6 ms·

Finnish here. On top of that 560 people got support for their rent expenses. Depending on the amount of rent one could get more than 1000€ per month. It’s not m

Finnish here. On top of that 560 people got support for their rent expenses. Depending on the amount of rent one could get more than 1000€ per month. It’s not much but you can get by with it. What went wrong with the experiment was that it included only people who were registered as unemoloyed so we don’t know how it would have affected home moms, entrepreneuers, students etc.

13415 8y ago
It's hard for me to understand why this called a "basic income" experiment then. The central idea of basic income is that you get one fixed amount of income per month that needs to be sufficient for all expenses, including rent, and everybody gets the same sufficient amount of money no matter what he or she uses it for and no matter whether the person works or not. I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic income either, but a subsidy to the salary, as they already exist in many social welfare systems.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic income either, but a subsidy to the salary, as they already exist in many social welfare systems. This is not "obvious" at all, and there's no reason why we couldn't start meeting people halfway, in a sense. Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location like SF or the Valley. It would probably be priced for areas with a more manageable cost of living, and even there most folks would be supplementing it with at least part-time or "gig" work.
  - GuB-42 8y ago
    > Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location. Isn't it part of the idea for a UBI? If you can't live where it is expensive, go find a better job or move out. UBI, at least my idea of it is far from easy, it is something to ensure your survival, but if you want confort, and choosing where you want to live is part of it, then you need to work. There is only so much money that can be allocated do welfare, and you can't give more to some people without taking it from others. It means that if you are already living on subsidies, chances are that your situation is going to get worse with UBI. OTOH, part timers in poor areas will be much better off since they will get full UBI + pay with low expenses. Maybe that's why UBI doesn't work. Not because it is an incitation to do nothing, but because it may be devastating to families who already live on subsidies. And if we don't remove existing subsidies, then there isn't enough money.
    - 13415 8y ago
      I kind of agree. A very low UBI that barely allows people to subsist will not solve any existing social problems, it might instead effectively become a subsidy for extremely low income classes without increasing vertical social mobility, and therefore in the long run further increase the gap between the poor and the rich that has been increasing since WW2. Personally, I believe that the best way to decrease social tensions and prevent a dystopian impoverishment of the majority of the population is to lower the gap between the rich and the poor and to limit the amount of wealth that can be transmitted by heritage, for example with a Skandinavian tax and welfare model and by putting a strict upper bound on the amount of assets and resources that can be inherited. It seems to me that UBI can only work as intended if it was fairly high, and that is perhaps not realistic for political and economic reasons.
phamilton 8y ago
If rent was covered, 560€/month is plenty. I lived in Sweden on 1500 kr/month (after rent and a public transportation pass) and that was fine.

13415 8y ago

It's hard for me to understand why this called a "basic income" experiment then. The central idea of basic income is that you get one fixed amount of income per month that needs to be sufficient for all expenses, including rent, and everybody gets the same sufficient amount of money no matter what he or she uses it for and no matter whether the person works or not. I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic income either, but a subsidy to the salary, as they already exist in many social welfare systems.

zozbot123 8y ago
> I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic income either, but a subsidy to the salary, as they already exist in many social welfare systems. This is not "obvious" at all, and there's no reason why we couldn't start meeting people halfway, in a sense. Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location like SF or the Valley. It would probably be priced for areas with a more manageable cost of living, and even there most folks would be supplementing it with at least part-time or "gig" work.
- GuB-42 8y ago
  > Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location. Isn't it part of the idea for a UBI? If you can't live where it is expensive, go find a better job or move out. UBI, at least my idea of it is far from easy, it is something to ensure your survival, but if you want confort, and choosing where you want to live is part of it, then you need to work. There is only so much money that can be allocated do welfare, and you can't give more to some people without taking it from others. It means that if you are already living on subsidies, chances are that your situation is going to get worse with UBI. OTOH, part timers in poor areas will be much better off since they will get full UBI + pay with low expenses. Maybe that's why UBI doesn't work. Not because it is an incitation to do nothing, but because it may be devastating to families who already live on subsidies. And if we don't remove existing subsidies, then there isn't enough money.
  - 13415 8y ago
    I kind of agree. A very low UBI that barely allows people to subsist will not solve any existing social problems, it might instead effectively become a subsidy for extremely low income classes without increasing vertical social mobility, and therefore in the long run further increase the gap between the poor and the rich that has been increasing since WW2. Personally, I believe that the best way to decrease social tensions and prevent a dystopian impoverishment of the majority of the population is to lower the gap between the rich and the poor and to limit the amount of wealth that can be transmitted by heritage, for example with a Skandinavian tax and welfare model and by putting a strict upper bound on the amount of assets and resources that can be inherited. It seems to me that UBI can only work as intended if it was fairly high, and that is perhaps not realistic for political and economic reasons.

phamilton 8y ago

If rent was covered, 560€/month is plenty. I lived in Sweden on 1500 kr/month (after rent and a public transportation pass) and that was fine.