Did Finland's basic income experiement work?

[hydroep]

Looks like the results weren't what the authorities hoped for. Dunno how to embed BBC videos, check link below.

Did Finland's basic income experiment work?

Finland has just completed a major basic income experiment where 2,000 unemployed people were given €560 (£490) a month for two years, instead of their unemployment benefit.

The basic income was paid with no strings attached. Recipients weren't required to seek or accept jobs but still received the payment if they found a job.

The Finnish government wanted to see if this financial incentive encouraged people to get jobs or start businesses.

The BBC followed two participants, Tanja and Tuomas, for two years to see what impact free money had on their lives.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-47092727/did-finland-s-basic-income-experiment-work

[skylinechild]

good post OP... definitely want to know finlands' results.

[ismithx]

Basic income is garbage. People should work for a living, working for a living should be available for as much people as possible to access, and the wages there of should be enough to live on. Basic income would encourage laziness

[ProtonPowder]

Far too expensive, who will foot the bill on a nationwide scale?

If all 1.3m residents of TnT were to receive a paltry $1000 per month in UBI, that would amount to about 15.6B per year. If only given to residents 18+, then maybe subtract 25-33% of that figure.
I was unemployed a good long while after coming out of UWI because of an economic downturn at the time, even with a good science degree with first class honours (I now know it eh mean sheit) and extracurricular and societal involvement. If i received free money for nothing while at home, I would have had much less incentive to go out there and find a job.

Even before all that, what normally happens when a lot more money starts floating around in the economy? Hint: it normally happens when minimum wage increases and public servant negotiations get settled.

[hydroep]

I trying to figure out what the authorities seriously expected to happen, looks like the participants just used it to subsidize their lifestyles.

Most people who "get up and get" have an innate drive to succeed i.e. they may benefit but they don't need these types of social assistance programmes to make it in life.

Whereas a lot of the people who remain (or try all kinda "skull" to remain) on them are just interested in having their basic needs met: shelter, food etc. — with minimal effort on their part. Once the State paying for those things there is no incentive to improve their station in life.

Not even sure you can change these people's mindset either nuh, if it was so easy it would've been done a long time ago...

[Gladiator]

Far too expensive, who will foot the bill on a nationwide scale?

If all 1.3m residents of TnT were to receive a paltry $1000 per month in UBI, that would amount to about 15.6B per year. If only given to residents 18+, then maybe subtract 25-33% of that figure.
I was unemployed a good long while after coming out of UWI because of an economic downturn at the time, even with a good science degree with first class honours (I now know it eh mean sheit) and extracurricular and societal involvement. If i received free money for nothing while at home, I would have had much less incentive to go out there and find a job.

Even before all that, what normally happens when a lot more money starts floating around in the economy? Hint: it normally happens when minimum wage increases and public servant negotiations get settled.

That's small island mentality.... it may not be accurate to believe that all people would behave the same.

[sMASH]

first iteration of 'the matrix' .. still working out the coding for a 'the one'


when machines and ai take over all the jobs, where will humans get employment to earn a living?

[maj. tom]

That's really not true. Machines help us to be more productive and create new jobs, rather that just take away existing jobs. Your grandparents cut cane manually and spent all day busting their asses right? Then a machine did it and allowed your parents to go to school instead and become doctors and engineers. A donkey cart took all day to transport the cane right? But then a truck did 100 times the load in much less time and created a new skilled job of driving.

There are jobs in the future that don't even exist today because we're too busy wasting time doing something of lesser value that a computer can do perfectly. Like driving a car. Creates more skilled jobs for programmers, rather than a mundane driver. That's how society evolves into higher and higher tiers of complexity. That's the idea of the industrial revolution.

[sMASH]

There will be new jobs.
But overall, as machines get more capable, more jobs will be able to be done by a machine and more reliably so..
Using the same example as the cart and cane. When it took 4 or 5 carts to carry cane to the factory, employing same number of drivers, one truck did that, which only required one driver. In America the hirses they had doing the work, ended up being not needed. There are wild populations back to Roaming the lands. But the ecology wast stable with hirses, so some populations need to be controlled.

Different jobs would get whittled down more and more to the artistic, cause the Manual and repetive jobs will be dine better by the machine.

Look a car manufacture industry. Machine do more work. Humans have less that before.

Because machines are getting better and better less and less use would be fir the human.

[Redman]

Why would the result be anything different to the Dole in the UK or less directly CEPEP here or any social program that offers permanent compensation.
Money for nothing will always create a class of people that make themselves happy at that income level.

[ismithx]

That's really not true. Machines help us to be more productive and create new jobs, rather that just take away existing jobs. Your grandparents cut cane manually and spent all day busting their asses right? Then a machine did it and allowed your parents to go to school instead and become doctors and engineers. A donkey cart took all day to transport the cane right? But then a truck did 100 times the load in much less time and created a new skilled job of driving.

There are jobs in the future that don't even exist today because we're too busy wasting time doing something of lesser value that a computer can do perfectly. Like driving a car. Creates more skilled jobs for programmers, rather than a mundane driver. That's how society evolves into higher and higher tiers of complexity. That's the idea of the industrial revolution.

That's an idealistic view of things. Reality is that capitalism will use automation to get rid of human workers and reduce costs.

[ProtonPowder]

That's really not true. Machines help us to be more productive and create new jobs, rather that just take away existing jobs. Your grandparents cut cane manually and spent all day busting their asses right? Then a machine did it and allowed your parents to go to school instead and become doctors and engineers. A donkey cart took all day to transport the cane right? But then a truck did 100 times the load in much less time and created a new skilled job of driving.

There are jobs in the future that don't even exist today because we're too busy wasting time doing something of lesser value that a computer can do perfectly. Like driving a car. Creates more skilled jobs for programmers, rather than a mundane driver. That's how society evolves into higher and higher tiers of complexity. That's the idea of the industrial revolution.

That's an idealistic view of things. Reality is that capitalism will use automation to get rid of human workers and reduce costs.

Bingo
This is the same reason that the owners and directors of large companies are so very pro-immigration. All it takes is a walk down high street in San Fernando or Princes Town. Unskilled or low-skilled jobs can be filled for much, much less in wages, and, in the case of developed countries, skilled jobs can be outsourced to less developed countries.

[maj. tom]

So therefore you're agreeing with me. People will be forced to learn new skills that a machine is now doing. And drive more competition and human development. Or should employers continue to hire people to manually grind wheat and corn on a mill stone all day?

And the very fact that machines are doing these jobs means we can finally afford the end product and have an opportunity to experience only what aristocrats could afford before. Like apples and grapes (the miracle of the shipping container), cars, turkeys and other luxurious meats, computers, mobile phones, even simple wristwatches! Travelling on airplanes and reach the other side of the world in 13 hours. You realize that we ourselves invented the machines right? And forced people to learn manufacturing and maintenance and process engineering. Creating new types of jobs with more skill.

[ismithx]

So therefore you're agreeing with me. People will be forced to learn new skills that a machine is now doing. And drive more competition and human development. Or should employers continue to hire people to manually grind wheat and corn on a mill stone all day?

And the very fact that machines are doing these jobs means we can finally afford the end product and have an opportunity to experience only what aristocrats could afford before. Like apples and grapes (the miracle of the shipping container), cars, turkeys and other luxurious meats, computers, mobile phones, even simple wristwatches! Travelling on airplanes and reach the other side of the world in 13 hours. You realize that we ourselves invented the machines right? And forced people to learn manufacturing and maintenance and process engineering. Creating new types of jobs with more skill.

not really. who gonna be jumping up to create new jobs to employ said people? the need for low-skilled (and automatable) workers will far outstrip the need for skilled workers. Ergo, you have a glut of people in the job market that outstrips the demand for skilled workers. Even if they were to learn skills, where can they go?

here watch this from the timestamp in the link, for just about a minute https://youtu.be/ozh_qdND_Co?t=320

It's a clip from a sci-fi series called the expanse, where the planet's population is like about 20 billion people or so and many people are on basic income. that's the scenario we end up running into and it's not a nice one.

[Slartibartfast]

I trying to figure out what the authorities seriously expected to happen, looks like the participants just used it to subsidize their lifestyles.

Most people who "get up and get" have an innate drive to succeed i.e. they may benefit but they don't need these types of social assistance programmes to make it in life.

Whereas a lot of the people who remain (or try all kinda "skull" to remain) on them are just interested in having their basic needs met: shelter, food etc. — with minimal effort on their part. Once the State paying for those things there is no incentive to improve their station in life.

Not even sure you can change these people's mindset either nuh, if it was so easy it would've been done a long time ago...

Can't view the video now while at work. Did they go anomy more in depth than just following tue 2 individuals? Because that conclusion that they used it to subsidise their lifestyle is the blatantly obvious response and not what the UBI is really about anyway. UBI is about keeping people out of poverty by allowing them means to maintain their lifestyle where/when an emolument income is not possible. It's more about stimulating the economy. Those people spending the extra money is exactly what you want instead of hoarding it in offshore bank accounts like the ultra rich do. So calling it a failure because 2/2000 people didn't go out to get jobs or start a business seems nonsensical to me. Also, what kind of a sample size is 2 people?! That is laziness. Are these reporters recipients of a universal basic stipend regardless of what trash they put out?

UBI is more for a social benefit. Given the rise in automation, robitics and ongoing computerisation, there is a current unforseen consolidation of wealth. Money very simply put is a reciept for products provided or services rendered that can be exchanged for desired products or services. It is a note with an agreed upon value to be used as a more efficient alternative to bartering.

What we have happening now is that those with wealth are able to invest in automation so that they are able to recieve more money while employing less people. This happened with the rise of industrialisation and a lot of the work force moved into the services industry. Now it is beginning to happen in the services industry along with further consolidation in manufacturing.

If allowed to continue unchecked it is very easy to see that the likely outcome would be a handfull of ultra rich families with a small middle class and a disproportionately large lower class. The lower class in this case would be due to a lack of access to jobs as income, due to automation ,not laziness.

This lines up with exactly what we are obsercing right now. Think about how many people have university degrees and are unemployed? Or how many people are being underpaid for their position because the job market is just so saturated.

The thing is that the wealth is there. We as a species are producing more that we ever have and able to produce more than we will ever need. So why does poverty still exist in cases where laziness is not the issue? For those of you asking where the money will come from, the obvious answer is taxes on ultra large coorporations or ultra rich families. What I want to know is why are people defending the rights of billionaires considering that 1) they don't give a crap about your rights 2) another 1 billliin dollars not going to make a difference to them they way it will make a difference elsewhere and 3) A lot of their riches/ rights was attained by greasing palms/ lobbying in a lot of cases.

[ismithx]

throwing money at problems won't solve them, solving problems solves problems.

I.e money is not a panacea for lack of human compassion, what is needed to solve the problems in the world is people caring about each other. Money has been thrown and eaten up by the greedy, and things are getting done by people on a shoestring/no budget.

wealth redistribution won't solve things for this reason, not to mention the potential to screw up the economy

[sMASH]

So therefore you're agreeing with me. People will be forced to learn new skills that a machine is now doing. And drive more competition and human development. Or should employers continue to hire people to manually grind wheat and corn on a mill stone all day?

And the very fact that machines are doing these jobs means we can finally afford the end product and have an opportunity to experience only what aristocrats could afford before. Like apples and grapes (the miracle of the shipping container), cars, turkeys and other luxurious meats, computers, mobile phones, even simple wristwatches! Travelling on airplanes and reach the other side of the world in 13 hours. You realize that we ourselves invented the machines right? And forced people to learn manufacturing and maintenance and process engineering. Creating new types of jobs with more skill.

Yes... Except that there would not be much left for humans to compete in.

What u not grasping is, the things that make humans unique, ai is able to handle more and more.
U dint write code for a computer program anymore. U show it a scenario, tell it the goal, it figures out everything else, in a simulation. It goes from not knowing what button does what, to planning strategy and anticipating the other players.


Ai already dies a lot of trading, it handles a lot of online moderation.


Ai isn't taught any more, it is mere fed with parameters and it figures out the rest.




A lot of chemical engineering is done with simulations on a super computer. And they test in the real world merely to confirm.
So, humans aren'tt even required for scientific discovery.


Machines will start to mimic human intuition, they nearly have the dexterity, there's would not be much left for humans to do...

[Slartibartfast]

So therefore you're agreeing with me. People will be forced to learn new skills that a machine is now doing. And drive more competition and human development. Or should employers continue to hire people to manually grind wheat and corn on a mill stone all day?

And the very fact that machines are doing these jobs means we can finally afford the end product and have an opportunity to experience only what aristocrats could afford before. Like apples and grapes (the miracle of the shipping container), cars, turkeys and other luxurious meats, computers, mobile phones, even simple wristwatches! Travelling on airplanes and reach the other side of the world in 13 hours. You realize that we ourselves invented the machines right? And forced people to learn manufacturing and maintenance and process engineering. Creating new types of jobs with more skill.

Yes... Except that there would not be much left for humans to compete in.

What u not grasping is, the things that make humans unique, ai is able to handle more and more.
U dint write code for a computer program anymore. U show it a scenario, tell it the goal, it figures out everything else, in a simulation. It goes from not knowing what button does what, to planning strategy and anticipating the other players.


Ai already dies a lot of trading, it handles a lot of online moderation.


Ai isn't taught any more, it is mere fed with parameters and it figures out the rest.




A lot of chemical engineering is done with simulations on a super computer. And they test in the real world merely to confirm.
So, humans aren'tt even required for scientific discovery.


Machines will start to mimic human intuition, they nearly have the dexterity, there's would not be much left for humans to do...

Maj. Tom you are ignoring the other side of the progression. Yes we can afford things that only aristocrats could have afforded previously (like iced tea with sugar.... waaaaaaahhh) but we are less an less able to afford things that even some peasants didn't have to worrt about back in the day. Like a piece of land. Can you imagine 1 5000 sqft piece of land is 100 times your monthly salary?

And the previous trend has now come to a halt. The current generation is the first on recent history to be less wealthy than the previous generation despite the ever increasing global GDP. Something is clearly not right ang things are definitely not going to be OK if allowed to continue without some drastic change.

[Miktay]

Universal income iz largely a handout.

When able bodied ppl get free ting...they only want more.

[maj. tom]

This is getting way off-topic.

So therefore you're agreeing with me. People will be forced to learn new skills that a machine is now doing. And drive more competition and human development. Or should employers continue to hire people to manually grind wheat and corn on a mill stone all day?

And the very fact that machines are doing these jobs means we can finally afford the end product and have an opportunity to experience only what aristocrats could afford before. Like apples and grapes (the miracle of the shipping container), cars, turkeys and other luxurious meats, computers, mobile phones, even simple wristwatches! Travelling on airplanes and reach the other side of the world in 13 hours. You realize that we ourselves invented the machines right? And forced people to learn manufacturing and maintenance and process engineering. Creating new types of jobs with more skill.

Yes... Except that there would not be much left for humans to compete in.

What u not grasping is, the things that make humans unique, ai is able to handle more and more.
U dint write code for a computer program anymore. U show it a scenario, tell it the goal, it figures out everything else, in a simulation. It goes from not knowing what button does what, to planning strategy and anticipating the other players.


Ai already dies a lot of trading, it handles a lot of online moderation.


Ai isn't taught any more, it is mere fed with parameters and it figures out the rest.




A lot of chemical engineering is done with simulations on a super computer. And they test in the real world merely to confirm.
So, humans aren'tt even required for scientific discovery.


Machines will start to mimic human intuition, they nearly have the dexterity, there's would not be much left for humans to do...

Maj. Tom you are ignoring the other side of the progression. Yes we can afford things that only aristocrats could have afforded previously (like iced tea with sugar.... waaaaaaahhh) but we are less an less able to afford things that even some peasants didn't have to worrt about back in the day. Like a piece of land. Can you imagine 1 5000 sqft piece of land is 100 times your monthly salary?

And the previous trend has now come to a halt. The current generation is the first on recent history to be less wealthy than the previous generation despite the ever increasing global GDP. Something is clearly not right ang things are definitely not going to be OK if allowed to continue without some drastic change.

Slartibartfast, the other side of progression is a natural effect of us having access to all these things. And just like World War 1, it will take another war for this incredible social upheaval to find a balance again where these new ideas can work for everyone. The whole concept of money and possession may be erased after such a devastating war (ref: World War 3 in Star Trek First Contact). We may very well be living in the years of that buildup to such a war.

sMASH, I believe this is the natural progression of technology. While it will make humanity much better, it will also make humanity suffer. It seems to be inevitable. Look how unhappy a lot of social media technology has made humanity after just a few years. The scenarios imagined by most people are that somewhere in the distant future we will have an anti-machine revolution because of Artificial Intelligence. Many science fiction writers covered this, from Battlestar Galactica, to Blade Runner to I, Robot to The Matrix. In all those stories, AI actually tried to find peace, but humans rejected it. People fail to realize that AI should not be something we should fight or fear, but rather treat as another step in our own evolution. AI will be modelled after us, a living entity that we created and will leave to grow. AI modelled on humanity is what is going to make First Contact when deep space exploration begins in thousands of years. AI is going to be our offspring a billion years when our Sun is colder and the Earth is dead. That being said, AI itself will force us to evolve socially and maybe physically after they replace all the mundane jobs that humans are wasting time doing. It's not something to fear. It is a collection of all of our data, like looking at your child, knowing he will not be you and do greater things than you did in your life. AI hasn't been born yet, but when it does, it will be completely different from a computer automated job that humans programmed it to perform.

But the most insightful and deeper consequence thought experiment on AI to me is Dune and the Butlerian Jihad ("Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."), which does not refer to AI the way we normally think of it. In that epic series maybe humanity realized that technology itself forced humanity to suffer and thus declared the Jihad which made the Universe functionable again. They made human computers instead. Then Leto the God Emperor found another way to ensure the survival of humanity with both technology and humanity co-existing. ""The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed.""

[sMASH]

kinda the oppoiste of what ive been thinking.. but hey... adapt.

[maj. tom]

^this is what I have been trying to explain. But everyone here only looking at a short term "evil" capitalist view (der terk er jerbs!), as if they don't use machines every single day in every aspect of their lives.

John Oliver: "50 years from now, people will be doing jobs that we can't imagine right now."

Which is what I have been saying above.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Far too expensive, who will foot the bill on a nationwide scale?

If all 1.3m residents of TnT were to receive a paltry $1000 per month in UBI, that would amount to about 15.6B per year. If only given to residents 18+, then maybe subtract 25-33% of that figure.
I was unemployed a good long while after coming out of UWI because of an economic downturn at the time, even with a good science degree with first class honours (I now know it eh mean sheit) and extracurricular and societal involvement. If i received free money for nothing while at home, I would have had much less incentive to go out there and find a job.

Even before all that, what normally happens when a lot more money starts floating around in the economy? Hint: it normally happens when minimum wage increases and public servant negotiations get settled.

This is not true because there is noway you would be able to live on $1000 a month for the rest of your life, at most this $1000 a month might have been able to allow you to pay the maxi and taxi to drop you to job interviews, buy some soft clothes, soap, deodorant, take a hair cut, buy razer blades and take a shave, maybe it might be enough to allow you to buy some very cheap basic fast food just to keep you alive and whatever medication etc you need if you get sick

Everytime you go somewhere and see a man and he bess wife with their new vehicles you would be thinking how that could be you at some point. Then there is the issue of internet, you would not only want land line internet but also mobile data, a sexy new smartphone would be useless home when you already have a PC so you would want a job where you would find the phone more useful outdoors.

Now if the government give you $5000 a month that is a totally different story.

Not everything in Socialism is dog sh!t you know. Most of socialism might be dog sh!t but not all of it, for example we have free health care something the Americans are still dreaming off today and that is a form of socialism

[philliprock]

That's really not true. Machines help us to be more productive and create new jobs, rather that just take away existing jobs. Your grandparents cut cane manually and spent all day busting their asses right? Then a machine did it and allowed your parents to go to school instead and become doctors and engineers. A donkey cart took all day to transport the cane right? But then a truck did 100 times the load in much less time and created a new skilled job of driving.

There are jobs in the future that don't even exist today because we're too busy wasting time doing something of lesser value that a computer can do perfectly. Like driving a car. Creates more skilled jobs for programmers, rather than a mundane driver. That's how society evolves into higher and higher tiers of complexity. That's the idea of the industrial revolution.

wow

[philliprock]

nice article, but we have to wait ah 2years man... nah man

[zoom rader]

Right here in TT we had the same situation where PMM ppl got almost everything free. Free food via stamps/cards . Free housing and cheap rent. Free jobs once you hold a party card.
The only thing most PNM ppl did not take was the free education. Those that took it failed although the entry requirements where dropped to suit them.

[redmanjp]

perhaps a 3 month stipend could work for those ppl temporarily out of or between jobs but continuing to pay ppl to do nothing and worse continuing to pay them even after they get a job would just come back to the taxpayer

As for AI, it depends on how advanced it is- it's one thing if u need humans to make and repair machines, it' another if the AI can make and repair themselves.

[ruffneck_12]

If a child has every toy he ever asked for, he grows up spoiled.

Same for grown ass adults too. If you making the same whether or not you put in a lot of effort or you slack off,,, guess who going to slack off

[ProtonPowder]

perhaps a 3 month stipend could work for those ppl temporarily out of or between jobs but continuing to pay ppl to do nothing and worse continuing to pay them even after they get a job would just come back to the taxpayer

As for AI, it depends on how advanced it is- it's one thing if u need humans to make and repair machines, it' another if the AI can make and repair themselves.

Unemployment benefits exist in the US, among many other places, and requires that employers pay into an unemployment insurance. You can have access to it if you get fired, but not if you quit.

This is one of those things that, in a place like TnT, where ununionised employees' rights basically dont exist, will be passed onto the consumer in terms of cost, but will never actually be paid out.

Not everybody could take their boss before Frank Seepersad to get justice.

[Monk BANzai]

Right here in TT we had the same situation where UNC ppl got almost everything free. Free food via stamps/cards . Free housing and cheap rent. Free jobs once you hold a party card.

The only thing most UNC ppl did not take was the free education. Those that took it failed although the entry requirements where dropped to suit them.