Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs?

faithful_servant said:

Yes it is, but it also reflects the idiocy of such a plan. Make it so that people don't need to work and people won't work.

Click to expand...

I'm not endorsing the idea (I need more study), but giving people a small stipend to keep them from starving won't motivate people that want to work not to work. True, some people are lazy and have no ambition. They wouldn't live very well.

Lafayette said:

Thanks for underscoring that point.

We cannot say it often enough in this particular forum - that there is something better than bashing out pots-'n-pans (my favorite analogy) on the shop floor.

Because my mother put together sunglasses on the "shop-floor" and came home tired for doing it. She did NOT winter in Florida like the owners of the company - both my parents saved theirs to put their kids through university.

When I say that to French colleagues, they are amazed. Most are younger than I am, and they cannot understand a time and a place where someone might have to pay one-hulluva-lotta-moulah for a postsecondary education ...

Click to expand...

It's a good point, and I think something people overlook in these discussions that doing this doesn't mean there will stop being people who make glasses!

Yes, machines can make us our cheap glasses for people who don't want or can't afford expensive ones. But there are creative people who love to design things like that.

Some of these people don't get to create beautiful goods, because the industrial economy won't let them. There's no way for them to survive as a small crafter, for one reason or another. So instead, they pump out cheap crap in a factory as the closest they can get to their dream, or they just do some other career entirely that they don't care about and thus don't do very well.

This sort of new economy doesn't just free them from working insane hours for nothing in some depressing factory.

It also frees them to create beautiful things, and frees more of us to buy it from them.

There's something fundamentally different about a hand-made good, made by someone who not only loves what they do. but is a happy human being who can take time off when they need it and work the amount of hours that they can manage. The entire premise of someplace like Etsy is that people love to pay for beautiful things made by talented and happy people.

But most people can't afford to do what they love. And most of us can't afford to support the few who can.

The industrial age has been about denying the role that human self-care and communication plays in making a good society that works for the people living in it. It's all numbers: GDP, output, profit, etc. Crafters, artists, charity, and hands-on pursuits are all degraded in the industrial worldview, and the fact that humans are mental creatures is denied. Enjoying being alive is something you're supposed to suffer for and beg your wealthy masters to allow you a moment of, rather than something you have a right to pursue as a human being.

And yet, the countries with the highest GDP and profit also have the most depression, isolation, and stress-related disease. The industrial economy has brought us more money (well, some of us anyway), but it hasn't made our lives better.

Humans need to feel personally productive to be healthy and happy -- something we don't get in a factory, mindlessly pulling a lever a thousand times a day, or even in a cubicle pushing around meaningless pieces of paper (I never felt more physically unhealthy and depressed than when I worked in a cubicle actually). We get that from being involved in our communities, and from doing things with our own bodies and hands to completion.

What that looks like is going to be different for each individual. But for some, it will be making beautiful glasses that no machine ever could.

Lafayette said:

From the Guardian: Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?

Excerpt:

Not to mention the fact that it just might prevent crime often prompted by extended unemployment.

This idea will never take root in a Replicant administration as exists today. It nonetheless responds to a Real Need (and not only in the Europe).

It could have happened under a Hillary (PotUS) and Bernie (Secretary of Labor) AND a Dem-Congress.

(Gimme a break! I can dream, can't I? ;^)

Click to expand...

Finland is not alone. New Zealand has had this topic of discussion as well. I notice no one as yet has linked to any study on the idea so here is such a link.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/4208/attachments/original/1461211267/Background_Paper_-_A_Universal_Basic_Income_for_New_Zealand.pdf?1461211267

It deals with nz but it can be translated to america as well with probably a few differing points.

Between 1968 and 1978, four income maintenance experiments were conducted
in the United States; in New Jersey (NJIME); in Seattle (SIME) and Denver
(DIME); in rural areas in North Carolina and Iowa (RIME); and in Gary, Indiana
(GIME). While the system tested here was a Negative Income Tax rather than a
UBI, many of the basic tenets of the system are similar in that a minimum level
of income is guaranteed by the government, leading to, arguably, similar effects
on society and on individual choice. The most important of the differences
between the schemes being that under this system, the more one earns the less
one receives in the form of welfare pay-outs while benefits are not abated at all
under a UBI. This has the consequence that, in the American pilot programmes,
participants were suspected to have underreported the hours they worked, and
thus their earnings, in order to receive increased benefits.23 The impacts found
were:
! Men reduced their working hours by an average of 7%, and women by 17%
(although this may have been over-estimated). This was mainly a reduction
in hours worked rather than people quitting their jobs.
! The marital breakup rate rose between 17% and 31% among participants. (It
is difficult to assess whether the breakup rate increased excessively, or
reached the level it ought to have been at by allowing people to escape
relationships that should have ended. )
! Expenditure rose moderately with the increased income from the welfare
benefits but the pattern of these expenditures did not change i.e. no
increased purchasing of alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs.
! Participants received their payments regardless of their location, and were
subsequently 50% more likely to move home.
! The reduction in hours worked by young people was offset almost entirely
by increased school and tertiary education attendance although there was
no discernible impact on academic performance.24

Click to expand...

By the way, for those criticizing the work disincentive posited by a minimum/basic income, in the experiments run thus far, the impact on hours worked has been positive (at best), or slightly negative (at worst).

If anyone has conclusive evidence demonstrating a significant and sustained negative impact on productivity and work and the economy at large, I'm very interested in seeing it.

Surrealistik said:

By the way, for those criticizing the work disincentive posited by a minimum/basic income, in the experiments run thus far, the impact on hours worked has been positive (at best), or slightly negative (at worst).

If anyone has conclusive evidence demonstrating a significant and sustained negative impact on productivity and work and the economy at large, I'm very interested in seeing it.

Click to expand...

which has yet to be addressed. the cost would be 2.8 trillion dollars.
who is going to pay that?

on top of the free healthcare which is another 4 trillion dollars or so
on top of the free college which more trillions of dollars.

WHO pays for any of this stuff?

people are free everything thinking money just grows on tree's.

Surrealistik said:

By the way, for those criticizing the work disincentive posited by a minimum/basic income, in the experiments run thus far, the impact on hours worked has been positive (at best), or slightly negative (at worst).

If anyone has conclusive evidence demonstrating a significant and sustained negative impact on productivity and work and the economy at large, I'm very interested in seeing it.

Click to expand...

The link i gave mentioned at least one that is negative. That being that the ubi was set at the more a person earned the less assistance they got. With the result of:

Men reduced their working hours by an average of 7%, and women by 17%
(although this may have been over-estimated). This was mainly a reduction
in hours worked rather than people quitting their jobs.

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

The link i gave mentioned at least one that is negative. That being that the ubi was set at the more a person earned the less assistance they got. With the result of:

Click to expand...

I'll check it out in a bit; currently at work, but so far as I can see with a once over, it seems about consistent with the slight decrease in work hours I noted among the negative instances of the MI impact.

ludin said:

thank you for not refuting anything I said you ad hominem fallacy is noted though.

so why should my family have to suffer a lesser quality of life? why should my work not be there to advance my family?
that is why I work not so someone else can't work.

5.8 million job out there. if someone can't find a job there is a problem with them.

actually it is relevant. it shows what happens when you put out actual effort and don't sit back and wait for something to happen.

Click to expand...

Blah, blah blah ...

Surrealistik said:

I'll check it out in a bit; currently at work, but so far as I can see with a once over, it seems about consistent with the slight decrease in work hours I noted among the negative instances of the MI impact.

Click to expand...

I only quoted a part of that paper that talked about a few experiments in america. It is a minor negative that would be expected. I could also argue that the ubi just made it possible to reduce hours because some workers would do "make work" jobs that were unnecessary only because they needed the money.

Surrealistik said:

Hillary is not a progressive by any objective measure when taking into account what economic progressivism actually is in the rest of the first world; just compare her stances and politics to your average centrist northern european or Scandinavian politician, nevermind the leftists. As someone who is apparently French and follows American politics you should know this well.

Click to expand...

You are either jealous or have a warped sense of proportions.

Anyway your insights are "ad hominem " and this case, "ad feminem" ...

ludin said:

5.8 million job out there. if someone can't find a job there is a problem with them.

actually it is relevant. it shows what happens when you put out actual effort and don't sit back and wait for something to happen.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand that the whole concept of employment is changing. The advances in machinery are removing what was once considered normal labour. Not that long ago it was considered quite normal for a person to enter a job and stay there for life. Now days nearly every person in the job market will experience some time out of employment or changing careers at some point.

If you attempt the good enough for my grandfather, good enough for my father , so good enough for me type of argument. You are ignoring the reality around you.

soylentgreen said:

I only quoted a part of that paper that talked about a few experiments in america. It is a minor negative that would be expected. I could also argue that the ubi just made it possible to reduce hours because some workers would do "make work" jobs that were unnecessary only because they needed the money.

Click to expand...

For sure; not to mention that hours that were put towards work could be put towards education and other productive ventures instead, which is why a sustained, long term negative drag on the economy, or severe reduction in hours worked and productivity has to be demonstrated and attributable to MI for the usual criticisms to really have any substance.

Lafayette said:

You are either jealous or have a warped sense of proportions.

Anyway your insights are "ad hominem " and this case, "ad feminem" ...

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, since her crash and burn in 2016 and subsequent death of her political career there isn't much to be jealous of.

The simple, indisputable fact is that no, as the rest of the first world goes, she is not an economic progressive, especially when we're using Europe and the Commonwealth as the barometer; why is this so difficult for you to admit?


As for the cost of minimum income (the other big criticism), it can be covered with the reduction and consolidation of other forms of welfare and subsidy, as well as more progressive taxation with fewer special exemptions and loopholes (which the US tax code is riddled with by design due to lobbying).

Surrealistik said:

For sure; not to mention that hours that were put towards work could be put towards education and other productive ventures instead, which is why a sustained, long term negative drag on the economy, or severe reduction in hours worked and productivity has to be demonstrated and attributable to MI for the usual criticisms to really have any substance.

Click to expand...

True and was demonstrated in the link i gave.

The reduction in hours worked by young people was offset almost entirely
by increased school and tertiary education attendance although there was
no discernible impact on academic performance.24

Click to expand...

Those who want to discredit the idea of a ubi by saying people will just be lazy if they are being payed do not have a very good understanding of human behaviour.

Guaranteed Income is absolutely asinine. For several reasons (none of which are moral or ethical).

First, if it is just for the poor - than what is the difference between it and welfare?

Second, if it is for everyone - than it would either be too little to make much difference. Or INSANELY expensive.

Let's say it is for everyone - enough for survival. In America, the poverty line is $12,060. https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
So, that means every adult would receive $12,000 per year...regardless of wealth. There are about 250 million adults in America. That means the program would cost $3 TRILLION dollars each year. Right now America spends about $160 billion on welfare (minus food stamps, unemployment and medicaid). So let's be generous and say $250 billion is saved (Medicaid is medical - different ball game). ANd let's take Social Security off of that ($882 billion).
Welfare Statistics and Demographics – Statistic Brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#/media/File:U.S._Federal_Spending.png
That still leaves an extra $1.9 TRILLION added onto the budget...which is currently $3.7 trillion. So the federal budget would be about $5.6 trillion for a deficit of $2.35 trillion every year.
And remember, this is based on near record low interest rates. For every percentage point rates go up, that equals about $200 billion added to the expenses in debt servicing costs.
So, this program would mean an annual deficit of (at least) $2.35 trillion per year (which equals $7,100 per American).

All for what? So people 'feel' better?

ANd the whole idea is crazy. The bureaucracy for dealing will a single department that handles $3 TRILLION dollars each year would be gigantic...the unions would see to that. WHich adds even more costs to the program.

But the idea is ridiculous in that you are proposing to tax wealthy/middle class people at least $13,000 - $12K plus $1K for government waste/bureaucracy) just so they can give it back to themselves.
In other words - you are saying to a middle class worker...'Hey, give the government $13K, so it can give you back $12K'.
Giving a guaranteed income to people that do not need it is staggeringly silly.
Which is probably why the Swiss were smart enough to turn the idea down...convincingly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/world/europe/switzerland-swiss-vote-basic-income.html

The idea is idealistic nonsense and I will not argue this - it is and if you cannot see it, I am not wasting my time trying to explain it NOR do I much care that you don't agree.

It's dumb...period.

The point of the minimum income is to:

• Ensure an acceptable minimal standard of living.
• Free people up to pursue education and make other constructive personal investments/self-improvement.
• Advance the economy by providing direct stimulus to those most likely to spend, thus creating a strong increment in aggregate demand.
• Streamline welfare administration and improve efficiency of benefit distribution (due to it replacing and consolidating all kinds of separate welfare programs and their multiple administrations, as well as the vast majority of means testing/complicating filters).
• Counteract and remedy the fallout of structural unemployment due to outsourcing and automation.
• Encourage employers to provide more amenable working conditions/pay standards (people won't work torturous jobs with minimal pay unless they absolutely have to due to accumulation of expenses that outweigh the minimum income).

250,000,000 adults
Each receiving $12,060 for a total of $3,015,000,000,000
Subtract Social Security's $972.6 billion (2017 budget)
Medicare: $605 billion
Welfare: $392.1 billion

Sourced from: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Net Increase after deductions/consolidations: $1,045,900,000,000

Amount rebated back to government in taxes: (31.5% 2015 average tax rate): $3,015,000,000,000 * .315 = $949,725,000,000

Net Increase in deficit after deductions and taxes: $95,575,000,000 (250000000*12060*.685)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11)


That said, I fully agree that MI makes no sense to pay out to the very wealthiest. Personally I'd exclude the top 5% by income, with a linear phase out from 20% to 5%; this works out to roughly 87.5% of the full top line cost as above 100-((15/2)+5) = 87.5%.

This would roughly work out to a net decrease in spending of $162,584,375,000 (250000000*12060*.685*.875)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11).

Though this would no doubt incur some small increment of administrative cost and inefficiency due to there being basic means testing and scaling, a 250 billion dollar difference between MI with it, and MI without as above will easily more than cover that, including increment of the MI benefit to those covered, and the overall administrative costs of the MI; all without increasing the deficit.

Lafayette said:

Blah, blah blah ...

Click to expand...

Your concession is noted.

soylentgreen said:

Do you not understand that the whole concept of employment is changing. The advances in machinery are removing what was once considered normal labour. Not that long ago it was considered quite normal for a person to enter a job and stay there for life. Now days nearly every person in the job market will experience some time out of employment or changing careers at some point.

If you attempt the good enough for my grandfather, good enough for my father , so good enough for me type of argument. You are ignoring the reality around you.

Click to expand...

Do you not understand that other jobs come online?
Unless you live in Amish country we don't have a need for wagon repair.

The economy is always changing and people adapt.

Way to straw man. Don't put yourself in the same catagory as Lafayette.
You can either address what people actually say or your can't.

You don't get to make up arguments that don't exist.

No one here has yet to say how they are going to pay for all this so called free stuff.

Surrealistik said:

The point of the minimum income is to:

• Ensure an acceptable minimal standard of living.
• Free people up to pursue education and make other constructive personal investments/self-improvement.
• Advance the economy by providing direct stimulus to those most likely to spend, thus creating a strong increment in aggregate demand.
• Streamline welfare administration and improve efficiency of benefit distribution (due to it replacing and consolidating all kinds of separate welfare programs and their multiple administrations).
• Counteract and remedy the fallout of structural unemployment due to outsourcing and automation.
• Encourage employers to provide more amenable working conditions/pay standards (people won't work torturous jobs with minimal pay unless they absolutely have to due to accumulation of expenses that outweigh the minimum income).

250,000,000 adults
Each receiving $12,060 for a total of $3,015,000,000,000
Subtract Social Security's $972.6 billion (2017 budget)
Medicare: $605 billion
Welfare: $392.1 billion

Sourced from: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Net Increase after deductions/consolidations: $1,045,900,000,000

Amount rebated back to government in taxes: (31.5% 2015 average tax rate): $3,015,000,000,000 * .315 = $949,725,000,000

Net Increase in deficit after deductions and taxes: $95,575,000,000 (250000000*12060*.685)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11)


That said, I fully agree that MI makes no sense to pay out to the very wealthiest. Personally I'd exclude the top 5% by income, with a linear phase out from 20% to 5%; this works out to roughly 87.5% of the full top line cost as above 100-((15/2)+5) = 87.5%.

This would roughly work out to a net decrease in spending of $162,584,375,000 (250000000*12060*.685*.875)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11).

Though this would no doubt incur some small increment of administrative cost and inefficiency due to there being basic means testing and scaling, a 250 billion dollar difference between MI with it, and MI without as above will easily more than cover that, including increment of the MI benefit to those covered, and the overall administrative costs of the MI; all without increasing the deficit.

Click to expand...

18k is considered poverty level.
Even so no is going to pay for these trillions of dollars?

Lol you evidently didn't see what happened to all those guys that sat on unemployment gen tried to find work.
No one would hire them. Long term unemployment people couldn't find jobs.

ludin said:

18k is considered poverty level.
Even so no is going to pay for these trillions of dollars?

Lol you evidently didn't see what happened to all those guys that sat on unemployment gen tried to find work.
No one would hire them. Long term unemployment people couldn't find jobs.

Click to expand...

Where are you pulling 18k from? Households? $12,060 is the poverty line for individuals: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

As for where the money comes from, that would be existing entitlements being consolidated into the MI as explicitly shown in my breakdown; in fact the net cost is over a hundred billion less than the entitlements replaced, while featuring greater efficiency due to administrative consolidation and reductions assuming basic means testing (since there's only basic means testing, at least per my take, and distribution to complicate the program). As an addendum to this, I would like to see free public college and skilled trades be made available in degrees and fields needed by the economy funded by more progressive taxation and eliminations of tax loopholes, but that's another discussion entirely.

Further, nowhere it's been tried (at least to my knowledge), has the MI resulted in massive sustained unemployment or work hour reduction; generally when the number of hours of work decline where it's tried it's by a small amount, and the amount of time spent studying/retraining increments.

Surrealistik said:

Where are you pulling 18k from? Households? $12,060 is the poverty line for individuals: https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

As for where the money comes from, that would be existing entitlements being consolidated into the MI as explicitly shown in my breakdown; in fact the net cost is over a hundred billion less than the entitlements replaced, while featuring greater efficiency due to administrative consolidation and reductions assuming basic means testing (since there's only basic means testing, at least per my take, and distribution to complicate the program). As an addendum to this, I would like to see free college and skilled trades be made available in degrees and fields needed by the economy funded by more progressive taxation and eliminations on tax loopholes, but that's another discussion entirely.

Further, nowhere where's been tried (at least to my knowledge), has the MI resulted in massive sustained unemployment or work hour reduction; generally when the number of hours of work decline where it's tried it's by a small amount, and the amount of time spent studying/retraining increments.

Click to expand...

18k is the poverty for a family.
12k is the lower boundary.

Sigh.

You are still short.
Free college now. Estimate another 100 billion dollars.

So now your 3.1 trillion dollars.

So now you want free healthcare. That free healthcare is estimated at 4trillion dollars.

All this free stuff is expense I can't afford it and neither can my family.

So how are you going to pay for all this free stuff.

You have just added 7.1 trillion dollars in new spending.
Even if you save 3trillion elsewhere you are still 4 trillion short.

So who pays it.

ludin said:

18k is the poverty for a family.
12k is the lower boundary.

Sigh.

You are still short.
Free college now. Estimate another 100 billion dollars.

So now your 3.1 trillion dollars.

So now you want free healthcare. That free healthcare is estimated at 4trillion dollars.

All this free stuff is expense I can't afford it and neither can my family.

So how are you going to pay for all this free stuff.

Click to expand...

I just told you: it's in the breakdown; MI would replace existing entitlements. Please pay attention.

Further, the benefit is being paid out to individuals, not families/households, so the individual poverty threshold is used.

I always liked the idea of a negative income tax. Nixon was the first to propose it, I believe. And it was the basis behind the Earned Income Tax. It is better than the mishmash of benefits we have now that encourage people to limit their hours of work and income. Doubt that it will go anywhere. Democrats like programs that they can use to buy votes.

Surrealistik said:

I just told you: it's in the breakdown; MI would replace existing entitlements. Please pay attention.

Further, the benefit is being paid out to individuals, not families/households, so the individual poverty threshold is used.

Click to expand...

Omg seriously you are still friggen short.

Your cost is 3 trillion dollars at best projection. Entitlement spending is only about 750 billion not including SS.
If you do include SS and Medicare it is about 1.5 trillion if that.

You are still 1.5 trillion short at best.

that doesn't include government overhead, waste, fraud and everything else.

You calculations are just pulled out of no where.

You still didn't say how you were going to pay for the shortage.
Nor have you said the free college.

Who pays for it. Your savings are not enough to cover the costs.
The government pays 600 billion in welfare benefits.

If it cut each person a check for 1k it would cost 3 trillion dollars.
You would only save 600 billion.

You are still 2.4trillion short.
Most optimistic is 1.2 trillion short.

Who is going to pay for it?

ludin said:

Omg seriously you are still friggen short.

Your cost is 3 trillion dollars at best projection. Entitlement spending is only about 750 billion not including SS.
If you do include SS and Medicare it is about 1.5 trillion if that.

You are still 1.5 trillion short at best.

that doesn't include government overhead, waste, fraud and everything else.

You calculations are just pulled out of no where.

You still didn't say how you were going to pay for the shortage.
Nor have you said the free college.

Who pays for it. Your savings are not enough to cover the costs.
The government pays 600 billion in welfare benefits.

If it cut each person a check for 1k it would cost 3 trillion dollars.
You would only save 600 billion.

You are still 2.4trillion short.
Most optimistic is 1.2 trillion short.

Who is going to pay for it?

Click to expand...

Surrealistik said:

250,000,000 adults
Each receiving $12,060 for a total of $3,015,000,000,000
Subtract Social Security's $972.6 billion (2017 budget)
Medicare: $605 billion
Welfare: $392.1 billion

Sourced from: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Net Increase after deductions/consolidations: $1,045,900,000,000

Amount rebated back to government in taxes: (31.5% 2015 average tax rate): $3,015,000,000,000 * .315 = $949,725,000,000

Net Increase in deficit after deductions and taxes: $95,575,000,000 (250000000*12060*.685)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11)


That said, I fully agree that MI makes no sense to pay out to the very wealthiest. Personally I'd exclude the top 5% by income, with a linear phase out from 20% to 5%; this works out to roughly 87.5% of the full top line cost as above 100-((15/2)+5) = 87.5%.

This would roughly work out to a net decrease in spending of $162,584,375,000 (250000000*12060*.685*.875)-(9.726e11+6.05e11+3.921e11).

Though this would no doubt incur some small increment of administrative cost and inefficiency due to there being basic means testing and scaling, a 250 billion dollar difference between MI with it, and MI without as above will easily more than cover that, including increment of the MI benefit to those covered, and the overall administrative costs of the MI; all without increasing the deficit.

Click to expand...

Again, numbers are sourced from the 2017 budget: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Surrealistik said:

Again, numbers are sourced from the 2017 budget: Government Spending Details in $ billion: Federal State Local for 2017 - Charts

Click to expand...

Again you are still short.
What part of that don't you understand?

You are falling into Lafayette territory by not actually addressing the argument.

If the government pays everyone 12k a year the cost is 3 trillion dollars.
The federal government spends 600b in welfare payments. I will even say 800b due to overhead.
You are still short 2.2 trillion dollars.

How do you pay for it.

The savings do not cover the costs.
Please answer the question if you can't that is fine.
Just admit you don't know how to pay for it.

This is based on current Federal US budgets.