Universal Basic Income.....

[MMC]

Contrary to universal basic income, however, which advocates say should apply to all citizens regardless of background, Finland's trial is only targeting people in long-term unemployment.


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.


But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits. And Finance Minister Petteri Orpo already has plans for a new project once the basic income pilot concludes in December 2018......snip~


https://nordic.businessinsider.com/F...ome-experiment--



Oh lookie there.....it appears the Finns have a reason.

[Lummy]

It isn't needed now. It may be when robotics becomes overwhelming to job creation. Robotics is just in its infancy now. What to do when they can do almost all jobs? We have to survive some way.

Someday it will be 75% of the work load. What do we do with 75% unemployment? I'm far from a liberal but I'm also far from being blind. It won't be in my lifetime but it will happen. It can't be prevented.

It has to be paid for, of course. I'd say that since labor costs are 50-70 percent of costs that it should be available for the cost of whatever economy we have to design.

Either that or we go all Soylent Green.

They will probably just hunt you down and kill you. There will be enough plausible deniability that nobody will be blamed.

[barb012]

Giving them $500 a month to lose their benefits for food stamps and healthcare, is this the plan? This money will not be enough to pay rent so how is this a step up for them?

[Tahuyaman]

Do you have evidence from the Finnish study to confirm that? As I recall they never really gave a reason.

Ok. Why do You think they nixed the idea? Because it’s sustainable and useful?

[kilgram]

Contrary to universal basic income, however, which advocates say should apply to all citizens regardless of background, Finland's trial is only targeting people in long-term unemployment.


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.


But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits. And Finance Minister Petteri Orpo already has plans for a new project once the basic income pilot concludes in December 2018......snip~


https://nordic.businessinsider.com/F...ome-experiment--



Oh lookie there.....it appears the Finns have a reason.

Were we not talking about UBI? It does not seem an UBI. From the moment that it does not go to everybody independently of the economic situation, it is not an UBI:

An UBI is an ammount that will be earnt independently of your situation. And in that case, it may give you more freedom to get better jobs, for example, and not being forced to take any job.

If it is not targeted to everybody we are talking about something else, like for example, in your Finnish example, we talk about an unemployment subsidy.

PS: And some levels of RBU are implemented in many places. In the Basque Country (Spain) there is also an extended unemployment subsidy, similar to the Finnish, and it has been removed.

[Chris]

As far as I know the UBI project in Finland continues and will finish in 2019. A plan to expand it was rejected.

It's been experimented with for some time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_...ound_the_world, https://futurism.com/images/universa...und-the-world/, with mixed results.

The promise is this. Under the current welfare system, it pays not to seek employment, start a business, etc because you lose the welfare. With UBI, you don't lose it, so there's an incentive to get ahead.

Murray's plan is to implement it sometime in the future. Currently, the cost would be too high. But the rise in the cost of UBI would be less than the rise in the cost of the welfare state, so at some point, it would be less expensive to switch over. Mind, you the system Murray proposes would replace all forms of welfare altogether, and the huge bureaucracy required to maintain it. Mind you, too, his plan is truly universal as all people over a certain age would receive it.

[Hoosier8]

It isn't needed now. It may be when robotics becomes overwhelming to job creation. Robotics is just in its infancy now. What to do when they can do almost all jobs? We have to survive some way.

Someday it will be 75% of the work load. What do we do with 75% unemployment? I'm far from a liberal but I'm also far from being blind. It won't be in my lifetime but it will happen. It can't be prevented.

It has to be paid for, of course. I'd say that since labor costs are 50-70 percent of costs that it should be available for the cost of whatever economy we have to design.

Either that or we go all Soylent Green.

It’s called a paradigm change. Like when manufacturing came along. The jobs change.

[Green Arrow]

Contrary to universal basic income, however, which advocates say should apply to all citizens regardless of background, Finland's trial is only targeting people in long-term unemployment.


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.


But in December last year, the Finnish parliament passed a bill that is taking the country’s welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new ’activation model’ law requires jobseekers to work a minimum of 18 hours for three months – if you don’t manage to find such a job, you lose some of your benefits. And Finance Minister Petteri Orpo already has plans for a new project once the basic income pilot concludes in December 2018......snip~


https://nordic.businessinsider.com/F...ome-experiment--



Oh lookie there.....it appears the Finns have a reason.

The very first words of what you quoted are, “Contrary to universal basic income, however...” which clearly separates UBI and the Finnish plan in question. The Finnish plan was just a new form of unemployment, not a true UBI. It also mentions nothing about it being a failure on its own, but rather that it COMBINED with their existing unemployment benefits made it unsustainable.

[Green Arrow]

Ok. Why do You think they nixed the idea? Because it’s sustainable and useful?

Because they made it just another form of unemployment insurance instead of being an actual UBI, and without replacing their existing unemployment system, it was too much. It didn’t say UBI or even a BI for unemployment were failures.

[Mini Me]

Let's see: Free College...Free Healthcare...Free Housing...Free Food...


...and now...

FREE MONEY!






What's left proglodytes?

FREE SEX! The Hippy Movement is back!Yipee!