4 ms·
Yeah, that's the main change here, and I think probably a positive. The Nordic countries already have close to a universalist welfare system, where you're more
by _delirium 11y ago
Yeah, that's the main change here, and I think probably a positive. The Nordic countries already have close to a universalist welfare system, where you're more or less guaranteed an income sufficient to live on. So the change here isn't about whether you should be able to live without working: that's basically already true, and has been for decades. The change is about whether to pay out a basic income unconditionally rather than via the traditional welfare system, which excludes employed people, people with assets, etc.
I'm less familiar with the specifics of Finland's system, but in Denmark, if you run out of savings and eligibility for other sources of support (unemployment benefits, etc.), you fall back on a last-line "cash assistance" (kontanthjælp) which is something like $1500/mo, and can be received indefinitely. But you lose it if you get a job, so it can provide a disincentive to work in some cases, especially if your only job options are low-paying ones. Just paying out a basic income unconditionally wouldn't have the same issue, since any employment income would be in addition to the basic income, vs. the current scheme where your job income replaces the cash assistance.
- fossuser 11y agoI feel like a lot of the universal income would be lost to rent increases that seem likely to happen. It's really hard to predict the actual outcome though. Would be an interesting experiment.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoThe alternative result could be construction in very cheap housing given the predictable price floor for 100% of the population. If you can be sure your tenants will pay rent then you will want them at your building. The low-medium quality housing stock may suffer as the people on minimum income could be priced out while those who work may want fancier digs.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago> If you can be sure your tenants will pay rent then you will want them at your building. And this would be true, if the basic income program provided a way for your landlord to receive your basic income on your behalf, garnish it, and turn it over to you. I've never heard that proposed, and don't expect to.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoI never suggested anything like this. What I meant to illustrate was a condition where a landlord could predict the amount of rent they could charge given the cost of living and expected minimum income. If a tenant was getting minimum income and wasting it on booze and such and came up short for rent, you could kick them out, knowing that a more responsible tenant could fill the space (unless you have like 0% vacancy)
- kawsper 11y agoWhy would the rent increase? The rent is actually somewhat controlled in Denmark as well.
- thaumasiotes 11y agoBecause people would have more money.
- eanzenberg 11y agoNot more money but more inflation. Since no intrinsic value is created, the value of the dollar would decrease as more dollars flood the area.
- Kalium 11y agoIf there is a greater demand for units than supply, price is set by the top N buyers. If you boost everyone's spending power above that price without increasing supply, market forces will tend to raise the price until it's affordable only to the top N again. In housing, this means that you can boost people's spending power to help them afford rent, but you also need to build more units or you're just going to fuck everything up.