It seems to me that while it didn't have employment benefits it had a lot of other potential benefits. The more safe and secure people feel the better for crime, healthier people reduces spending on the medical system, and it's not like that money doesn't come back to the government in some form via VAT, etc. Really, it seems to me that the project was a massive success. Shit, that specific story of the participant being able to open their own business because of that secure income is super amazing, that business right there is an investment into the employment market that the government basically made possible.
The benefits to employment aren't in "the unemployed are going to get more jobs" the employment benefits are in that more jobs can be created by small businesses and such.
I thought basic income wasn't meant to be a stepping stone for getting work, it's a safety net so you don't literally starve/go homeless/die because you have no money from not having a job, especially for a future of most jobs being done by machines.
Besides the article itself does have examples of people that used the economic security boost to actually try starting their own businesses and other economically risky stuff they wouldn't have done otherwise.
What Clam said.
Well, many countries have a final safety net that people can apply for if there are no other social insurance benefits they are eligible for, like employees' unemployment benefits or disability benefits etc
The difference between that and a basic income, is that those last ditch safety nets often have very strict conditions the person receiving the benefits has to comply with. The idea with a basic income is that it is completely unconditional.
Not really a safety net, especially if eligibility is, itself, conditional.
well it's more like you'll receive the benefit, but you need to show that you're applying for jobs every week and you can't earn anything on top of the benefit etc
If you're out of work for any reason except layoff, fired for lack of skill or for not-a-good-fit, you're ineligible to draw it at all in my state. That includes voluntarily leaving your job, even if that job is absolute hell. It's not really a safety net, more a way to force you to stay in whatever shitty wage slavery arrangement you can get a hold of.
The experiment was a sham to start with (only giving it to unemployed people, so no idea how it changes behavior in workers etc.), but I did hear some success stories about people that had the opportunity to pick up random small jobs (that otherwise wouldn't be enough of an income to live off of, but the work still needs to get done).
Ah, you're talking about unemployment benefits. That's not really what I was talking about though. In Europe, unemployment benefits are a different thing from last ditch 'welfare' benefits. I don't think the U.S. has a last ditch benefit at all, sadly. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Ahh, but that is the closest we get to one. If you can't draw that, you're pretty much fucked. State won't even give you a set of bootstraps to pull yourself up with.
researchers said on Friday as the government announced initial findings.
Take that into account, more reports of the whole trial will likely follow on the next weeks.
The higher taxes that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) says would be needed to pay for basic income schemes
might also be off-putting for voters.
In a review of the Finnish
scheme last year, the OECD warned that implementing it nationally and
cost-neutrally for the state would imply significant income
redistribution, especially towards couples from single people, and
increase poverty.
How about we stop listening to the OECD? Literally like the IMF all of their "suggestions" have been a failure and always backfired spectacularily ( remember when for example they were the ones together with other more "experts" advocating for austerity at the beginning of the economic crysis, arguing that the "pain" of jobless and poverty would be quick to diminish? ).
Chief economist for the trial Ohto Kanniainen said the low impact on
employment was not a surprise, given that many jobless people have few
skills or struggle with difficult life situations or health concerns.
This basic income together with some free courses of job / new business / economics tutorials would likely solve the lack of job creation.
Basically what the article says plus what F.X Clampazzo mentioned. This is a must nowadays, and while maybe the "main objective" wasn't accomplished, we must continue fighting further to implement and develop it anywhere.
a bit off-topic probably, but this is something people like AOC or Bernie should probably release a plan for as well. A new, comprehensive and more generous system of benefits for America. American progressives often talk about free college and healthcare, but not, for example, an unemployment benefit that grants you something like 70% of your previous wage for two years or so.
Back on topic; the saddest thing is that the U.S. actually came very close to becoming the first country to implement a proper unconditional basic income
the idea died out in the 70's, sadly
I think UBI is going to have to become a standard in the future. Especially as the number of jobs decrease due to automation and outsourcing, we're already wanting for ways to get these people paid anyway. That's the entire reason why we're trying to create jobs, but if these people still just don't have anything to do and can't get hired, they shouldn't just starve.
Imagine having to do a two year study to find out free money makes people happy.
I wish people gave me free money.
I mean for what I do as a job people practically do already.
Approaching basic income as an unemployment benefit is the wrong angle, ideally it would be the citizen's base income to support the cost of living in their area and anything beyond that would be taxed, including work.
One thing the UBI conversation often overlooks is that more high paying jobs could become available if we also combine distribution of UBI with an overall healthier approach to our working lives. Think of all the people needing to work 50-70 hours/week to get by. If a portion of their income was substituted by UBI, many people could choose to work (and survive/make financial progress) at 20-30 hours instead, and have more time for family, mental and physical health, hobbies, etc. Similarly, someone getting paid big money to work that long could work less and have more people contributing with more of those high paying jobs being distributed across wider swaths of the population (i.e. 100,000 programming jobs paying $120,000/year fulltime could be 200,000 jobs paying $60,000/year). Studies have shown most people are far more productive working fewer hours anyways, think of all the wasted productivity from people feeling forced to get their 40 hours or more.
Every job demanding 60 hours/week could theoretically be two jobs for two people doing 30 hours a week. If we stop obsessing over making work the cornerstone of our identities, we could make unemployment a null factor, even with a new wave of automation on the horizon because people can contribute in fulfilling jobs but have a much healthier, balanced and more productive life.
the real big takeaway is that they found just giving people cash, no strings attached, actually worked. People didn't have to waste their time navigating a complex bureaucracy just to get money for rent, food, and transport, nor did they seem to lay around on the dole like its often been repeated over here.
Employment wasn't boosted but entrepreneurialship seemed to be, and nobody went hungry or was made homeless.
boosting happiness is a pretty admirable goal in it's own
Finland already has a very good system for the unemployed, and nobody has to be homeless in Finland unless they for some reason want to be (being a drunk or a drug addict). The point was to give the poor the ability to make some money without instantly losing all benefits. We already had a similar system in place and the only thing this was supposed to change was to streamline the process.
was gonna post but you said all my thoughts. Really not sure why people are against UBI who aren't capitalists themsleves
Im sorry, but did any of you were really stupid enough to think people would want to go to work after UBI?
ummm, if it's a proper ubi, people will still generally want to pursue their interests and make more money. Do you really think if there's a ubi every single person will just live on what they get and watch tv all day and do nothing?
Yes, who the heck wants to live off of 560 euros a month?
I would. It just means if I hate my job I could quit it without starving and losing my home.
Who the hell would want to work on a low income job that doesnt pay better than your unemployment benefits? I think UBI is more encouraging, letting you have that low income job paycheck on top of the UBI money.
Well, think about it, for one. Would you want to do fuck all all day? That would make most people very unhappy. People WANT to work and do something meaningful, dude. The idea that people will stop working and be lazy is also disproven by several studies.
I would. Imo this study is incomplete since it is only aimed at unemployed people and the test period seems a bit too short.
Unless I've understood it wrong, the whole idea of UBI is that you get money for the absolute basic amount you need to live off. So that means you wouldn't have
the money to do things like for example going for a dinner to a restaurant, medical bills, going on holiday, buying clothes, kitchen appliances, buying fancy phones
or nice food/whatever with just UBI. That's why you'd still want/need to work so you'll be able to afford all that as well, but don't have to put in ridiculous hours to be
able to afford it all.
People would be able to pursue their interests, such as for example starting a small shop selling their own made products or doing volunteer work. And people working at a low income job would
be able to spend more time with their kids/families/friends, since they need less workhours to be able to afford their needs, which at the same time could lead to less unemployment.
If I'm thinking about my own situation, things would be a lot less stressful with UBI. I'm a freelance animator, which means that every month I'm saving up quite some money in case I need it for the time I don't have enough projects and thus income somewhere in the future.
I was unemployed for a bit over 2 years, since I live in a small city with a shitty employment situation. Currently working on a contract that's going to end later this year.
It doesn't just make you unhappy, it makes you lie in bed at night while thinking about suicide.
I wouldn't be surprised if some percentage of suicides could be attributed to unemployment/government treatment of the unemployed. The current government has done an absolutely fucking terrible job of it.
Apparently not, judging by the article.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
