at it from the perspective of our current economy that primarily uses wage-earning for labor as the driver for the consumerism that keeps our economy going, if AI reaches the point where its simply just better than humans for labor we need an alternative way to put buying power into the people's hands, because the super rich do spend but its the averedge consumer that really makes up the bulk of a nations buying power. and to me this the best of the solutions (if it works without any negative implications) that we must inevitable implement, so the politics of it for me is redundant as at some point it wont be a political choice but a necessity.

but your argument is perfectly valid for introducing it well before then. and is similar to the right wing argument for universal healthcare (yea outside the U.S that is a thing). and to save the boring spiel on why universal healthcare is good for the economy, the argument is that the end result is increased consumer wealth.

[zorkuus]

Nope, you just don't make sense, but that's what I have come to expect from your post.

So the problem here is you were unable to understand the reply. That's not on me.

[FuxieDK]

6 mins

Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.

LOL... No one will do anything for that kind of pocket money..

In Denmark, unemployment benefit is 573 Euro... PER WEEK.. 560 Euro per month will not encourage anyoen to do anything.. Finland, like Denmark, is a Nordic country, which have high wages and high expenses.. 560 Euro per month is basically spitting in your face.

[zorkuus]

LOL... No one will do anything for that kind of pocket money..

In Denmark, unemployment benefit is 573 Euro... PER WEEK.. 560 Euro per month will not encourage anyoen to do anything.. Finland, like Denmark, is a Nordic country, which have high wages and high expenses.. 560 Euro per month is basically spitting in your face.

Talk about misunderstanding. You still get stuff like welfare for housing etc. on top of that 560 €. Ofc no one would be able to live with only 560 € here.

[FuxieDK]

Talk about misunderstanding. You still get stuff like welfare for housing etc. on top of that 560 €. Ofc no one would be able to live with only 560 € here.

Basic Income (the idea, anyway) is a substitute for all other forms of passive income, but at the same time, it's meant to be givien to all individuals (over 18).

[zorkuus]

Basic Income (the idea, anyway) is a substitute for all other forms of passive income.

That is why this is only an experiment.

[FuxieDK]

That is why this is only an experiment.

I know... But as I stated, the amount meant to substitute passive income is less per month, that what we get here per week...
and Denmark and Finland have comparable expense levels.

[Projectmars]

Especially as automation continues to replace people.

This, imo, is the main reasoning for us needing UBI. We're inventing our way to replacing workers with machines in most industries.

[zorkuus]

I know... But as I stated, the amount meant to substitute passive income is less per month, that what we get here per week...

No it's not, I already explained why. It doesn't cover everything because it's not meant to cover everything. This 560 € experiment is a substitute to only unemployment benefit which is entirely its own thing, seperate from all the other forms of passive income (you don't lose them with this).

[Dudenoso]

This, imo, is the main reasoning for us needing UBI. We're inventing our way to replacing workers with machines in most industries.

UBI or some sort of variant seems to me an intuitive answer to post-scarcity and/or automation. When everything essential to life is done with very little need for human intervention, just how much should humanity be fine with artificially making it harder to survive?

[Azadina]

So it's basically a huge conspiracy to turn the entire world extremely poor, with no middle class?

How are we, who are neither rich nor poor, supposed to gain something from that system? All we do is lose.

I have a decently paid job now that requires no uni studies (graphical layout artist), which probably has a decent risk of going away to automation in the future. I've tried uni studies before, but the whole independence and responsibility thing? I can't do that. Why should I get fucked in the ass and be forced to live on 100 dollars a month? when I earn 30 times that and contribute well to society?

I hope this is just something that will happen in the far-away future, because if that comes to pass we will be fucked as there will only be rich people and extremely poor people, and no in-between.

It's not supposed to be something you just sit on and enjoy life at home. It's supposed to supplement income. If you want to sit on that wage and stay home, then yes, poverty is all you'll know.

[Deathknightish]

It's not supposed to be something you just sit on and enjoy life at home. It's supposed to supplement income. If you want to sit on that wage and stay home, then yes, poverty is all you'll know.

Got it. I understood UBI as something that will replace normal wages as jobs disappear because robots take over. Then it might be good.