8 ms·

If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal. If this just goes t

by JackFr 10y ago

If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal. If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.

Jarwain 10y ago
They're calling it Basic Income, not Universal Basic Income. The goal being to see what the differences are between the unemployed and the control group. There may be other issues baked into the implementation, but it will be hard to say the result until it goes into action and we start getting data
- samcollins 10y ago
  I agree. The implementation here will still enable us to learn about some aspects of UBI. The question of how benefits affect the motivation to gain re-employment will still need to be studied in further experiments. I think it's worth celebrating that Iceland is doing controlled tests to explore this way. To really understand the best design for UBI, we need more of this.
  - hypnotortoise 10y ago
    It's Finland, not Iceland.
edblarney 10y ago
I agree with that statement. But a detail: it will not be 'streamlined'. Those government workers are not going anywhere. It's worth an experiment, though.
komodo 10y ago
Why don't we do a basic income lottery? - Anyone except previous winners can enter. - You can only enter once per drawing. - As the pool increases the payout does not, only the number of winners. - Winners get a basic income for life. - As another condition they agree to an amount of monitoring so that we can effectively study how they behave with the basic income. - This one would be hard, but you might have to be made ineligible for other government assistance programs maybe? State lotteries already offer annuity payouts and even better they sometimes have 100k for life lotteries. These aren't perfect as the amount is too high but it's worth studying anyway. The basic income lottery described above would be an even better approximation. EDIT: I just did a bit of googling and it looks like this has been tried before [1][2] , but the amounts were time-limited and low. It would probably have to be state-sponsored to take off. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-... [2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-project-community#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-proje...
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  There are already lotteries that pay out $1k/week or something for life.
- omash 10y ago
  I bet winning in a lottery feels a lot different to receiving your regular allowance the same as everyone else. I think this would affect behaviour.
  - prawn 10y ago
    Yes, a lottery winner would be swamped by many surrounding them. Less likely to happen in a trial where the full community is receiving a similar income.
- ChrisjayHenn 10y ago
  The only bit i'd quibble with is becoming ineligible for other assistance programs - one concern pro-UBI economists raise is that if it replaces social programs, the cost of necessities like childcare and housing will just increase proportionally. There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Aside from that, I really like your idea. Given the number of people who want to see a UBI, this might be one celebrity endorsement away from getting crowdfunded.
  - Supraperplex 10y ago
    > There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Can you elaborate on that? I honestly can't see it.
- jondubois 10y ago
  NOOO! That is a terrible idea. There is already way too much luck involved in our current economic system. If would really suck if all your friends won the lottery but you didn't. These kinds of economic lotteries only create more inequality; which is against the whole point of UBI. It makes more sense to start by giving out a really low UBI to EVERYONE and then gradually raise that amount over time.
Manglano 10y ago
These are distinct concepts. Anyone can receive the benefits, so it is universal, but there are conditions. Advocate for the Unconditional Universal Basic Income. All citizens deserve an equal allotment of the benefits, especially because no nation's populace is ever 100% mobilized as workforce.
ilaksh 10y ago
Exactly. Its bad because it is reported as a UBI test but is pretty much the opposite because it does not change the one thing UBI changes which is that you continue to receive the money even when you get a job.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  The article says they will continue to get they money even while earning money elsewhere. They are just selecting jobless people to start the program.
cuppa_chris 10y ago
Well they're doing it for 2000 people, so I would assume this is more of a test to see what behaviour jobless people exhibit when given a basic income. They're not rolling this out nation-wide yet. I'm all in favour of UBI because I believe there simply won't be enough work for everyone. But I can understand running a study first to test the waters. 2000 people sounds like a good number too. It's expensive, but if things continue in the way that they're trending, then it's a necessary expense.
- ggggtez 10y ago
  You see this is why other people run the countries. My solution to joblessness would have been to start wars in far off lands.
cromulent 10y ago
You have to be jobless to enter the program, but then you can work as much as you like. "It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income."
logicallee 10y ago
how pissed would everyone be if one of these people became a millionaire through working on some business while using Finland's cash handout to finance it. even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country. A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.
- jcoffland 10y ago
  Why would anyone be pissed? If someone else does well how does that hurt you?
  - darpa_escapee 10y ago
    People are jealous and have been pretty good at coming up with reasons why certain people don't deserve nice things for quite some time.
  - vsl 10y ago
    By taking your hard earned money away to fund such schemes (taxes, you know?)
    - e12e 10y ago
      So, people will be angry that someone stops net receiving tax money and starts net paying tax money (relative to the services they receive)? Don't get me wrong, I know full well many people are irrational and petty - but aren't these people that'll find some other irrational detail to get angry about? Being angry that a cheap system for welfare helps someone get off welfare makes no sense. Especially if one disagree with having a welfare system?
  - CountSessine 10y ago
    This is the same question pg asked about income inequality in general; if IPO'd founders or hedge-fund managers are mind-bogglingly-rich, why would that piss off anyone else? How does that hurt them? And yet people are and would be pissed.
gambiting 10y ago
I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program, which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old. Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary. The day the 500+ program started, several employees left, literally saying that they have 3-4 children, so by just getting the money from the government they will be better off than working and they don't need a job anymore. They are all jobless and living off 500+ as far as I know. I would say that's a pretty good indication what will happen with UBI - I'm sure there's loads of people who wouldn't leave their jobs because they like having more money(me included) but for a lot of people if free money is enough to get by then that's what they are going to live on.
- inimino 10y ago
  They now have free time to pursue another career, further their own education, or put more time and energy into the next generation. The interesting question is what would happen if it was for everyone and not just those with children. Do you think this would be a bad thing?
  - misja111 10y ago
    My guess is that many of them will use their free time to make another couple of kids and raise their income with another 1000.
    - mrottenkolber 10y ago
      If the question would have been "what would you do?", would your answer have been the same? If not, why do you think little of us other humans?
      - misja111 10y ago
        These people quit their jobs because they were happy with their child benefits of 500 per child. This given fact, that they quit there jobs, makes me suspect that they would rather choose the strategy of increasing their salary by their number of kids than by working. If the question would have been 'what would you do', I think I would have quit my factory job as well, actually.
johnchristopher 10y ago
Not that I disagree with you but there might be some points in the Finland constitution that guarantee its citizens the means to live a decent life. My country has that (France as well I believe) and it's a point of dissension between the various point of view of what is and should be social welfare.

by JackFr 10y ago

Jarwain 10y ago

They're calling it Basic Income, not Universal Basic Income. The goal being to see what the differences are between the unemployed and the control group. There may be other issues baked into the implementation, but it will be hard to say the result until it goes into action and we start getting data

samcollins 10y ago
I agree. The implementation here will still enable us to learn about some aspects of UBI. The question of how benefits affect the motivation to gain re-employment will still need to be studied in further experiments. I think it's worth celebrating that Iceland is doing controlled tests to explore this way. To really understand the best design for UBI, we need more of this.
- hypnotortoise 10y ago
  It's Finland, not Iceland.

edblarney 10y ago

I agree with that statement. But a detail: it will not be 'streamlined'. Those government workers are not going anywhere. It's worth an experiment, though.

komodo 10y ago

Why don't we do a basic income lottery? - Anyone except previous winners can enter. - You can only enter once per drawing. - As the pool increases the payout does not, only the number of winners. - Winners get a basic income for life. - As another condition they agree to an amount of monitoring so that we can effectively study how they behave with the basic income. - This one would be hard, but you might have to be made ineligible for other government assistance programs maybe? State lotteries already offer annuity payouts and even better they sometimes have 100k for life lotteries. These aren't perfect as the amount is too high but it's worth studying anyway. The basic income lottery described above would be an even better approximation. EDIT: I just did a bit of googling and it looks like this has been tried before [1][2] , but the amounts were time-limited and low. It would probably have to be state-sponsored to take off. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-2016-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-basic-income-lottery-... [2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-project-community#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-my-basic-income-proje...

oh_sigh 10y ago
There are already lotteries that pay out $1k/week or something for life.
omash 10y ago
I bet winning in a lottery feels a lot different to receiving your regular allowance the same as everyone else. I think this would affect behaviour.
- prawn 10y ago
  Yes, a lottery winner would be swamped by many surrounding them. Less likely to happen in a trial where the full community is receiving a similar income.
ChrisjayHenn 10y ago
The only bit i'd quibble with is becoming ineligible for other assistance programs - one concern pro-UBI economists raise is that if it replaces social programs, the cost of necessities like childcare and housing will just increase proportionally. There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Aside from that, I really like your idea. Given the number of people who want to see a UBI, this might be one celebrity endorsement away from getting crowdfunded.
- Supraperplex 10y ago
  > There's a good argument to be made that certain social goods are actually better when there is no profit motive for the people providing it. Can you elaborate on that? I honestly can't see it.
jondubois 10y ago
NOOO! That is a terrible idea. There is already way too much luck involved in our current economic system. If would really suck if all your friends won the lottery but you didn't. These kinds of economic lotteries only create more inequality; which is against the whole point of UBI. It makes more sense to start by giving out a really low UBI to EVERYONE and then gradually raise that amount over time.

Manglano 10y ago

These are distinct concepts. Anyone can receive the benefits, so it is universal, but there are conditions. Advocate for the Unconditional Universal Basic Income. All citizens deserve an equal allotment of the benefits, especially because no nation's populace is ever 100% mobilized as workforce.

ilaksh 10y ago

Exactly. Its bad because it is reported as a UBI test but is pretty much the opposite because it does not change the one thing UBI changes which is that you continue to receive the money even when you get a job.

jcoffland 10y ago
The article says they will continue to get they money even while earning money elsewhere. They are just selecting jobless people to start the program.

cuppa_chris 10y ago

Well they're doing it for 2000 people, so I would assume this is more of a test to see what behaviour jobless people exhibit when given a basic income. They're not rolling this out nation-wide yet. I'm all in favour of UBI because I believe there simply won't be enough work for everyone. But I can understand running a study first to test the waters. 2000 people sounds like a good number too. It's expensive, but if things continue in the way that they're trending, then it's a necessary expense.

ggggtez 10y ago
You see this is why other people run the countries. My solution to joblessness would have been to start wars in far off lands.

cromulent 10y ago

You have to be jobless to enter the program, but then you can work as much as you like. "It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income."

logicallee 10y ago

how pissed would everyone be if one of these people became a millionaire through working on some business while using Finland's cash handout to finance it. even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country. A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.

jcoffland 10y ago
Why would anyone be pissed? If someone else does well how does that hurt you?
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  People are jealous and have been pretty good at coming up with reasons why certain people don't deserve nice things for quite some time.
- vsl 10y ago
  By taking your hard earned money away to fund such schemes (taxes, you know?)
  - e12e 10y ago
    So, people will be angry that someone stops net receiving tax money and starts net paying tax money (relative to the services they receive)? Don't get me wrong, I know full well many people are irrational and petty - but aren't these people that'll find some other irrational detail to get angry about? Being angry that a cheap system for welfare helps someone get off welfare makes no sense. Especially if one disagree with having a welfare system?
- CountSessine 10y ago
  This is the same question pg asked about income inequality in general; if IPO'd founders or hedge-fund managers are mind-bogglingly-rich, why would that piss off anyone else? How does that hurt them? And yet people are and would be pissed.

gambiting 10y ago

I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program, which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old. Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after taxes) is an ok salary. The day the 500+ program started, several employees left, literally saying that they have 3-4 children, so by just getting the money from the government they will be better off than working and they don't need a job anymore. They are all jobless and living off 500+ as far as I know. I would say that's a pretty good indication what will happen with UBI - I'm sure there's loads of people who wouldn't leave their jobs because they like having more money(me included) but for a lot of people if free money is enough to get by then that's what they are going to live on.

inimino 10y ago
They now have free time to pursue another career, further their own education, or put more time and energy into the next generation. The interesting question is what would happen if it was for everyone and not just those with children. Do you think this would be a bad thing?
- misja111 10y ago
  My guess is that many of them will use their free time to make another couple of kids and raise their income with another 1000.
  - mrottenkolber 10y ago
    If the question would have been "what would you do?", would your answer have been the same? If not, why do you think little of us other humans?
    - misja111 10y ago
      These people quit their jobs because they were happy with their child benefits of 500 per child. This given fact, that they quit there jobs, makes me suspect that they would rather choose the strategy of increasing their salary by their number of kids than by working. If the question would have been 'what would you do', I think I would have quit my factory job as well, actually.

johnchristopher 10y ago

Not that I disagree with you but there might be some points in the Finland constitution that guarantee its citizens the means to live a decent life. My country has that (France as well I believe) and it's a point of dissension between the various point of view of what is and should be social welfare.