Interesting experiment on basic income in Finland

http://www.economist.com/news/...

It may be too limited to make definite conclusions on but it is interesting. In theory I find a basic income an interesting idea. The size of government can be reduced by just giving everyone a basic income and getting rid of all the many programs run by multiple agencies. If the person then wastes it all on beer that is their problem.



Gilgul said:

http://www.economist.com/news/...

It may be too limited to make definite conclusions on but it is interesting. In theory I find a basic income an interesting idea. The size of government can be reduced by just giving everyone a basic income and getting rid of all the many programs run by multiple agencies. If the person then wastes it all on beer that is their problem.

100% agree. Universal Basic Income is the way to go. If I were in charge of making things happen here, I'd have only these federally funded universal social programs, none of them means-tested:

  • Universal Basic Income cradle to grave (including higher payments for disabled persons)
  • Medicare for all
  • Universal preschool starting at age 2
  • School lunch, breakfast for anyone who wants it, free or discounted.
  • Baby box for all newborns, including coupons for discounts on the list of food currently covered by WIC. Coupons are reusable and expire in two years, at which point child is eligible for universal preschool with free/discounted meals.

That's it. These five programs would take the place of EITC, Food Stamps, Social Security, SSI, unemployment insurance, energy assistance, phone subsidy, Medicaid, college Pell grants, and college loan programs.

Here's a thread from last year on this very topic. Includes background sources.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...



UBI is getting a lot of talk lately from all over and some degree of it comes from the right as well as left. In essence a UBI scheme would obviate all the various administrating agents we currently employ to distribute income. No need for a massive bureaucracy to simply cut a check at a fixed level. For the right, this would check two boxes- getting out of the spoils game and shrinking government.

My view such as it is for "why now" was largely animated by the idea that we will soon see a large jump in frictional unemployment that will end up as permanent unless we fix education in this country- a much larger lift. Technology will quickly create many unemployable individuals etc etc etc.

I then read, among others, a piece titled "false alarmism: technological disruption and the US labor market" that gave me pause. UBI could end up just lowering dynamism in the US economy that up til now has been a great strength.

Glad other countries are trying it. Will be interesting to see what they, and we, can learn.





https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

14 people make 500,000 tons of steel a year at a plant in Austria. It would have taken 1,000 people in the 60's. This is why societies need to be thinking about big issues for the future.


UBI won't solve long term uncompetitiveness. The 986 individuals that would have working in steel went elsewhere. 

Charles Evans yesterday was saying that the amazon/wholefoods tie up may be long term disinflationary. That is looking at just pricing leverage without even thinking about potential automation. So these are not small issues quickly resolved. That said, squeezing inefficiency out of businesses benefits workers who buy the product at lower prices.

This is not to say that it is not terribly disruptive to the people who find themselves "progressed out" of a job. It is. But lowering dynamism (if it occurs under UBI- we shall see, thank you Finland) may very well be a recipe for further loss of growth as other economies fill the gap.

Not small issues- but not time to hit the panic button just yet.


Big scary questions arise about what we are going to do, and how we are going to relate to each other, when most people become disconnected from work, if that happens.  We really are in the age of Future Shock.   


That's possible, if by relating you mean communicating. Companies are going through a large change as they adapt to the idea of the remote worker. For some firms it is great for others it is not.

If by "disconnected from work" you mean that more people will be out of the workforce, technology has consistently been viewed as a threat to workers but it usually ends up not being one. An example that shocked me- there are more bank branch employees today than prior to the creation of the ATM. They just have more specialized skills and knowledge-intensive roles than just counting out money. That took more training and education, but the labor pool responded to the challenge.



I meant on a deeper level.  What is a community of people who get a paycheck every week for doing nothing going to be like?  What is work replaced with?  Fun?  Painting and gardening?  Are large number of people going to drift into self destruction, drugs etc.?  I'm trying to imagine a post-work world.   

Jackson_Fusion said:

That's possible, if by relating you mean communicating. Companies are going through a large change as they adapt to the idea of the remote worker. For some firms it is great for others it is not.

If by "disconnected from work" you mean that more people will be out of the workforce, technology has consistently been viewed as a threat to workers but it usually ends up not being one. An example that shocked me- there are more bank branch employees today than prior to the creation of the ATM. They just have more specialized skills and knowledge-intensive roles than just counting out money. That took more training and education, but the labor pool responded to the challenge.




bub said:

I meant on a deeper level.  What is a community of people who get a paycheck every week for doing nothing going to be like?  What is work replaced with?  Fun?  Painting and gardening?  Are large number of people going to drift into self destruction, drugs etc.?  I'm trying to imagine a post-work world.   

Jackson_Fusion said:

That's possible, if by relating you mean communicating. Companies are going through a large change as they adapt to the idea of the remote worker. For some firms it is great for others it is not.

If by "disconnected from work" you mean that more people will be out of the workforce, technology has consistently been viewed as a threat to workers but it usually ends up not being one. An example that shocked me- there are more bank branch employees today than prior to the creation of the ATM. They just have more specialized skills and knowledge-intensive roles than just counting out money. That took more training and education, but the labor pool responded to the challenge.

That's the aforementioned lack of dynamism at work. However with generous benefits already available in many modern welfare states you already have folks who do that, and you add to that an explicit disincentive to work by means testing. 

Unspoken is the increase in tax revenue that may result by disincentivizing working off the books. It's no secret that there are many who are "on public assistance" who are working their tails off for cash. Ever wonder, o Maplewood, why so many of your service people very much prefer to be paid in cash? It's not just a payroll tax issue.

In any case- as long as their is a welfare state, there will be those who will view  not working as a viable lifestyle. 


I imagine the 'B' in UBI would be basic enough that it pays for food and rent in a very basic home. It should be low enough that there is still an incentive to work and high enough to sustain life with dignity. I think there is a gap between those levels, though some will disagree.

I'm guessing a single person would need about $40K/year, and that sounds like a lot to be giving out to everyone. But it would replace a lot of things such as tax deductions, so it's costs less than the total amount. Who knows what would happen to the cost of living if we had UBI?

Critics of the welfare system say welfare takes away the incentive to work, and that is true to a degree. In fact, it's amazing how many people choose to work for marginally more or even less than welfare pays. To me, this proves people have work ethics even in the absence of an incentive.


bub said:

I meant on a deeper level.  What is a community of people who get a paycheck every week for doing nothing going to be like?  What is work replaced with?  Fun?  Painting and gardening?  Are large number of people going to drift into self destruction, drugs etc.?  I'm trying to imagine a post-work world.    

It will free people up to innovate. Or to work gigs. We're already in a gig economy. It will free people up to quit jobs they hate and seek something more suitable. Or to quit a job to start a business, which otherwise would have been too much of a risk.

In a study of UBI in a town in Canada, the HS graduation rate increased in a town where kids were at risk for dropping out. The idea was that the student didn't have to work while going to school because they got their UBI. Also, hospitalizations dropped and consultations for psychiatric symptoms dropped.

On the Canadian prairie, a basic income experiment

A Canadian City Once Eliminated Poverty And Nearly Everyone Forgot About It

Also, Canada is piloting the idea again, in Ontario:

Canada is betting on a universal basic income to help cities gutted by manufacturing job loss

"... setting the handout at a minimum of three-quarters of Canada’s official poverty line. At that level, a single adult would receive an annual basic income of $16,989, almost double the $8,472 max payment under the province’s current welfare program."

As Tom said, the UBI wouldn't be enough for extravagances. It would be just enough to eat and pay a small rent. In the U.S., 3/4 of the poverty level (the guideline they're using in Canada for the UBI amount) for a household of one person would be $9,045. For a family of four it would be $18,450.


Most of the UBI plans I've read aim to eliminate poverty, not to ensure comfort.  



RobB said:

Most of the UBI plans I've read aim to eliminate poverty, not to ensure comfort.  

Yes, that's the point. To make sure that in a civilized country, nobody is on the street or hungry.


UBI and some variation of Medicaid or Medicare for all go hand in hand for obvious reasons, you can't have people living in a gig economy or bringing up children if health insurance is still tied to employment. The second heaviest weight tied to the American working class is employment-based health insurance (with student loans being the heaviest). Until we can free people from ****** jobs they have to keep working at so their kids can go to the dentist or doctor, the faster our working class can begin working for themselves and lifting their neighbors up.

It really would be interesting to see how industry would change if we untied employment and health insurance.



ridski said:

UBI and some variation of Medicaid or Medicare for all go hand in hand for obvious reasons, you can't have people living in a gig economy or bringing up children if health insurance is still tied to employment. The second heaviest weight tied to the American working class is employment-based health insurance (with student loans being the heaviest). Until we can free people from ****** jobs they have to keep working at so their kids can go to the dentist or doctor, the faster our working class can begin working for themselves and lifting their neighbors up.

It really would be interesting to see how industry would change if we untied employment and health insurance.

EXACTLY. As I said above, this is all we need. We already have the mechanism to do it through ss numbers, and Medicare already exists. Get rid of the rest of the bureaucracy. Nothing means-tested.

  • Universal Basic Income cradle to grave (including higher payments for disabled persons)
  • Medicare for all
  • Universal preschool starting at age 2
  • School lunch, breakfast for anyone who wants it, free or discounted.
  • Baby box for all newborns, including coupons for discounts on the list of food currently covered by WIC. Coupons are reusable and expire in two years, at which point child is eligible for universal preschool with free/discounted meals.



shoshannah for Congress.


Tom_Reingold said:

shoshannah for Congress.

Never. But I have thought a lot about the basics that are needed to get rid of poverty in this country. It will never happen, though. Too many conservatives think that the abiding rule should be "every man for himself."


The silver lining of the Trumpist era is that we realize we are more qualified than the president, so the bar is low. I'd like to see more women and minorities involved in politics. If you won't run for congress, would you consider being on the school board or just a party district leader?

Maybe we can't turn the conservative view around entirely, but we have to chip at it from every direction and at every chance we get to talk about it.



shoshannah said:



ridski said:

UBI and some variation of Medicaid or Medicare for all go hand in hand for obvious reasons, you can't have people living in a gig economy or bringing up children if health insurance is still tied to employment. The second heaviest weight tied to the American working class is employment-based health insurance (with student loans being the heaviest). Until we can free people from ****** jobs they have to keep working at so their kids can go to the dentist or doctor, the faster our working class can begin working for themselves and lifting their neighbors up.

It really would be interesting to see how industry would change if we untied employment and health insurance.

EXACTLY. As I said above, this is all we need. We already have the mechanism to do it through ss numbers, and Medicare already exists. Get rid of the rest of the bureaucracy. Nothing means-tested.


  • Universal Basic Income cradle to grave (including higher payments for disabled persons)
  • Medicare for all
  • Universal preschool starting at age 2
  • School lunch, breakfast for anyone who wants it, free or discounted.
  • Baby box for all newborns, including coupons for discounts on the list of food currently covered by WIC. Coupons are reusable and expire in two years, at which point child is eligible for universal preschool with free/discounted meals.

UBI from 18 onwards. Cradle to grave promotes having children to make more money.

Thinking about it, everything outside of the first two promote that. You're giving everyone money and saying "I don't care how you spend it" then giving people with kids free things because they have kids. It's not fair to those who don't have them. UBI means everyone gets a basic income, surely if you need to spend more on things, you need a higher income, no?


Cradle to grave to save for college. Perhaps it can be put in an escrow account. I really do not think that payments encourage people to have children.

The last three in the list are in-kind benefits. It's for the children. Helps prevent poverty. Helps parents go to work to earn MORE than the UBI. Keeps kids healthy and fed so they can learn. Not fair to people who don't have kids? ? This is about getting it right for the kids. Keeping kids out of poverty. I know that conservatives have a hard time believing this, but it is beneficial to the entire country for us to have healthy, educated kids raised in a family that does not have to worry about childcare. This is not about who gets what. It's about doing what's best for the country.


No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.



Jackson_Fusion said:

The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.

About 3% of GDP

You, me, and Lockheed Martin


Jackson_Fusion said:

No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.

Less than or equal to the cost of maintaining the bureaucracy of dozens means-tested programs we have now. Now worries about fraud because everyone gets the benefit (although I'd propose that one can opt out).

Less than the cost of massive poverty, which we have now.


+10

Jackson_Fusion said:

No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.




Jackson_Fusion said:

No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.

Let's make this multiple choice.

A. As cheaply as possible. The taxpayers through the Government

B. The Market sets the cost. The customer.

C. As cheaply as possible. The customer.

D. The Market sets the cost. The taxpayer through the Government.

E. None of the above.


Now ask the same question with the same choices as to "no one would argue that we shouldn't fight terrorism ...


At some point government will need to consider a tax on capital based value added - aka a robot tax. 


LOST said:


Jackson_Fusion said:

No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.

Let's make this multiple choice.

A. As cheaply as possible. The taxpayers through the Government

B. The Market sets the cost. The customer.

C. As cheaply as possible. The customer.

D. The Market sets the cost. The taxpayer through the Government.

E. None of the above.


Now ask the same question with the same choices as to "no one would argue that we shouldn't fight terrorism ...

That's an excellent point. Why does our current government, as it were, care so much about spending big bucks to combat terrorism?  They clearly believe in survival of the fittest. So the "fittest" I'm sure could create their own bomb shelters. Why do they care if non-rich people get killed by terrorists? They clearly don't care if non-rich people die from lack of medical care or from hunger. Oh, yeah, because spending money to "combat terrorism" is big business. They get rich. Their friends get rich. Nobody gets rich by keeping the citizens healthy, fed, and educated.


RealityForAll said:

+10
Jackson_Fusion said:

No one would argue that it's not better to have a healthy, educated population. Even a sociopath would recognize the personal benefit of such improvements parochial to just themselves. The question is, as always, at what cost, and paid for by whom.

What's the cost of saying, "too bad" to people who can't afford medical care or to feed their children? I don't want to live in a country that that gives a big middle finger to people who can't afford their asthma meds. Or who go bankrupt because they got breast cancer. The cost of that is our soul. The price is our eventual collapse.

Like the old saying goes,

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Latest Jobs

Employment Wanted

Advertisement

Advertise here!