19 ms·

How Finland plans to implement the first nation-wide basic income in the EU

350 points by imartin2k 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
I'm glad someone is trying it out. Hope they offer insight into what works what doesn't and any caveats. It may also be a bit early, as automation isn't in its stride yet. Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. Whether their model can be adapted to say Indonesia or the US or Japan is to be seen. The main source of ideas was from Milton and the Nixon administration who with the economy going south looked for alternative means for people to "make" a living. "...Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax" So it'd be accompanied by a loss of minimum wage floor as well as it should be as low as possible (approx USD 1000/mo after initial trial phase in Finland.) It's not a comfy lifestyle by any means, but could get people off the streets who otherwise would not have the means. Given those parameters, with a few exceptions, I don't see this implementation undermining people's will and want to work and at the same time it has great upside in simplicity and affecting their poorest citizens positively.
- logicchains 11y ago
  >So it'd be accompanied by a loss of minimum wage floor as well as it should be as low as possible (approx USD 1000/mo after initial trial phase in Finland.) To expand on this, removing the minimum wage is meant to make it easier for people to "get their foot in the door". The economic notion is that e.g. if X's labour is not worth more than $5 per hour, and the minimum wage is $10 per hour, then X will have great difficulty finding work (because the ultimate minimum wage isn't $10, it's $0). This means they'll have more trouble obtaining the work experience that would make them more productive. Removing the minimum wage means anyone can work who wants to, and the basic income protects them from the hardships that normally accompany low-wage jobs.
  - arcticfox 11y ago
    This is actually a really compelling argument that I hadn't heard before. Is there a good, short-ish reference on these arguments that you know of?
    - CookieMon 11y ago
      Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index Basic income better aligns everyone's economic incentives, so it solves (in theory) a whole host of the problems we've got. It's great to hear that some form of it is going to be tried.
      - notahacker 11y ago
        It's a pity that the proponents there have to resort to including mathematical impossibilities on their list.... "A basic income, coupled with a flat tax, is capable of mimicking all aspects of our current progressive (bracketed) taxation scheme, but without brackets." Basic income realigns people's incentives. It might be better than a really badly designed welfare system at removing "welfare traps", but it also can be expected to have a whole host of negative aspects in comparison to other possible configurations of the payment of government subsidies.
        kwhitefoot 11y ago
        > host of negative aspects Such as?
        polymatter 11y ago
        what are the "whole host of negative aspects"? I will accept that there are almost certainly edge cases which I can't predict that will need ironing out. probably due to the administration of updating the list appropriately. but basic income seems very much like the proverbial silver bullet that never exists, so I am curious over its negative aspects. in discussing with friends and family, the worst thing about basic income is it means paying people for doing nothing and that _really_ _really_ angers some people. even worse, it means even millionaires get basic income!
- Hytosys 11y ago
  >Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. There are an unknown amount of reasons that would determine the success of a program like basic income, so I'm wondering why the size and homogeneity of a country are always quickly brought up.
  - foota 11y ago
    Probably because they're the most obvious of the factors that could impact such a program.
    - lagadu 11y ago
      I'm sorry, why is that obvious, even in the slightest?
    - Hytosys 11y ago
      Oh, shit! How come I always miss the obvious things? What am I doing wrong?
      - paulojreis 11y ago
        I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're questioning economical premises stated as obvious in a tech forum (so, where no special economical knowledge should be assumed). You're doing the right thing - why are they obvious? If he who stated them as obvious can't answer that with solid references, then it's not obvious; it's just an unfounded preconception.
        philh 11y ago
        > I don't know why you're being downvoted. Didn't downvote, but personally, I really dislike sarcasm used in this manner. It's not so much questioning as flat-out contradicting. And it does that in a way which doesn't help to bridge the inferential gap.
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    because if you bring in an influx of color and foreign diversity, you get people who have less in common, less shared values and don't look out for each other. Get a massive influx of brown muslims in your white country, then find out that you no longer cooperate with each other like you did before. It's basically the way in the U.S. that the two party system also uses race and immigration to drive another wedge between citizens. Believe me, you want homogenity. It's better for progress than diversity. Everyone tells the story that diversity somehow is strength. Nope, never has been, it's a story that just feels good but isn't true. The U.S. progresses in spite of diversity and conflict, not because of it.
- legulere 11y ago
  > homogenous country please stop with this homogenous country bullshit. Finland like any other western country has a significant amount of other ethnicities, more than 10% in the case of Finland. And it's not like people are the same if they are of the same ethnicity. And even if it were especially homogenous, how would that matter?
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Are you a Finn? I am and would definitely call this homogenous coutry. But I know Finns who would never agree on that.
  - mrweasel 11y ago
    >more than 10% in the case of Finland Half of those are Swedish.
  - Kiro 11y ago
    No, you cannot compare Finland to other western or even Scandinavian countries. It's very different.
- mcv 11y ago
  I'm pretty left-wing (I consider myself a libertarian socialist), but I agree with Friedman. Once you have a livable basic income, you don't really need a minimum wage and progressive taxation anymore. Those things exist primarily to guarantee livable conditions for the very poorest, but Basic Income would guarantee those livable conditions in a far more simple and effective way. Two important effects of this would be: a) the labour market would become a lot more open and free. At the moment, employers wield all the power because employees need a job. It's not a free market if you can't say no to a deal. With basic income, people can say no if the offer is too bad. But if your alternative is starvation, a terrible job for too little pay is still better than nothing. Minimum wage exists to limit the employers' power to exploit people who have no option to say no. b) It fixes the unemployment trap. For people with unemployment or disability benefits, getting a low-pay part-time job often means they end up with less money (or the same money and more costs) despite them taking the effort to work, because they lose the benefits. This discourages people from working. With Basic Income, you keep that income if you get a job, so you always get ahead by working, even if it's only a little. There's nothing fraudulent anymore about doing little jobs while unemployed. I'd probably prefer both the basic income and the tax to be a bit higher than Friedman would like them to be, but that's part of the standard political-economic give and take. As long as the Basic Income is at least enough for decent food and rent, I'm happy.
  - notahacker 11y ago
    If you don't have progressive taxation any more, you're either going to be unable to pay for the BI or seriously hurt the middle classes. If the rich pay lower [net] taxes, someone else pays more (assuming you're not on the right hand side of a Laffer curve)
    - sago 11y ago
      I agree, I don't see the logic in removing progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is a recognition that there is a disproportionate benefit in living in an ordered and lawful society for those with high income (and assets, though we seem to have lost the plot on taxation of assets). You depend on the efforts of a lot of people, each of whom has benefitted from the state's education and infrastructure. Your products benefit from the state's legal support, your money from the state's stability, and so on. Progressive taxation is a recognition that those benefits don't scale linearly: those at the highest incomes benefit not only from the linear support of their wealth, but the exponential support of society.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  Everyone in this thread is writing as though this has never been tried before. It has been tried at least five times (three in USA and twice in Canada). The results have been re-analysed in recent years and show that the reduction in peoples willingness to work is very slight. Of course if Finland does it over the whole country then this will be a much larger experiment than the US and Canadian ones. I think that there are good reasons to believe that it will have a very positive effect. It also gives greater bargaining power to the lowest paid so that it should help to prevent the reduction in wages that is becoming a feature of the low end of the employment market.
  - mpartel 11y ago
    Could you link to the analysis you mentioned?
    - kwhitefoot 11y ago
      This search string canadian basic income experiment statistical analysis repeated on Google got me a lot of hits including these that refer To Dr. Evelyn Forget's analysis in 2009: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The reduction in work effort is 13% - double the effect of the great recession. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf It also gives greater bargaining power to the lowest paid so that it should help to prevent the reduction in wages that is becoming a feature of the low end of the employment market. If supply of labor is significantly reduced then prices for labor will rise. Didn't you just claim that won't happen?
    - nekopa 11y ago
      You keep throwing out this 13% as if it is a bad thing, with no comment on the context mentioned in your link. So I'll add it here for others to view if they don't want to wade through a pdf to find it: 1: The 13% decrease in work effort is per family unit. This is an important distinction, because it led to the following 3 points 2: The primary wage earner in the unit reduced their effort only slightly, but this had a large result due to them making the majority of the cash 3: The secondary wage earner, who was usually the spouse reduced their work effort to stay at home longer after having a baby, and to do more work around the house. 4: The tertiary wage earner, in most cases an adolescent male, had theIr work effort reduced by the fact that it entered the workforce later. This may have been due to them continuing their education. So I think - IMHO - the 13% reduction represent a net benefit for society - dad doesn't have to do so much overtime, mum can spend more time with her baby, and your kids stay in school longer and become qualified for better jobs...
- nordify 11y ago
  > It's not a comfy lifestyle by any means, but could get people off the streets who otherwise would not have the means. It's not like there is a large problem in Finland with people living on the streets. Rent is subsidized up to 80% if you are unemployed or without income. Unemployment benefits and/or social assistance cover the remaining 20%. If you become homeless, you will be provided with temporary housing. Any homeless problems are usually due to larger underlying personal issues. Some people, such as alcoholics and junkies, will not or cannot adhere to basic living rules and will rather choose to be, or forced to be, depending on how you look at it, homeless. Besides, for a bit of morbid humor, homelessness is a self limiting problem in Finland due to winter.
  - pavlov 11y ago
    Without income you can get rent support up to 80%, but there is also an absolute upper limit which is much lower than the rent in large towns like Helsinki. So you can't just rent a 1000 € apartment and expect to get 800 € from social security -- the reality is around half of that. Any homeless problems are usually due to larger underlying personal issues. Is that claim supported by any facts?
    - nordify 11y ago
      From litterally the first Google result: "Long-term homelessness is a case of prolonged or repeated homelessness , which is often associated with poverty, in addition to severe psycho- social problems such as substance abuse and mental health problems , crime and violence . This group is estimated to comprise about 40-50 percent of all homeless people living alone." http://www.asuntoensin.fi/asunto_ensin/asunnottomuus http://www.asuntoensin.fi/asunto_ensin/asunnottomuus
- retube 11y ago
  BI is just a huge subsidy for employers. Competition in the labour market will absolutely crush salaries if everyone gets a basic income irrespective of whether employed or not. Now given that income taxes > (or even >>) corporation and dividend taxes even if those reduced wages translate directly into increased corporate profits the net tax take by government will fall, whilst their liability goes up from BI obligations. All BI will do is enrich the business elite and drive further inequality. A semi test case of BI is being inadvertently conducted in the UK with tax credits. Thanks to effectively subsidised wages by the state, wages have remained stagnant or fallen. As wages have fallen more people qualify for tax credits, further subsidizing wages in a negative feedback loop. Net result: the cost to the state has ballooned to 30bn/year from an originally projected 2bn/year with over 50% of working households now in receipt of them, coupled with ever increasing equality gap. Far from harmonising wealth and reducing inequality, basic income will have exactly the opposite effect.
  - rwmj 11y ago
    > Thanks to effectively subsidised wages by the state, wages have remained stagnant or fallen. What's the evidence for this?
    - ams6110 11y ago
      It makes perfect sense. Each person has an income need, X. If they get B basic income, employer only needs to pay X - B whereas without basic income he needs to pay X.
      - lhopki01 11y ago
        That's a poor implementation of basic income. If each person has a need X then B should be set at X. That way if they work for someone everything on top isn't for need but want. Gives them the ability to choose more.
      - saiya-jin 11y ago
        Agreed, look at it this way - most people don't earn minimum, but more. They will still work to keep their standards (paying rents, mortgages, cars, kids, lifestyle they are used to etc.). Employers are not dumb, they will reflect this immediately. A healthy society should always motivate people to WORK and produce products/services, that's what keeps society running. If main goal of BI is to remove that motivation, I fail to see it as a step in right direction.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- laotzu 11y ago
  >It may also be a bit early, as automation isn't in its stride yet. I'm curious as to how you would judge whether or not automation is efficient enough to do this? Buckminster Fuller, former president of the Mensa society, argued that we passed that invisible line back in the 1970's: >In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization. In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity -Buckminster Fuller, Grunch of Giants, 1982
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  Interesting to read another YC article from top page - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-k... Some opinions there describe welfare as evil thing, removing any motivation for people to even try to get a better life. maybe not applicable for Finland, but interesting nevertheless as coming for 1st-world country (although they describe themselves as 3rd-world one). Let's not forget that for every hard-working individual there is X slackers looking how to get as much out of system with as little effort as possible, by any means necessary. I fail to see how BI would motivate those people to get better, and contribute to our society. Hopefully in this case, road to hell isn't paved with good intentions as usually...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    People doing regular work have to do physical labour, cognitive labour, emotional labour. People getting welfare or charity generally still have to, at minimum, do emotional labour, looking suitably pitiful before the handout and then suitably grateful after. And often physical and cognitive labour as well, filling in forms, schlepping to mandatory signing-on, etc. This is why welfare is demotivating. People reasonably feel they have already done the work, they as feel drained as if they were in a job. They know that if they don't do the things, the welfare vanishes. Whether it's a job or welfare, everyone in our current system is scrabbling. And so everyone is stuck in a scarcity mindset. Basic income is different. There is no scrabbling needed, not even emotional work, it just arrives. And so I expect that will flip people from a scarcity mindset to a leisure mindset. They won't be slacking, because slacking is a way of scrabbling. They'll want to do something, although without the need for a day job any more, that might be more towards the creative side. Some will "retire" on BI and write their novel or go back to university. Others will want to work to make more than the BI. Expect a period of labour shortage, manufacturing turning to robots in reaction, a surge of cultural product such as has never been seen, and mass education with a broadening of the scope of people's interest into "blue sky" non employable fields.
- theklub 11y ago
  It would straight up fund criminals in the US. Kinda like welfare currently does. (mostly drug dealers)
- scott_karana 11y ago
  > Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. Whether their model can be adapted [Japan] is to be seen. Isn't Japan also a homogenous, small, rich country? Seems like an excellent place to try this, to me. The only explanation I can think of is that you meant "small" as in their population, not geography.
kisstheblade 11y ago
Unfortunately I don't think this is going to work as long as there are any other benefits paid on an "individual basis", eg some cultures here get extra money for their traditional dresses paid for by social security! And if you have kids and have spent all your "basic income" then you will still get new strollers (top of the line) etc for your babies, or cellphones for yor self and your family, with paid plans. Or your electric and internet bills paid. The left will never agree to ditch these subsidies. And the biggest issue is that housing is also paid for spearately under this plan (as per the article). Nowadays the situation living in helsinki center is that only rich and unemployed people can afford to live there. You know, "close to where the work is!". They should pay you a lump sum and you would live where you wanted using only that money. Too bad if you can't afford the most expensive place to stay where "the work" (=pubs and bars) are. In more remote places (but still cities) you can have a studio appartment for probably 200 euros per month.
- mc32 11y ago
  They could tweak it so you get your basic income, if you forgo other forms of subsidies (as Milton orig. proposed). Also, Russians can't just cross the border and become eligible as it appears it's citizens only. And I wouldn't begrudge Laplanders, life up there is austere. If they choose this, then "rational" unemployed would move to the outskirts and rent cheaper properties till they could afford more expensive apartments (via new jobs). Hope they can keep it free of interference so it can be gauged for success or failure.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    >citizens only No it's not. Currently all wellfare in Finland is based permanent residence. But if you don't have permanent residence, the social services will get you one if you just are in Finland "permanently". Which happens if you can claim that you have no other safe place to go. Or if you have family here. Or if you have no other citizenship. Russians can't come over the border right now. But if there is ever a civil war in Russia, then we are fucked. If Russia starts to move Syrian refugees through russia just to fuck with us, we are in deep shit. Some people are really worried about immigration. While it's not a problem right now. Some people are really worried that we are not perceived as fascist. Some people are really worried about refugees who are here. Nobody gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria. Getting citizenship means you have to do military service, but you gain nothing from it. Currently it is punishment really.
PlzSnow 11y ago
Basic Income is a utopian fantasy which sounds good but will never work because of human nature. A bit like communism. It's good that Finland will do a very limited test. When it inevitably fails, the world will be able to say "if Finland can't get it too work, then what chance any other country?". Also, here is a quote from the article that is complete nonsense. "In European countries, we have arrived at a situation where large numbers of people are unemployed, with very little chance that these numbers will go down in the near future. This is particularly due to the (proven) fact that automation and robotization are destroying more jobs than innovation can create."
- BBlarat 11y ago
  No Columbus you can never get to india by sailing the other way, you will fall off the edge of the earth!
  - jcranmer 11y ago
    Columbus's problem wasn't that people thought the Earth was flat (it was widely known in Europe since Greek times that the Earth was round). His problem was that he got his math badly wrong and severely underestimated the distance to China. The only reason he didn't kill his crew was because there happened to be an unknown continent at such distance as he thought China to be.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  You claim that basic income can't possibly work, and that unemployment increasing over time is nonsense, but you've not provided any reason why. How is basic income so similar to communism it should be written off without trying?
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    I didn't say Basic Income should be written off without trying. I said it should be tried so that it can fail and be seen to be utopian nonsense. I didn't say that unemployment increasing over time was nonsense, I said that blaming automization was nonsense.
jkot 11y ago
I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income. It translates as 'minimal liveable income' and is paid to people who have no other income. It is about 60 euro/month in Czech republic. In Germany it is about 300 euro/month, but can easily go up to 1000 euro/month with all extras. Problem is that one has to prove he does not have any other income. That could be problem for some people, for example illegal foreigners. Or divorced fathers who have income on paper, but everything gets confiscated for alimony.
- danielbarla 11y ago
  > ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called "welfare cliffs". An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is much more complex than that, but that's the idea.
  - krzyk 11y ago
    Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.
    - transfire 11y ago
      I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
    - danielbarla 11y ago
thomaskcr 11y ago
I think the only way for basic income to work is a very clear definition of what is and is not luxury. I think a lot of the issues with minimum wage and welfare debates stem from different people having different definitions of what should be paid for by those services. We see this with the minimum wage debate -- everyone's definition of a "living wage" is different. Does basic mean house, car etc in a nice area or does it mean that if you're not working you can afford to live only where the cost of living is low? I think this needs to be really clearly laid out so down the line the intention of the money is clear. If it's clearly laid out ahead of time, then in the US situation for example, someone complaining that they cannot afford an apartment in an expensive area without working is not evidence for a need to raise the basic income, it's evidence they need to move or find a (better) job.
- vlehto 11y ago
  It may sound weird, but this is not that big problem in Finland. We don't have too much that sort of arguments. Our politics is lot more consensus/compromise based than U.S. politics. This means people disagreeing in quantity can be sorted out. But the big parties can veto this stuff for no apparent reason what so ever. Our left is more communist than U.S. left. Some of them don't give a shit what is "living wage". They think government should give them all excess money possible. And if there is no excess, then take loan to support some arbitrary standard of living for everybody. "You don't have to pay debt" "tax the rich more". But people don't really believe them. Most Finns still think that "average Finn is somewhat sensible person". The whole multiparty system can exist, because we mostly agree on stuff. It's just the details that are different. When I go to vote, I don't think "how to save the country from the evil Kokoomus". I think what party could nudge the system to better direction. Being cohesive small nation state is cosy. But the hivemind can be scary at times. Currently police is trying to pass internet surveilance legistlation and it's not much protested. Because "average Finn is somewhat sensible, they would not do this if they didn't really have to".
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  A living wage is also strongly dependent upon family makeup. Two childless individuals can survive on far less per adult than a single parent with three children. So for starters, do the BI scale per individual, and if so, how? Assuming it scales flatly, it gives an incentives to have children because of economies of scale (this is not to say people will have dozens of children, as this is a single incentive among many, many of which are incentives to not have children).
kriro 11y ago
I'm glad someone tries it but remain very skeptical. If you take the proposed eventual 800 Euro and assume every single citizen will get it (roughly 5.5 million in Finland) that would be 52.8 billion Euro/year. For comparison the net domestic product of Finland is 216.9 billion (bad indicator but one i could find with a quick search) I think if you do this, every citizen should get the base income and only income above it and corporate income should be taxed. Currently the average income in Finland is about 3.1k/month. So on average that's 2300 Euro taxable income (once again grossly simplifying). You'd need to tax that at roughly 35% to refinance the base income. Not sure if the corporate taxes and hiking the 35% to say 50% (+savings on all the stuff that is now covered by the 800 like unemployment, retirement) can make up for all the other costs (infrastructure, education, health care, police, military etc.) There's also the standard questions of "why not ask for more" and "what will people do with the free time, why should they work". Which are the interesting questions that an experiment could help answer.
- derefr 11y ago
  Remember that basic income displaces payouts from other social programs. How much do social welfare and unemployment programs pay out in Finland? Also remember that, although everyone theoretically gets an equal slice of a basic-income pie, there's nothing stopping a government from making taxes more progressive to claw back the wealth transfer from anyone who was living comfortably on their own income and didn't really need the help.
  - millstone 11y ago
    I wonder about non-payout social programs, especially those aimed at children, like Head Start or SNAP (food stamps) in the USA. Will basic income enable recipients to make more efficient choices? Or will recipients squander it, diverting money away from nutrition and child development?
    - derefr 11y ago
      Now you've got me imagining children receiving their own basic incomes, with the government getting to decide how some proportion (30%? 100%?) of their monthly allocation gets spent, and the parents getting handed the rest. Something interesting with basic income is that it erases the traditional "income flow" that makes it make sense for parents to have one bank account that they own, and pay for all family members out of it. Under basic income, I could see each family member defaulting to having their own bank account to receive deposits. You could go way more wild in the "enforcing spending on childen" with that setup than anything food stamps do. You could require that e.g. the government gets to audit the expenses on all "child" accounts to ensure they're for the child; and additionally require that parents only buy things "for" their children by first transferring money from their own account to the child's, and only then spend what is now the child's money on the item.
dcw303 11y ago
What are the schools of thought regarding inflation? It seems to me that any mass handout would quickly raise the cost of living and nullify any benefit.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  Why does it seem that way to you? "Cost of living" in basics like rent and food is what people buy anyway. How is having a basic income going to change that, unless you had like a huge homeless/starving population that can suddenly now get homes/food?
  - dcw303 11y ago
    I admit that I don't know that much about basic income but had assumed that everyone would be "better off" by the same amount. Others in the thread have kindly informed me that is not the case, and that taxation will take out the benefit for higher earners. I must say that doesn't sound very "universal" to me.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      Even if we give $30,000 to EVERYONE, the poor will be more better off than the rich because $15,000 to $30,000 is a much bigger jump than $400,000 to $415,000. But the price of basics is not going to change that much because everyone buys them already. The "universal" part is that this is a universal floor on living standards that applies to everyone.
  - Kiro 11y ago
    It will raise the price of staples because people don't need to be frugal about those things anymore.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      What on earth makes you say that? If I buy one bag of rice a week, I'm not going to just randomly start buying 2 bags if I get more money. I'd rather buy some spices. People will be frugal because they'll want to spend money on other things. Imagine a poor person as a person just like you: he has wants outside of basic survival.
everslick 11y ago
An aspect greatly overlooked in this discussion here is, that an UBI would rid us from a ton of bullshit jobs people are currently forced to do, just to get by. So in a way, an UBI can lead to degrowth eventually, which decreases pollution, traffic jams, energy consumption, waste a.s.o. I'm looking forward to see what people are going to do with the spare time.
rasse 11y ago
As a Finn, my primary concern is whether or not basic income will just inflate rents.
- 746F7475 11y ago
  Why would they? Would people in general be "earning" more money from basic income than current benefits? I mean you can't increase rent past the point people are able to pay.
  - switch007 11y ago
    > I mean you can't increase rent past the point people are able to pay. You can increase them past the point that people on lower wages/basic income can pay, driving them out of desirable or semi desirable areas to cheaper areas. See London as an example.
    - lagadu 11y ago
      Yeah but that already happens with the current system; the worst case scenario is that nothing changes and people on lower wages keep being pushed out from more desirable areas.
    - 746F7475 11y ago
      But I don't see why you need to live in London? You might like it and want to live there, but then you need the money to be able to. Like I could move to Helsinki if I wanted to on my current salary, but I see no reason to do so. I live in smaller city (or maybe it's even considered a town) and I have plenty of extra money left over after my rent.
      - switch007 11y ago
        I don't need to nor, personally, want to. However, the people already there have a right to be there, especially those born in London, who grew up there, who have families, jobs, community involvement etc.
  - 11y ago
api_or_ipa 11y ago
I can't really take an article seriously when it refers to Milton Friedman as a Libertarian. He's most certainly not. He was a leading Chicago school adherent.
- TheTrotters 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg
- jkldotio 11y ago
  Words in English are frequently polysemic. There are well established philosophical, "left" and "right" meanings to "libertarian" which seem to have evolved in that order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology Friedman is clearly closest to the last camp and even self-identified with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism_and_the_Republican_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism... Obviously for an article pitched at a general audience, rather than an academic one, some people won't know Friedman so it's not unreasonable to expect them to clarify. I presume that's why they added the following lines immediately after calling him a "libertarian economist". "Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax (which means that the tax would be universal and at the same rate for all). So in reality, what Friedman was pushing for was a system which would provide employers with people ready to work for lower salaries at no additional cost to employers." I can't see how any reasonable person could read that and then claim the article was putting Friedman in the wrong camp or being misleading or inaccurate regarding that point.
- mcv 11y ago
  It's worth noting that the word "libertarian" can have a lot of different meanings, including some pretty extreme ones in the US.
giorgosts 11y ago
Here in Cyprus we have guaranteed minimum income benefit of 480 euros since 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&intPageId=3249 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&int...
- seszett 11y ago
  That's not the same though, I believe most countries have a guaranteed minimum income (520 euros in France) but unlike basic income, minimum income is not unconditional. It disappears if you earn money from a job, which creates (some) disincentive to find a job, and requires elaborate rules to reduce this disincentive (like reducing the benefit progressively relative to the total income, etc). Basic income on the other hand is unconditional, so whatever job you have you won't feel like you're losing on benefits (at least, that's the idea).
jbb555 11y ago
I don't see how this can possibly work. I'm reasonably well paid, and pay a lot of tax. I can save quite a bit. I could afford to live for 5 years from my savings without working. But not forever, so I still work. But if someone was to give me 800 euro a month then I could live of my saving for maybe 20 years instead. Certainly long enough to get to retirement.... So why would I work? I wouldn't. So not only would this cost 800 euro a month directly but also the 4000 euro a month in taxes I would have paid. It doesn't take many people to do the obvious thing...
- seszett 11y ago
  Most people don't pay 4000 euros a month in taxes and can't live for 5 years from their savings. Your personal situation is far from representative and can't be used to assess the usefulness of universal basic income.
  - tluyben2 11y ago
    4000 euros is a lot; most people who make enough to pay that have had their tax advisor 'restructure' things so they pay less. If you are paying that after restructure I would think you can save enough to add 3 years per year (you might have to live slightly more frugal than you do now).
- littletimmy 11y ago
  People don't work just for money. The idea is to free people up so that they can use their natural human creativity to grow as individuals.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  Not everyone works for money. In fact most people I personally know (no, I'm not sure that's a good representation) don't. What is quite common though among large groups of people is that they get extremely bored and lonely without their jobs. It is frightening to talk with people and find out that they would have nothing at all to do if they would not have their jobs; their hobbies (if they have them) don't give them enough satisfaction to do them longer than a few hours a week. I don't have to work but I find myself working more as I enjoy it even though I have hobbies to keep me busy.
tn13 11y ago
This makes sense only if we are getting rid of all other welfare.
- MarcusVorenus 11y ago
  The article says it will replace some other benefits that Finns currently have. If the project works then I assume other welfare programs will be folded into the basic income over time.
  - tn13 11y ago
    Yes. That is a smart thing to do but generally there is a strong resistance from different branches of government responsible for delivering those welfare schemes. The arguments tend to be "but that person will spend it on drugs".
jugbee 11y ago
The title is misleading, since all the Baltic countries have basic income for like 20 years. If anyone's interested - in Lithuania it's 305euros, in Latvia 350, in Estonia, if i'm not mistaken it's something about 400
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  We are all interested but some references would be handy. Are you sure that you have not confused this with a CONDITIONAL minimum income? That is one that is only available to people who don't have an income, a means tested payment. Also even in the Baltic states EU400 is surely not much for a month.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  You are mistaken. You are referring to the common welfare system that western countries tend to have which could be thought of as a minimum income but which leads to lots of bureaucracy due to the requirement for means testing. Basic income is different because it is unconditionally paid to everyone without any means testing.
piokoch 11y ago
Basic income idea always resambles me a lot Lex Frumentaria introduced in ancient Rome by Gaius Gracchus. The idea was exactly the same - give people "basic income", that is alomost free grain. Was Gracchus successful? Not really, he died in a rather miserable way. In addition Rome was weakened by that law. First of all even if budget could not afford free grain, there was no way to put end to that law (Rome was a democracy, croud wanted free grain). The other unwanted effect was migration of people from villages to the city (hey, there is free food there, so what's the point working hard). I encourage every supporter of basic income to learn more about that Roman law and how it affected Rome. When we start giving money we need to think about a number of issues: 1. Someone needs to earn these money, someone will have to be taxed and that someone will not be happy. Rich people tend to know how to avoid taxes. So it may turn out that in a few years it will be hard to provide money for basic income, unless a given country has sufficient natural resources to finance basic income. 2. How basic income will affect inflation (if it is going to increase it, it may happen that basic income becomes worthless shortly) 3. How basic income will affect democracy - I can imagine a party which main program point will be "increase basic income" (Gaius Gracchus was outbid by his competitors) - a croud might vote for a random wacko without thinking about further consequences. 4. And, at the and, as there is a question if basic income is ethical. We take money from X to give that to Y, this does not sound good when we think about things like ownership, justice - obviously that depends on ethical system one prefers. If it turn out that basic income caused economical problems in a given country (higher inflation, high taxes, capital escape, budget deficit) then who will have to pay for that failed experiment? It may happen that potential beneficiaries of free income (economically weaker, poorer people) will have to pay for it much more then they got.
- jboggan 11y ago
  Bravo. In the long run the people most harmed by the full implementation of these schemes will be the underclass they purport to aid. The people that are supposed to pay for all of this are by definition the people who are clever enough and powerful enough to figure out how to avoid paying for it. Raise taxes enough on those juicy Silicon Valley salaries and you'll see large tech companies decreasing salaries while compensating with corporate housing, transportation, and stock that is taxed at a lower rate. The money simply won't be there, not in the amounts needed or anticipated.
hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
Here's one thing I don't understand: isn't this just going to inflate prices? If I have an apartment for rent, and now I know everybody is getting, unconditionally, a $ 800 paycheck, what keeps me from raising the price by the same amount? The people who do work will still be able to pay my price, and there'll be demand for it.
- harryf 11y ago
  In most Western European countries rent is tightly controlled so it's not possible for landlords to make big increases overnight.
  - hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
    Ok: what keeps me from raising prices, period? Also, rent was just one example. In the long run it seems inflation will just go up unless there's heavy regulation of the market, at least on basic goods and services (housing, food, clothing, etc).
    - nordify 11y ago
      Nothing keeps you from raising prices. However, just because people have more money does not mean competition will stop. In fact competition might increase and prices go down, as there is more money to be made and risks/costs go down.
  - distances 11y ago
    Is it? As far as I've understood, rent control is quite rare in Western Europe nowadays, and at least Finland doesn't have any.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      no it isn't, and where it is just causes havoc, ie you cannot beat market forces of many well-earning people wanting to live close to work with some law
- 11y ago
RobertoG 11y ago
There are some propositions for calling 'basic income' a 'technological dividend'. Changing the name changes the debate about it in a manner that is, maybe, more appropriate for the modern times. At the end of the day, a basic income it's only possible in affluent societies, and it's technology what makes a society affluent.
datashovel 11y ago
A few points that I thought would be worth making here. I read through all the comments a little while ago and was surprised no one was pointing these out. Maybe they're too obvious, but I think worth the space since many comments seem to contradict these: 1) I think you can't just consider the implications of how people will behave as employees once they're earning a Basic Income. How employers will simply take advantage of the system and force people to work for less. If anything I think it will put more pressure on businesses to make sure they're paying enough, otherwise they won't have the manpower to grow their business. Then there's the argument about automation. There will be only a few companies who can do automation to compete in this new economy. If anything I think it's worth mentioning that not only will it make it easier for large corporations to attempt to take advantage of people, but I think it will make it far easier for regular citizens to become employers. For example, I think people will be far more willing to accept terms that pay only equity in a company than they would be today. 2) With regard to "what will people do with all of their spare time". I think perhaps the dystopian future many people imagine will happen for a few weeks where people celebrate, get drunk and party all day because they don't have to work. Eventually I imagine that life will catch up to most people. They'll have hobbies, they'll start businesses, they'll contribute to non-profit efforts. And one of the most important I think, they'll have the time to engage with their government to ensure it remains loyal to its citizens and not to special interests. NOTE: And to clarify I think these points are made with regard to a "Basic Income" and not a "Minimum Guaranteed Income". Basic Income IMO is the far superior choice. Minimum Guaranteed Income seems to give all the benefit to the large corporations and little to no benefit to the average citizen besides guarantee that they'll remain out of poverty for their entire life.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  We can hope they find hobbies, instead idle minds tend to destructive habits. Let alone all those idle people are ripe for exploitation by political groups and the like. The hard part with a BI is finding incentive for many to do more than the minimum required to survive. We might be creating that dystopian future simply by defining through law the minimum required to keep people from rising up. In other words, we create a permanent lower class whom we keep just happy enough they don't take out stuff. I think BI is an interesting idea but the dangers are too high unless you find something for people to do. Don't wait for them to find it, most never will try. BI needs to come with some public service at the minimum if not employed
grp 11y ago
I want to think basic income is a good idea. But how the "bonus salary" will be calculated in the case of political jobs (to legislate) and above all army? Is there any texts on this subject?
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  I assume "current salary" - "basic income" = "bonus salary" would be a good place to start.
transfire 11y ago
Kudos to Finland! I think their BI may be a bit high (the trial amount seems about right), but inflation will adjust to the amount so it won't really matter much. I think it is wrong to think of BI as an income one could actually live comfortably on, as this article seems to. That would provide too much disincentive to be unproductive. Rather a BI should be just enough to keep people from starving and freezing and enough to bootstrap a life with.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  Not sure about Finnish example, but where I am right now (Switzerland), social security does exactly that, without major costly experiments with god know what results. In fact, system is so effective that if you end up unemployed, for one year you'll be given 80% of your former salary (capped, but to 120,000 CHF!) so you are not burdened with looking for cheaper accommodation etc which is very hard here. If you cannot find anything in 1 year, then other services kick in, of course with much lower cash flow. It works remarkably well.
ThomPete 11y ago
A lot of people discuss UBI from two angels. Either "people will mostly work but it's a better way to secure those who do not or cannot" Or "a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why would they when they get money for just sitting on their hands" However thats the wrong perspective for this. UBI is a potential solution IF you believe that most jobs will be gone which also means that most taxation schemes like income tax will be gone to. If you are still thinking about this as a solution to getting jobs back or there aren't enough people to pay for it then it's already a dead discussion. So the key premise for this discussion is not whether it will solve our job problems or whether people will be lazy and not pay income tax. The key premise is that the productivity gains and price decreases by automation is used as some of the leverage for society to build a self sustained ecosystem for humans to live in. Where technology is a kind of photosynthesis that allow for the distribution of goods and wealth even though everyone mostly ended up working with producing said good.
- grecy 11y ago
  > "a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why would they when they get money for just sitting on their hands" Every person in Australia over 22 and under retirement age can get extremely generous welfare, forever. It doesn't matter if you've never had a job, etc. etc. A single person gets $1046/mo With children is $1200/mo http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/newstart-allowance http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink... Are Australians sitting around on their hands? Some are, sure, but the vast majority don't want to live the life that ~$1k/mo buys.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    It's not my claims I was talking about what a lot of people say when it comes to this discussion.
    - grecy 11y ago
      Yep, I was backing you up.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
laotzu 11y ago
I'm all for a UBI but I'm very skeptical of the feasibility of implementing one based on the dollar or any paper based monetary system that is not an actual standard and scientific measure of resources, and none of them are to my knowledge. An efficient UBI would be implemented using a computer based mathematical measurement system. We've already got a surplus of food, water, and shelter to take care of all humanity, we just haven't figured out how to measure and distribute it properly. Technologies such as machine vision and video/image recognition could keep a real time measurement of the global resource stockpile. Feed that into an open source distributed ledger for all to see, and then distribute it based on a demand algorithm using solar powered drones for maximum efficiency.
- maaarghk 11y ago
  No problem Mr Asimov.
Zklsalue8 11y ago
This is going to be hilarious. Finland, you so silly.
Amorymeltzer 11y ago
Also from today: http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-finland/ http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-finland/ >The Finnish economy is 11% smaller than its 2008 peak, making it look more like Italy or Spain than the stronger “core” countries of the euro zone. According to the latest monthly estimates, Finland’s economic output shrank by a daunting 2.6% in September versus the year before, the worst result in more than two years

350 points by imartin2k 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

I'm glad someone is trying it out. Hope they offer insight into what works what doesn't and any caveats. It may also be a bit early, as automation isn't in its stride yet. Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. Whether their model can be adapted to say Indonesia or the US or Japan is to be seen. The main source of ideas was from Milton and the Nixon administration who with the economy going south looked for alternative means for people to "make" a living. "...Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax" So it'd be accompanied by a loss of minimum wage floor as well as it should be as low as possible (approx USD 1000/mo after initial trial phase in Finland.) It's not a comfy lifestyle by any means, but could get people off the streets who otherwise would not have the means. Given those parameters, with a few exceptions, I don't see this implementation undermining people's will and want to work and at the same time it has great upside in simplicity and affecting their poorest citizens positively.

logicchains 11y ago
>So it'd be accompanied by a loss of minimum wage floor as well as it should be as low as possible (approx USD 1000/mo after initial trial phase in Finland.) To expand on this, removing the minimum wage is meant to make it easier for people to "get their foot in the door". The economic notion is that e.g. if X's labour is not worth more than $5 per hour, and the minimum wage is $10 per hour, then X will have great difficulty finding work (because the ultimate minimum wage isn't $10, it's $0). This means they'll have more trouble obtaining the work experience that would make them more productive. Removing the minimum wage means anyone can work who wants to, and the basic income protects them from the hardships that normally accompany low-wage jobs.
- arcticfox 11y ago
  This is actually a really compelling argument that I hadn't heard before. Is there a good, short-ish reference on these arguments that you know of?
  - CookieMon 11y ago
    Here: https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/r/basicincome/wiki/index Basic income better aligns everyone's economic incentives, so it solves (in theory) a whole host of the problems we've got. It's great to hear that some form of it is going to be tried.
    - notahacker 11y ago
      It's a pity that the proponents there have to resort to including mathematical impossibilities on their list.... "A basic income, coupled with a flat tax, is capable of mimicking all aspects of our current progressive (bracketed) taxation scheme, but without brackets." Basic income realigns people's incentives. It might be better than a really badly designed welfare system at removing "welfare traps", but it also can be expected to have a whole host of negative aspects in comparison to other possible configurations of the payment of government subsidies.
      - kwhitefoot 11y ago
        > host of negative aspects Such as?
      - polymatter 11y ago
        what are the "whole host of negative aspects"? I will accept that there are almost certainly edge cases which I can't predict that will need ironing out. probably due to the administration of updating the list appropriately. but basic income seems very much like the proverbial silver bullet that never exists, so I am curious over its negative aspects. in discussing with friends and family, the worst thing about basic income is it means paying people for doing nothing and that _really_ _really_ angers some people. even worse, it means even millionaires get basic income!
Hytosys 11y ago
>Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. There are an unknown amount of reasons that would determine the success of a program like basic income, so I'm wondering why the size and homogeneity of a country are always quickly brought up.
- foota 11y ago
  Probably because they're the most obvious of the factors that could impact such a program.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    I'm sorry, why is that obvious, even in the slightest?
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    Oh, shit! How come I always miss the obvious things? What am I doing wrong?
    - paulojreis 11y ago
      I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're questioning economical premises stated as obvious in a tech forum (so, where no special economical knowledge should be assumed). You're doing the right thing - why are they obvious? If he who stated them as obvious can't answer that with solid references, then it's not obvious; it's just an unfounded preconception.
      - philh 11y ago
        > I don't know why you're being downvoted. Didn't downvote, but personally, I really dislike sarcasm used in this manner. It's not so much questioning as flat-out contradicting. And it does that in a way which doesn't help to bridge the inferential gap.
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  because if you bring in an influx of color and foreign diversity, you get people who have less in common, less shared values and don't look out for each other. Get a massive influx of brown muslims in your white country, then find out that you no longer cooperate with each other like you did before. It's basically the way in the U.S. that the two party system also uses race and immigration to drive another wedge between citizens. Believe me, you want homogenity. It's better for progress than diversity. Everyone tells the story that diversity somehow is strength. Nope, never has been, it's a story that just feels good but isn't true. The U.S. progresses in spite of diversity and conflict, not because of it.
legulere 11y ago
> homogenous country please stop with this homogenous country bullshit. Finland like any other western country has a significant amount of other ethnicities, more than 10% in the case of Finland. And it's not like people are the same if they are of the same ethnicity. And even if it were especially homogenous, how would that matter?
- vlehto 11y ago
  Are you a Finn? I am and would definitely call this homogenous coutry. But I know Finns who would never agree on that.
- mrweasel 11y ago
  >more than 10% in the case of Finland Half of those are Swedish.
- Kiro 11y ago
  No, you cannot compare Finland to other western or even Scandinavian countries. It's very different.
mcv 11y ago
I'm pretty left-wing (I consider myself a libertarian socialist), but I agree with Friedman. Once you have a livable basic income, you don't really need a minimum wage and progressive taxation anymore. Those things exist primarily to guarantee livable conditions for the very poorest, but Basic Income would guarantee those livable conditions in a far more simple and effective way. Two important effects of this would be: a) the labour market would become a lot more open and free. At the moment, employers wield all the power because employees need a job. It's not a free market if you can't say no to a deal. With basic income, people can say no if the offer is too bad. But if your alternative is starvation, a terrible job for too little pay is still better than nothing. Minimum wage exists to limit the employers' power to exploit people who have no option to say no. b) It fixes the unemployment trap. For people with unemployment or disability benefits, getting a low-pay part-time job often means they end up with less money (or the same money and more costs) despite them taking the effort to work, because they lose the benefits. This discourages people from working. With Basic Income, you keep that income if you get a job, so you always get ahead by working, even if it's only a little. There's nothing fraudulent anymore about doing little jobs while unemployed. I'd probably prefer both the basic income and the tax to be a bit higher than Friedman would like them to be, but that's part of the standard political-economic give and take. As long as the Basic Income is at least enough for decent food and rent, I'm happy.
- notahacker 11y ago
  If you don't have progressive taxation any more, you're either going to be unable to pay for the BI or seriously hurt the middle classes. If the rich pay lower [net] taxes, someone else pays more (assuming you're not on the right hand side of a Laffer curve)
  - sago 11y ago
    I agree, I don't see the logic in removing progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is a recognition that there is a disproportionate benefit in living in an ordered and lawful society for those with high income (and assets, though we seem to have lost the plot on taxation of assets). You depend on the efforts of a lot of people, each of whom has benefitted from the state's education and infrastructure. Your products benefit from the state's legal support, your money from the state's stability, and so on. Progressive taxation is a recognition that those benefits don't scale linearly: those at the highest incomes benefit not only from the linear support of their wealth, but the exponential support of society.
kwhitefoot 11y ago
Everyone in this thread is writing as though this has never been tried before. It has been tried at least five times (three in USA and twice in Canada). The results have been re-analysed in recent years and show that the reduction in peoples willingness to work is very slight. Of course if Finland does it over the whole country then this will be a much larger experiment than the US and Canadian ones. I think that there are good reasons to believe that it will have a very positive effect. It also gives greater bargaining power to the lowest paid so that it should help to prevent the reduction in wages that is becoming a feature of the low end of the employment market.
- mpartel 11y ago
  Could you link to the analysis you mentioned?
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    This search string canadian basic income experiment statistical analysis repeated on Google got me a lot of hits including these that refer To Dr. Evelyn Forget's analysis in 2009: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINCOME
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The reduction in work effort is 13% - double the effect of the great recession. http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf It also gives greater bargaining power to the lowest paid so that it should help to prevent the reduction in wages that is becoming a feature of the low end of the employment market. If supply of labor is significantly reduced then prices for labor will rise. Didn't you just claim that won't happen?
  - nekopa 11y ago
    You keep throwing out this 13% as if it is a bad thing, with no comment on the context mentioned in your link. So I'll add it here for others to view if they don't want to wade through a pdf to find it: 1: The 13% decrease in work effort is per family unit. This is an important distinction, because it led to the following 3 points 2: The primary wage earner in the unit reduced their effort only slightly, but this had a large result due to them making the majority of the cash 3: The secondary wage earner, who was usually the spouse reduced their work effort to stay at home longer after having a baby, and to do more work around the house. 4: The tertiary wage earner, in most cases an adolescent male, had theIr work effort reduced by the fact that it entered the workforce later. This may have been due to them continuing their education. So I think - IMHO - the 13% reduction represent a net benefit for society - dad doesn't have to do so much overtime, mum can spend more time with her baby, and your kids stay in school longer and become qualified for better jobs...
nordify 11y ago
> It's not a comfy lifestyle by any means, but could get people off the streets who otherwise would not have the means. It's not like there is a large problem in Finland with people living on the streets. Rent is subsidized up to 80% if you are unemployed or without income. Unemployment benefits and/or social assistance cover the remaining 20%. If you become homeless, you will be provided with temporary housing. Any homeless problems are usually due to larger underlying personal issues. Some people, such as alcoholics and junkies, will not or cannot adhere to basic living rules and will rather choose to be, or forced to be, depending on how you look at it, homeless. Besides, for a bit of morbid humor, homelessness is a self limiting problem in Finland due to winter.
- pavlov 11y ago
  Without income you can get rent support up to 80%, but there is also an absolute upper limit which is much lower than the rent in large towns like Helsinki. So you can't just rent a 1000 € apartment and expect to get 800 € from social security -- the reality is around half of that. Any homeless problems are usually due to larger underlying personal issues. Is that claim supported by any facts?
  - nordify 11y ago
    From litterally the first Google result: "Long-term homelessness is a case of prolonged or repeated homelessness , which is often associated with poverty, in addition to severe psycho- social problems such as substance abuse and mental health problems , crime and violence . This group is estimated to comprise about 40-50 percent of all homeless people living alone." http://www.asuntoensin.fi/asunto_ensin/asunnottomuus http://www.asuntoensin.fi/asunto_ensin/asunnottomuus
retube 11y ago
BI is just a huge subsidy for employers. Competition in the labour market will absolutely crush salaries if everyone gets a basic income irrespective of whether employed or not. Now given that income taxes > (or even >>) corporation and dividend taxes even if those reduced wages translate directly into increased corporate profits the net tax take by government will fall, whilst their liability goes up from BI obligations. All BI will do is enrich the business elite and drive further inequality. A semi test case of BI is being inadvertently conducted in the UK with tax credits. Thanks to effectively subsidised wages by the state, wages have remained stagnant or fallen. As wages have fallen more people qualify for tax credits, further subsidizing wages in a negative feedback loop. Net result: the cost to the state has ballooned to 30bn/year from an originally projected 2bn/year with over 50% of working households now in receipt of them, coupled with ever increasing equality gap. Far from harmonising wealth and reducing inequality, basic income will have exactly the opposite effect.
- rwmj 11y ago
  > Thanks to effectively subsidised wages by the state, wages have remained stagnant or fallen. What's the evidence for this?
  - ams6110 11y ago
    It makes perfect sense. Each person has an income need, X. If they get B basic income, employer only needs to pay X - B whereas without basic income he needs to pay X.
    - lhopki01 11y ago
      That's a poor implementation of basic income. If each person has a need X then B should be set at X. That way if they work for someone everything on top isn't for need but want. Gives them the ability to choose more.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      Agreed, look at it this way - most people don't earn minimum, but more. They will still work to keep their standards (paying rents, mortgages, cars, kids, lifestyle they are used to etc.). Employers are not dumb, they will reflect this immediately. A healthy society should always motivate people to WORK and produce products/services, that's what keeps society running. If main goal of BI is to remove that motivation, I fail to see it as a step in right direction.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
laotzu 11y ago
>It may also be a bit early, as automation isn't in its stride yet. I'm curious as to how you would judge whether or not automation is efficient enough to do this? Buckminster Fuller, former president of the Mensa society, argued that we passed that invisible line back in the 1970's: >In technology's "invisible" world, inventors continually increase the quantity and quality of performed work per each volume or pound of material, erg of energy, and unit of worker and "overhead" time invested in each given increment of attained functional performance. This complex process we call progressive ephemeralization. In 1970, the sum total of increases in overall technological know-how and their comprehensive integration took humanity across the epochal but invisible threshold into a state of technically realizable and economically feasible universal success for all humanity -Buckminster Fuller, Grunch of Giants, 1982
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 11y ago
Interesting to read another YC article from top page - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-k... Some opinions there describe welfare as evil thing, removing any motivation for people to even try to get a better life. maybe not applicable for Finland, but interesting nevertheless as coming for 1st-world country (although they describe themselves as 3rd-world one). Let's not forget that for every hard-working individual there is X slackers looking how to get as much out of system with as little effort as possible, by any means necessary. I fail to see how BI would motivate those people to get better, and contribute to our society. Hopefully in this case, road to hell isn't paved with good intentions as usually...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  People doing regular work have to do physical labour, cognitive labour, emotional labour. People getting welfare or charity generally still have to, at minimum, do emotional labour, looking suitably pitiful before the handout and then suitably grateful after. And often physical and cognitive labour as well, filling in forms, schlepping to mandatory signing-on, etc. This is why welfare is demotivating. People reasonably feel they have already done the work, they as feel drained as if they were in a job. They know that if they don't do the things, the welfare vanishes. Whether it's a job or welfare, everyone in our current system is scrabbling. And so everyone is stuck in a scarcity mindset. Basic income is different. There is no scrabbling needed, not even emotional work, it just arrives. And so I expect that will flip people from a scarcity mindset to a leisure mindset. They won't be slacking, because slacking is a way of scrabbling. They'll want to do something, although without the need for a day job any more, that might be more towards the creative side. Some will "retire" on BI and write their novel or go back to university. Others will want to work to make more than the BI. Expect a period of labour shortage, manufacturing turning to robots in reaction, a surge of cultural product such as has never been seen, and mass education with a broadening of the scope of people's interest into "blue sky" non employable fields.
theklub 11y ago
It would straight up fund criminals in the US. Kinda like welfare currently does. (mostly drug dealers)
scott_karana 11y ago
> Also, this is Finland a small, rich and homogenous country. Whether their model can be adapted [Japan] is to be seen. Isn't Japan also a homogenous, small, rich country? Seems like an excellent place to try this, to me. The only explanation I can think of is that you meant "small" as in their population, not geography.

kisstheblade 11y ago

Unfortunately I don't think this is going to work as long as there are any other benefits paid on an "individual basis", eg some cultures here get extra money for their traditional dresses paid for by social security! And if you have kids and have spent all your "basic income" then you will still get new strollers (top of the line) etc for your babies, or cellphones for yor self and your family, with paid plans. Or your electric and internet bills paid. The left will never agree to ditch these subsidies. And the biggest issue is that housing is also paid for spearately under this plan (as per the article). Nowadays the situation living in helsinki center is that only rich and unemployed people can afford to live there. You know, "close to where the work is!". They should pay you a lump sum and you would live where you wanted using only that money. Too bad if you can't afford the most expensive place to stay where "the work" (=pubs and bars) are. In more remote places (but still cities) you can have a studio appartment for probably 200 euros per month.

mc32 11y ago
They could tweak it so you get your basic income, if you forgo other forms of subsidies (as Milton orig. proposed). Also, Russians can't just cross the border and become eligible as it appears it's citizens only. And I wouldn't begrudge Laplanders, life up there is austere. If they choose this, then "rational" unemployed would move to the outskirts and rent cheaper properties till they could afford more expensive apartments (via new jobs). Hope they can keep it free of interference so it can be gauged for success or failure.
- vlehto 11y ago
  >citizens only No it's not. Currently all wellfare in Finland is based permanent residence. But if you don't have permanent residence, the social services will get you one if you just are in Finland "permanently". Which happens if you can claim that you have no other safe place to go. Or if you have family here. Or if you have no other citizenship. Russians can't come over the border right now. But if there is ever a civil war in Russia, then we are fucked. If Russia starts to move Syrian refugees through russia just to fuck with us, we are in deep shit. Some people are really worried about immigration. While it's not a problem right now. Some people are really worried that we are not perceived as fascist. Some people are really worried about refugees who are here. Nobody gives a fuck about Syrians in Syria. Getting citizenship means you have to do military service, but you gain nothing from it. Currently it is punishment really.

PlzSnow 11y ago

Basic Income is a utopian fantasy which sounds good but will never work because of human nature. A bit like communism. It's good that Finland will do a very limited test. When it inevitably fails, the world will be able to say "if Finland can't get it too work, then what chance any other country?". Also, here is a quote from the article that is complete nonsense. "In European countries, we have arrived at a situation where large numbers of people are unemployed, with very little chance that these numbers will go down in the near future. This is particularly due to the (proven) fact that automation and robotization are destroying more jobs than innovation can create."

BBlarat 11y ago
No Columbus you can never get to india by sailing the other way, you will fall off the edge of the earth!
- jcranmer 11y ago
  Columbus's problem wasn't that people thought the Earth was flat (it was widely known in Europe since Greek times that the Earth was round). His problem was that he got his math badly wrong and severely underestimated the distance to China. The only reason he didn't kill his crew was because there happened to be an unknown continent at such distance as he thought China to be.
jon-wood 11y ago
You claim that basic income can't possibly work, and that unemployment increasing over time is nonsense, but you've not provided any reason why. How is basic income so similar to communism it should be written off without trying?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  I didn't say Basic Income should be written off without trying. I said it should be tried so that it can fail and be seen to be utopian nonsense. I didn't say that unemployment increasing over time was nonsense, I said that blaming automization was nonsense.

jkot 11y ago

I would like to point out that several EU countries have minimal basic income. It translates as 'minimal liveable income' and is paid to people who have no other income. It is about 60 euro/month in Czech republic. In Germany it is about 300 euro/month, but can easily go up to 1000 euro/month with all extras. Problem is that one has to prove he does not have any other income. That could be problem for some people, for example illegal foreigners. Or divorced fathers who have income on paper, but everything gets confiscated for alimony.

danielbarla 11y ago
> ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called "welfare cliffs". An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is much more complex than that, but that's the idea.
- krzyk 11y ago
  Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.
  - transfire 11y ago
    I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
  - danielbarla 11y ago

thomaskcr 11y ago

I think the only way for basic income to work is a very clear definition of what is and is not luxury. I think a lot of the issues with minimum wage and welfare debates stem from different people having different definitions of what should be paid for by those services. We see this with the minimum wage debate -- everyone's definition of a "living wage" is different. Does basic mean house, car etc in a nice area or does it mean that if you're not working you can afford to live only where the cost of living is low? I think this needs to be really clearly laid out so down the line the intention of the money is clear. If it's clearly laid out ahead of time, then in the US situation for example, someone complaining that they cannot afford an apartment in an expensive area without working is not evidence for a need to raise the basic income, it's evidence they need to move or find a (better) job.

vlehto 11y ago
It may sound weird, but this is not that big problem in Finland. We don't have too much that sort of arguments. Our politics is lot more consensus/compromise based than U.S. politics. This means people disagreeing in quantity can be sorted out. But the big parties can veto this stuff for no apparent reason what so ever. Our left is more communist than U.S. left. Some of them don't give a shit what is "living wage". They think government should give them all excess money possible. And if there is no excess, then take loan to support some arbitrary standard of living for everybody. "You don't have to pay debt" "tax the rich more". But people don't really believe them. Most Finns still think that "average Finn is somewhat sensible person". The whole multiparty system can exist, because we mostly agree on stuff. It's just the details that are different. When I go to vote, I don't think "how to save the country from the evil Kokoomus". I think what party could nudge the system to better direction. Being cohesive small nation state is cosy. But the hivemind can be scary at times. Currently police is trying to pass internet surveilance legistlation and it's not much protested. Because "average Finn is somewhat sensible, they would not do this if they didn't really have to".
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
A living wage is also strongly dependent upon family makeup. Two childless individuals can survive on far less per adult than a single parent with three children. So for starters, do the BI scale per individual, and if so, how? Assuming it scales flatly, it gives an incentives to have children because of economies of scale (this is not to say people will have dozens of children, as this is a single incentive among many, many of which are incentives to not have children).

kriro 11y ago

I'm glad someone tries it but remain very skeptical. If you take the proposed eventual 800 Euro and assume every single citizen will get it (roughly 5.5 million in Finland) that would be 52.8 billion Euro/year. For comparison the net domestic product of Finland is 216.9 billion (bad indicator but one i could find with a quick search) I think if you do this, every citizen should get the base income and only income above it and corporate income should be taxed. Currently the average income in Finland is about 3.1k/month. So on average that's 2300 Euro taxable income (once again grossly simplifying). You'd need to tax that at roughly 35% to refinance the base income. Not sure if the corporate taxes and hiking the 35% to say 50% (+savings on all the stuff that is now covered by the 800 like unemployment, retirement) can make up for all the other costs (infrastructure, education, health care, police, military etc.) There's also the standard questions of "why not ask for more" and "what will people do with the free time, why should they work". Which are the interesting questions that an experiment could help answer.

derefr 11y ago
Remember that basic income displaces payouts from other social programs. How much do social welfare and unemployment programs pay out in Finland? Also remember that, although everyone theoretically gets an equal slice of a basic-income pie, there's nothing stopping a government from making taxes more progressive to claw back the wealth transfer from anyone who was living comfortably on their own income and didn't really need the help.
- millstone 11y ago
  I wonder about non-payout social programs, especially those aimed at children, like Head Start or SNAP (food stamps) in the USA. Will basic income enable recipients to make more efficient choices? Or will recipients squander it, diverting money away from nutrition and child development?
  - derefr 11y ago
    Now you've got me imagining children receiving their own basic incomes, with the government getting to decide how some proportion (30%? 100%?) of their monthly allocation gets spent, and the parents getting handed the rest. Something interesting with basic income is that it erases the traditional "income flow" that makes it make sense for parents to have one bank account that they own, and pay for all family members out of it. Under basic income, I could see each family member defaulting to having their own bank account to receive deposits. You could go way more wild in the "enforcing spending on childen" with that setup than anything food stamps do. You could require that e.g. the government gets to audit the expenses on all "child" accounts to ensure they're for the child; and additionally require that parents only buy things "for" their children by first transferring money from their own account to the child's, and only then spend what is now the child's money on the item.

dcw303 11y ago

What are the schools of thought regarding inflation? It seems to me that any mass handout would quickly raise the cost of living and nullify any benefit.

littletimmy 11y ago
Why does it seem that way to you? "Cost of living" in basics like rent and food is what people buy anyway. How is having a basic income going to change that, unless you had like a huge homeless/starving population that can suddenly now get homes/food?
- dcw303 11y ago
  I admit that I don't know that much about basic income but had assumed that everyone would be "better off" by the same amount. Others in the thread have kindly informed me that is not the case, and that taxation will take out the benefit for higher earners. I must say that doesn't sound very "universal" to me.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    Even if we give $30,000 to EVERYONE, the poor will be more better off than the rich because $15,000 to $30,000 is a much bigger jump than $400,000 to $415,000. But the price of basics is not going to change that much because everyone buys them already. The "universal" part is that this is a universal floor on living standards that applies to everyone.
- Kiro 11y ago
  It will raise the price of staples because people don't need to be frugal about those things anymore.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    What on earth makes you say that? If I buy one bag of rice a week, I'm not going to just randomly start buying 2 bags if I get more money. I'd rather buy some spices. People will be frugal because they'll want to spend money on other things. Imagine a poor person as a person just like you: he has wants outside of basic survival.

everslick 11y ago

An aspect greatly overlooked in this discussion here is, that an UBI would rid us from a ton of bullshit jobs people are currently forced to do, just to get by. So in a way, an UBI can lead to degrowth eventually, which decreases pollution, traffic jams, energy consumption, waste a.s.o. I'm looking forward to see what people are going to do with the spare time.

rasse 11y ago

As a Finn, my primary concern is whether or not basic income will just inflate rents.

746F7475 11y ago
Why would they? Would people in general be "earning" more money from basic income than current benefits? I mean you can't increase rent past the point people are able to pay.
- switch007 11y ago
  > I mean you can't increase rent past the point people are able to pay. You can increase them past the point that people on lower wages/basic income can pay, driving them out of desirable or semi desirable areas to cheaper areas. See London as an example.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    Yeah but that already happens with the current system; the worst case scenario is that nothing changes and people on lower wages keep being pushed out from more desirable areas.
  - 746F7475 11y ago
    But I don't see why you need to live in London? You might like it and want to live there, but then you need the money to be able to. Like I could move to Helsinki if I wanted to on my current salary, but I see no reason to do so. I live in smaller city (or maybe it's even considered a town) and I have plenty of extra money left over after my rent.
    - switch007 11y ago
      I don't need to nor, personally, want to. However, the people already there have a right to be there, especially those born in London, who grew up there, who have families, jobs, community involvement etc.
- 11y ago

api_or_ipa 11y ago

I can't really take an article seriously when it refers to Milton Friedman as a Libertarian. He's most certainly not. He was a leading Chicago school adherent.

TheTrotters 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmeeMYrnweg
jkldotio 11y ago
Words in English are frequently polysemic. There are well established philosophical, "left" and "right" meanings to "libertarian" which seem to have evolved in that order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology Friedman is clearly closest to the last camp and even self-identified with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism_and_the_Republican_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism... Obviously for an article pitched at a general audience, rather than an academic one, some people won't know Friedman so it's not unreasonable to expect them to clarify. I presume that's why they added the following lines immediately after calling him a "libertarian economist". "Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax (which means that the tax would be universal and at the same rate for all). So in reality, what Friedman was pushing for was a system which would provide employers with people ready to work for lower salaries at no additional cost to employers." I can't see how any reasonable person could read that and then claim the article was putting Friedman in the wrong camp or being misleading or inaccurate regarding that point.
mcv 11y ago
It's worth noting that the word "libertarian" can have a lot of different meanings, including some pretty extreme ones in the US.

giorgosts 11y ago

Here in Cyprus we have guaranteed minimum income benefit of 480 euros since 2014 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&intPageId=3249 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1105&langId=en&int...

seszett 11y ago
That's not the same though, I believe most countries have a guaranteed minimum income (520 euros in France) but unlike basic income, minimum income is not unconditional. It disappears if you earn money from a job, which creates (some) disincentive to find a job, and requires elaborate rules to reduce this disincentive (like reducing the benefit progressively relative to the total income, etc). Basic income on the other hand is unconditional, so whatever job you have you won't feel like you're losing on benefits (at least, that's the idea).

jbb555 11y ago

I don't see how this can possibly work. I'm reasonably well paid, and pay a lot of tax. I can save quite a bit. I could afford to live for 5 years from my savings without working. But not forever, so I still work. But if someone was to give me 800 euro a month then I could live of my saving for maybe 20 years instead. Certainly long enough to get to retirement.... So why would I work? I wouldn't. So not only would this cost 800 euro a month directly but also the 4000 euro a month in taxes I would have paid. It doesn't take many people to do the obvious thing...

seszett 11y ago
Most people don't pay 4000 euros a month in taxes and can't live for 5 years from their savings. Your personal situation is far from representative and can't be used to assess the usefulness of universal basic income.
- tluyben2 11y ago
  4000 euros is a lot; most people who make enough to pay that have had their tax advisor 'restructure' things so they pay less. If you are paying that after restructure I would think you can save enough to add 3 years per year (you might have to live slightly more frugal than you do now).
littletimmy 11y ago
People don't work just for money. The idea is to free people up so that they can use their natural human creativity to grow as individuals.
tluyben2 11y ago
Not everyone works for money. In fact most people I personally know (no, I'm not sure that's a good representation) don't. What is quite common though among large groups of people is that they get extremely bored and lonely without their jobs. It is frightening to talk with people and find out that they would have nothing at all to do if they would not have their jobs; their hobbies (if they have them) don't give them enough satisfaction to do them longer than a few hours a week. I don't have to work but I find myself working more as I enjoy it even though I have hobbies to keep me busy.

tn13 11y ago

This makes sense only if we are getting rid of all other welfare.

MarcusVorenus 11y ago
The article says it will replace some other benefits that Finns currently have. If the project works then I assume other welfare programs will be folded into the basic income over time.
- tn13 11y ago
  Yes. That is a smart thing to do but generally there is a strong resistance from different branches of government responsible for delivering those welfare schemes. The arguments tend to be "but that person will spend it on drugs".

jugbee 11y ago

The title is misleading, since all the Baltic countries have basic income for like 20 years. If anyone's interested - in Lithuania it's 305euros, in Latvia 350, in Estonia, if i'm not mistaken it's something about 400

kwhitefoot 11y ago
We are all interested but some references would be handy. Are you sure that you have not confused this with a CONDITIONAL minimum income? That is one that is only available to people who don't have an income, a means tested payment. Also even in the Baltic states EU400 is surely not much for a month.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
You are mistaken. You are referring to the common welfare system that western countries tend to have which could be thought of as a minimum income but which leads to lots of bureaucracy due to the requirement for means testing. Basic income is different because it is unconditionally paid to everyone without any means testing.

piokoch 11y ago

Basic income idea always resambles me a lot Lex Frumentaria introduced in ancient Rome by Gaius Gracchus. The idea was exactly the same - give people "basic income", that is alomost free grain. Was Gracchus successful? Not really, he died in a rather miserable way. In addition Rome was weakened by that law. First of all even if budget could not afford free grain, there was no way to put end to that law (Rome was a democracy, croud wanted free grain). The other unwanted effect was migration of people from villages to the city (hey, there is free food there, so what's the point working hard). I encourage every supporter of basic income to learn more about that Roman law and how it affected Rome. When we start giving money we need to think about a number of issues: 1. Someone needs to earn these money, someone will have to be taxed and that someone will not be happy. Rich people tend to know how to avoid taxes. So it may turn out that in a few years it will be hard to provide money for basic income, unless a given country has sufficient natural resources to finance basic income. 2. How basic income will affect inflation (if it is going to increase it, it may happen that basic income becomes worthless shortly) 3. How basic income will affect democracy - I can imagine a party which main program point will be "increase basic income" (Gaius Gracchus was outbid by his competitors) - a croud might vote for a random wacko without thinking about further consequences. 4. And, at the and, as there is a question if basic income is ethical. We take money from X to give that to Y, this does not sound good when we think about things like ownership, justice - obviously that depends on ethical system one prefers. If it turn out that basic income caused economical problems in a given country (higher inflation, high taxes, capital escape, budget deficit) then who will have to pay for that failed experiment? It may happen that potential beneficiaries of free income (economically weaker, poorer people) will have to pay for it much more then they got.

jboggan 11y ago
Bravo. In the long run the people most harmed by the full implementation of these schemes will be the underclass they purport to aid. The people that are supposed to pay for all of this are by definition the people who are clever enough and powerful enough to figure out how to avoid paying for it. Raise taxes enough on those juicy Silicon Valley salaries and you'll see large tech companies decreasing salaries while compensating with corporate housing, transportation, and stock that is taxed at a lower rate. The money simply won't be there, not in the amounts needed or anticipated.

hcarvalhoalves 11y ago

Here's one thing I don't understand: isn't this just going to inflate prices? If I have an apartment for rent, and now I know everybody is getting, unconditionally, a $ 800 paycheck, what keeps me from raising the price by the same amount? The people who do work will still be able to pay my price, and there'll be demand for it.

harryf 11y ago
In most Western European countries rent is tightly controlled so it's not possible for landlords to make big increases overnight.
- hcarvalhoalves 11y ago
  Ok: what keeps me from raising prices, period? Also, rent was just one example. In the long run it seems inflation will just go up unless there's heavy regulation of the market, at least on basic goods and services (housing, food, clothing, etc).
  - nordify 11y ago
    Nothing keeps you from raising prices. However, just because people have more money does not mean competition will stop. In fact competition might increase and prices go down, as there is more money to be made and risks/costs go down.
- distances 11y ago
  Is it? As far as I've understood, rent control is quite rare in Western Europe nowadays, and at least Finland doesn't have any.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    no it isn't, and where it is just causes havoc, ie you cannot beat market forces of many well-earning people wanting to live close to work with some law
11y ago

RobertoG 11y ago

There are some propositions for calling 'basic income' a 'technological dividend'. Changing the name changes the debate about it in a manner that is, maybe, more appropriate for the modern times. At the end of the day, a basic income it's only possible in affluent societies, and it's technology what makes a society affluent.

datashovel 11y ago

A few points that I thought would be worth making here. I read through all the comments a little while ago and was surprised no one was pointing these out. Maybe they're too obvious, but I think worth the space since many comments seem to contradict these: 1) I think you can't just consider the implications of how people will behave as employees once they're earning a Basic Income. How employers will simply take advantage of the system and force people to work for less. If anything I think it will put more pressure on businesses to make sure they're paying enough, otherwise they won't have the manpower to grow their business. Then there's the argument about automation. There will be only a few companies who can do automation to compete in this new economy. If anything I think it's worth mentioning that not only will it make it easier for large corporations to attempt to take advantage of people, but I think it will make it far easier for regular citizens to become employers. For example, I think people will be far more willing to accept terms that pay only equity in a company than they would be today. 2) With regard to "what will people do with all of their spare time". I think perhaps the dystopian future many people imagine will happen for a few weeks where people celebrate, get drunk and party all day because they don't have to work. Eventually I imagine that life will catch up to most people. They'll have hobbies, they'll start businesses, they'll contribute to non-profit efforts. And one of the most important I think, they'll have the time to engage with their government to ensure it remains loyal to its citizens and not to special interests. NOTE: And to clarify I think these points are made with regard to a "Basic Income" and not a "Minimum Guaranteed Income". Basic Income IMO is the far superior choice. Minimum Guaranteed Income seems to give all the benefit to the large corporations and little to no benefit to the average citizen besides guarantee that they'll remain out of poverty for their entire life.

Shivetya 11y ago
We can hope they find hobbies, instead idle minds tend to destructive habits. Let alone all those idle people are ripe for exploitation by political groups and the like. The hard part with a BI is finding incentive for many to do more than the minimum required to survive. We might be creating that dystopian future simply by defining through law the minimum required to keep people from rising up. In other words, we create a permanent lower class whom we keep just happy enough they don't take out stuff. I think BI is an interesting idea but the dangers are too high unless you find something for people to do. Don't wait for them to find it, most never will try. BI needs to come with some public service at the minimum if not employed

grp 11y ago

I want to think basic income is a good idea. But how the "bonus salary" will be calculated in the case of political jobs (to legislate) and above all army? Is there any texts on this subject?

JupiterMoon 11y ago
I assume "current salary" - "basic income" = "bonus salary" would be a good place to start.

transfire 11y ago

Kudos to Finland! I think their BI may be a bit high (the trial amount seems about right), but inflation will adjust to the amount so it won't really matter much. I think it is wrong to think of BI as an income one could actually live comfortably on, as this article seems to. That would provide too much disincentive to be unproductive. Rather a BI should be just enough to keep people from starving and freezing and enough to bootstrap a life with.

saiya-jin 11y ago
Not sure about Finnish example, but where I am right now (Switzerland), social security does exactly that, without major costly experiments with god know what results. In fact, system is so effective that if you end up unemployed, for one year you'll be given 80% of your former salary (capped, but to 120,000 CHF!) so you are not burdened with looking for cheaper accommodation etc which is very hard here. If you cannot find anything in 1 year, then other services kick in, of course with much lower cash flow. It works remarkably well.

ThomPete 11y ago

A lot of people discuss UBI from two angels. Either "people will mostly work but it's a better way to secure those who do not or cannot" Or "a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why would they when they get money for just sitting on their hands" However thats the wrong perspective for this. UBI is a potential solution IF you believe that most jobs will be gone which also means that most taxation schemes like income tax will be gone to. If you are still thinking about this as a solution to getting jobs back or there aren't enough people to pay for it then it's already a dead discussion. So the key premise for this discussion is not whether it will solve our job problems or whether people will be lazy and not pay income tax. The key premise is that the productivity gains and price decreases by automation is used as some of the leverage for society to build a self sustained ecosystem for humans to live in. Where technology is a kind of photosynthesis that allow for the distribution of goods and wealth even though everyone mostly ended up working with producing said good.

grecy 11y ago
> "a lot of people become lazy and don't want to work, why would they when they get money for just sitting on their hands" Every person in Australia over 22 and under retirement age can get extremely generous welfare, forever. It doesn't matter if you've never had a job, etc. etc. A single person gets $1046/mo With children is $1200/mo http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/newstart-allowance http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink... Are Australians sitting around on their hands? Some are, sure, but the vast majority don't want to live the life that ~$1k/mo buys.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  It's not my claims I was talking about what a lot of people say when it comes to this discussion.
  - grecy 11y ago
    Yep, I was backing you up.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

laotzu 11y ago

I'm all for a UBI but I'm very skeptical of the feasibility of implementing one based on the dollar or any paper based monetary system that is not an actual standard and scientific measure of resources, and none of them are to my knowledge. An efficient UBI would be implemented using a computer based mathematical measurement system. We've already got a surplus of food, water, and shelter to take care of all humanity, we just haven't figured out how to measure and distribute it properly. Technologies such as machine vision and video/image recognition could keep a real time measurement of the global resource stockpile. Feed that into an open source distributed ledger for all to see, and then distribute it based on a demand algorithm using solar powered drones for maximum efficiency.

maaarghk 11y ago
No problem Mr Asimov.

Zklsalue8 11y ago

This is going to be hilarious. Finland, you so silly.

Amorymeltzer 11y ago

Also from today: http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-finland/ http://qz.com/548985/whats-wrong-with-finland/ >The Finnish economy is 11% smaller than its 2008 peak, making it look more like Italy or Spain than the stronger “core” countries of the euro zone. According to the latest monthly estimates, Finland’s economic output shrank by a daunting 2.6% in September versus the year before, the worst result in more than two years