[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51616898]Really, anything.
Get them to pickup litter, [B]get them to act a mentor to someone with depression, get them to help with classrooms for kids with disabilities[/B]. I can think of thousands of things off the top of my mind.[/QUOTE]
Both of these jobs would require training and they're not the sort of job that everybody is suited to, this is especially so when it's not something they've chosen, but rather something the government is making them do.
Make a mistake picking up litter and you can pick it up again. Make a mistake mentoring someone with depression and you could isolate them further, help develop unhealthy thinking and habits, push them towards self harm and generally just delay or reduce any positive progress they've already made.
Similar situation with working with disabled children, it's a tough job that requires a lot of care, sensitivity and also determination. It's not a job for everyone as certain disorders can make kids violent and a danger to themselves, staff members and others. Even when it's not like that, you don't want just anybody doing it because they have to because they will probably not make very good assistants or whatever job you picked at random to enforce. Think about the worst teacher/authority figure you ever met in your childhood, remember that they got that way even after [I]choosing[/I] that profession, now imagine if every unemployed person had to do that.
All of this is a moot point anyway however, as you've completely missed the point of UBI. It's supposed to be guaranteed money to meet the basic costs of living so the populace can focus on finding proper and fulfilling employment without starving to death. Saying, well why don't we give them THESE jobs is stupid because then you'd be employing people to work for less than minimum wage while not allowing them any additional time to find better work.
Even then, you assume that these jobs exist to push onto people and that people just aren't doing them, if that's the case then [B]why[/B] is that the case? If a society needs more mental healthcare professionals, shouldn't you look into why people aren't filling that role by choice, and if necessary, adding incentives?
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;51617123]Both of these jobs would require training and they're not the sort of job that everybody is suited to, this is especially so when it's not something they've chosen, but rather something the government is making them do.
Make a mistake picking up litter and you can pick it up again. Make a mistake mentoring someone with depression and you could isolate them further, help develop unhealthy thinking and habits, push them towards self harm and generally just delay or reduce any positive progress they've already made.
Similar situation with working with disabled children, it's a tough job that requires a lot of care, sensitivity and also determination. It's not a job for everyone as certain disorders can make kids violent and a danger to themselves, staff members and others. Even when it's not like that, you don't want just anybody doing it because they have to because they will probably not make very good assistants or whatever job you picked at random to enforce. Think about the worst teacher/authority figure you ever met in your childhood, remember that they got that way even after [I]choosing[/I] that profession, now imagine if every unemployed person had to do that. [/QUOTE]Yeh, it's a bit shit towards e.g. those with depression, children and old people that the government would see fit to just throw any random unemployed at them, rather than putting even a little bit more money into having professionals legitimately take care of their problems. Sort of sends the message they're not worth much at all.
Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...
Other than that, I am definietly interested in outcome of this social experiment.
[QUOTE=Knurr;51617150]Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...
Other than that, I am definietly interested in outcome of this social experiment.[/QUOTE]
Think about the amount of time Joe schmo spends bagging at market basket for a minimum wage, taking up all if his time and barely scraping by for rent. With UBI, perhaps he has the extra cash to buy some books and read up on a topic he might enjoy, or maybe but a midi controller and get into music production like he always said he would.
More wealth is in no way detrimental to society, harsh division of wealth is.
[QUOTE=Knurr;51617150]Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...
Other than that, I am definietly interested in outcome of this social experiment.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.[/QUOTE]
So it means they get nothing more than they pretty much already get through the other benefits, only thing this does is remove a bit of red tape. Reducing the workload of the agencies handling the benefits, which is good and all since they have further cut budget on them. So all and all this does nothing. The people receiving it will still have trouble finding job and continues living in poverty.
[QUOTE=Knurr;51617150]Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...
Other than that, I am definietly interested in outcome of this social experiment.[/QUOTE]
The kinds of people that are happy leading their lives doing absolutely nothing would do so with or without UBI. I can't speak for everyone but I know that I'd go absolutely insane if I didn't have a constructive way to spend my time and a structure to my life. Moreover, less time working shitty jobs that destroy your physical and mental health means more time for more people to pursue other disciplines.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;51617180]which is good and all since they have further cut budget on them. [/quote]
[quote]So all and all this does nothing. [/QUOTE]
????
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;51617180]So it means they get nothing more than they pretty much already get through the other benefits, only thing this does is remove a bit of red tape.[/QUOTE]
That and I think they get to keep the 560 euros if they get a job.
The experiment is not what happens if you start handing out benefits, the experiment is more about what happens if you allow people to receive jobs without instantly losing them.
In some cases taking low paying part time jobs doesn't make financial sense because with all the added costs of transportation and loss of benefits people would make less money than if they just stayed at home.
[QUOTE=Overhauser;51617193]????[/QUOTE]
They cut budget on employment offices (TE) and agency handling the benefit processing (KELA). Along with whole load of other places they cut budget on like schools and such.
[QUOTE=Zestence;51617199]That and I think they get to keep the 560 euros if they get a job.[/QUOTE]
This is the only thing good about this. That can help getting those short part-time jobs without fear of losing money instead of earning it. But it doesn't create more jobs.
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;51617217]They cut budget on employment offices (TE) and agency handling the benefit processing (KELA). Along with whole load of other places they cut budget on like schools and such.
This is the only thing good about this. That can help getting those short part-time jobs without fear of losing money instead of earning it. But it doesn't create more jobs.[/QUOTE]
Macro economically giving people a basic income could create jobs
[QUOTE=angelangel;51616880]Get them to do at least ~some~ work in exchange for receiving benefits?[/QUOTE]
A lot of sensible replies but I was just thinking like volunteer work or 'charity'? work I guess... it doesn't have to be like demeaning 'scrap chewing gum off the sidewalk' kind of work
I agree regular work would defeat the purpose of basic income.
[QUOTE=FlyingDog;51617191]The kinds of people that are happy leading their lives doing absolutely nothing would do so with or without UBI. I can't speak for everyone but I know that I'd go absolutely insane if I didn't have a constructive way to spend my time and a structure to my life. Moreover, less time working shitty jobs that destroy your physical and mental health means more time for more people to pursue other disciplines.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me like a shakey misanthropic myth that people inherently are lazy and work-shy. Very rich people even with the opportunity to never work a day in their life usually don't even opt for that option.
Tho it's not entirely true that leeches will be leeches either way, we do know from past universal income experiments that it does reduce the labor supply, but it's not a massive reduction.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Experiments[/URL]
[sp]studies and info themselves are behind walls so have wikipedia. Also it isn't appropriate of me to call them leeches for reducing their hours, they may have good reasons such as using it as an opportunity to spend more time raising their children. And individuals may still be working, but just less hours[/sp]
[QUOTE=angelangel;51617265]A lot of sensible replies but I was just thinking like volunteer work or 'charity'? work I guess... [/QUOTE]
That's not really fair for everyone. Finland is a very sparsely populated country, not everyone has charity organizations or such nearby. It would inevitably end up with some people doing regular work for no pay.
[QUOTE=angelangel;51616880]Get them to do at least ~some~ work in exchange for receiving benefits?[/QUOTE]
One thought I had would probably involve somewhat of an overhaul of how things worked. In essence, goods and services would be divided into two categories: necessity and amenity.
[B]Necessities[/B] would include all the things that humans need to [U]survive[/U] and maintain our bodies, such as proper nutritious foods, suitable housing, electricity, a reliable supply of clean water, access to simple medicines, toiletries and cleaning products, etc. Folks relying on benefits would be supplied with a measured monthly "salary" of "N-stamps" on a case by case basis, an independent pseudo-currency that cannot be converted into other currencies, and the household would spend their stamps to buy all they need to keep surviving. Essentially they'd be food stamps, only extended to paying for other essential services.
[B]Amenities[/B] on the other hand are things that we need to [U]live[/U] a happy life, basically everything that isn't a necessity and help us occupy our time. The benefits salary would include a small amount of regular money for purchasing amenities, sort of a "here's a little something, buy yourself something nice", but it wouldn't be enough for people to get ALL of the things they want. For that, you'd need to get yourself a job and earn your keep, getting more money to save up for all the things you want.
This way, one's needs would be catered to, but they would be left wanting for more, and would pursue a job not to simply stay alive, but to earn money for what they want.
D'you think it could work? It's far from perfect, and there's a lot of stuff in the way of it becoming a thing, but I imagine that setting up and maintaining the new benefits itself would open up a bunch of jobs in itself. They'd need a fair number of accountants and the like to sort out benefits for millions of people, after all.
I hope it works out well.
Our current situation is so fucked that part-time jobs can easily lead to a lower net-gain than unemployment. Which doesn't really entice people towards jobs.
[QUOTE=Zestence;51617199]That and I think they get to keep the 560 euros if they get a job.
The experiment is not what happens if you start handing out benefits, the experiment is more about what happens if you allow people to receive jobs without instantly losing them.
In some cases taking low paying part time jobs doesn't make financial sense because with all the added costs of transportation and loss of benefits people would make less money than if they just stayed at home.[/QUOTE]
We have a contract at work where they had a cleaner come over twice a week to clean up.
I remember one of them bitching about how her sister gets like 50€ less a month than she by sitting on her arse while she had busted her back working her ass off 6 days a week.
Now if there indeed was some basic income on top of the salary, I'm pretty sure she might have been a wee bit more happy.
Zestence and Sunday_Roast certainly share a point. If a job has you earning less than you would if you were sitting on your arse doing nothing, either the job isn't paying you right, or the system is broken. In a way, it's a service problem. If a company wants to acquire labour and processing power, they have to pay the right price for it, and avoid being beaten out by basic income.
[QUOTE=Knurr;51617150]Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...
Other than that, I am definietly interested in outcome of this social experiment.[/QUOTE]
not needing to work to survive is already a reality but the extreme modesty in the standard of living acquirable entirely through welfare, necessity of activity for mental well-being and social norms still keep people working. also if you want to take this perspective you will also have to remember that evolution is ultimately self-correcting.
Why would giving them basic income [I]improve[/I] employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.
[QUOTE=Knurr;51617150]Basic Income in theory would at least decrease a hardness of life. Won't it mean this idea will "produce"a statistically less inteligent, less aware humans? Think about it. If someone would not, in theory, have to do anything in order to live...[/QUOTE]
And how would that occur? If you mean in an evolutionary sense, modern humans already face zero environmental pressure to be intelligent or "aware."
The poor and less educated already have higher birth rates, so if anything, moving their genetic material around means those harder working are the ones winning the game of passing on their genes. That's assuming intelligence is even correlated with economic success, which as far as I'm aware isn't really the case.
[QUOTE=Bertie;51618392]Why would giving them basic income [I]improve[/I] employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.[/QUOTE]
I'm unemployed and i'd get whopping 40€ more per month with basic income. 560€ on top of what I get when I'm woking would be amazing
[QUOTE=Bertie;51618392]Why would giving them basic income [I]improve[/I] employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.[/QUOTE]
UBI would increase demand, prompting firms to expand and creating more jobs in the process.
[QUOTE=Bertie;51618392]Why would giving them basic income [I]improve[/I] employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.[/QUOTE]
More money in circulation.
[QUOTE=Bertie;51618392]Why would giving them basic income [I]improve[/I] employment? Only thing I can think of is a potentially improved standard of life due to the income will enable people to work more & better.[/QUOTE]
Less time doing shitty work (for those already employed) & more time to improve yourself with school/study & taking care of yourself (sports). All this lead to more energetic persona.
Would this not just inflate everything? I'm not an econ expert but the money seems somewhat valueless if everyone has it out of the gate?
[QUOTE=Downsider;51618971]Would this not just inflate everything? I'm not an econ expert but the money seems somewhat valueless if everyone has it out of the gate?[/QUOTE]
UBI would cover living.
You want to live in style, you're working.
Then wages would be adjusted based on that.
I imagine if you had 1000€/month UBI, a 1700€/month job would either drop down to 700€/month, or somewhere between the two - companies would have to pay a proper wage to people in order to entice them to work, instead of the current slave labor system.
[QUOTE=Downsider;51618971]Would this not just inflate everything? I'm not an econ expert but the money seems somewhat valueless if everyone has it out of the gate?[/QUOTE]
only if demand outpaces supply. Too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation; not enough money chasing too many goods causes stagnation. I'm not an expert either, but this is my understanding.
[QUOTE=Downsider;51618971]Would this not just inflate everything? I'm not an econ expert but the money seems somewhat valueless if everyone has it out of the gate?[/QUOTE]
UBI would get paid out of taxes, not out of money printing machines, so no inflation.
[QUOTE=Symwck;51617088]I've seen people argue that UBI isn't feasible because it's too expensive, but they still leave automation unaddressed.
If not UBI, what can else be done?[/QUOTE]
You'd have to actually get rich people to pay taxes to fund it and good luck with that.
^ True
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.