Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finland to end its Basic Income experiment

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finland to end its Basic Income experiment

    Finland's basic-income experiment made headlines around the world when it launched last year, but it will end later this year.
    The project involves giving 2,000 unemployed Finns roughly $690 every month, no strings attached.
    While the experiment is still attracting attention internationally, Finnish decision-makers will not extend the project.
    The Finnish government is now eyeing different social-welfare projects.

    Since the beginning of last year, 2,000 Finns have been getting money from the government each month — and they are not expected to do anything in return. The participants, ages 25 to 58, are all unemployed and were selected at random by Kela, Finland's social-security institution.

    Instead of unemployment benefits, the participants now receive €560 ($690) a month, tax-free. Should they find a job during the two-year trial, they still get to keep the money.

    While the project has been praised internationally for being at the cutting edge of social welfare, back in Finland, decision-makers are pulling the brakes and taking the project in a whole new direction.

    "Right now, the government is making changes that are taking the system further away from a basic income," Miska Simanainen, a Kela researcher, told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet.

    The initial plan was for the experiment to expand in early 2018 to include workers as well as people who are not working, but that did not happen, to the disappointment of researchers at Kela.

    Researchers say that without workers in the project, they're unable to study whether the so-called basic income would allow people to make new career moves or enter training or education.

    "Two years is too short a time frame to be able to draw extensive conclusions from such a vast experiment," Olli Kangas, a professor who's one of the experts behind the basic-income trial, told Finland's public-service broadcaster YLE. "We ought to have been given additional time and more money to achieve reliable results."

    In recent years, an increasing number of tech entrepreneurs have endorsed universal basic income, a system in which people receive a standard amount of money simply for being alive.

    Entrepreneurs who have expressed support for universal basic income include Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Chris Hughes, a Facebook cofounder, and Ray Kurzweil, Google's futurist and engineering director.

    These tech moguls say that universal basic income in combination with other methods of combating poverty could also help solve the problem of increased automation in the workforce — a problem critics say they have been very much a part of creating.

    At the 2018 TED conference, Kurzweil made a bold prediction about the future of "free" money, saying that universal basic income will have spread worldwide by the 2030s and that we'll be able to "live very well on that."

    But contrary to universal basic income, which advocates say should apply to all citizens regardless of background, Finland's trial is targeting people in long-term unemployment.

    The Finnish government argued that existing unemployment benefits were so high and the system so rigid that a person who was unemployed might choose not to take a job because they would risk losing money — the higher your earnings, the lower your social benefits. The basic-income trial was designed as an incentive for people to start working.

    But last December, the Finnish Parliament passed a bill to take the country's welfare system in quite the opposite direction. The new "activation model" law requires job seekers to work a minimum of 18 hours or enter a training program within three months and stipulates that if they don't manage to find a job, they lose some of their benefits.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/finla...eriment-2018-4

  • #2
    its saturday bro have a beer and chill

    Comment


    • #3
      Can work, will work. If I was in charge I wouldn't pay a penny to unemployed people unless there was a great reason for them not being able to do any sort of work. Too many freeloaders in society.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Split Decision View Post
        its saturday bro have a beer and chill
        Haha the voice of reason!

        Comment


        • #5
          I think eventually for the sake of a countries economy putting forth a basic income will be the way to go.

          There are more & more tent cities popping up in the US. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer. Eventually this symbiotic relationship between less rich people buying rich people's sh^t is gonna reach a critical mass & enough less rich people will stop buying or won't be able to buy the rich guys sh^t & then they both are effed. Granted the poor guy is much more f#cked, but what happens when you can't have a sustainable business cuz there aren't enough people who are able to afford it? I say you gotta get creative with how you give mfers money & a basic income seems to me, to be the way to steer things right now. Maybe some better way comes along in a year or two idk, but the squeeze on poor people is only becoming tighter. This is the way this game goes when that is the reality. Something needs to change in the way the game is played or in how people get money.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Eff Pandas View Post
            I think eventually for the sake of a countries economy putting forth a basic income will be the way to go.

            There are more & more tent cities popping up in the US. The rich are getting richer & the poor are getting poorer. Eventually this symbiotic relationship between less rich people buying rich people's sh^t is gonna reach a critical mass & enough less rich people will stop buying or won't be able to buy the rich guys sh^t & then they both are effed. Granted the poor guy is much more f#cked, but what happens when you can't have a sustainable business cuz there aren't enough people who are able to afford it? I say you gotta get creative with how you give mfers money & a basic income seems to me, to be the way to steer things right now. Maybe some better way comes along in a year or two idk, but the squeeze on poor people is only becoming tighter. This is the way this game goes when that is the reality. Something needs to change in the way the game is played or in how people get money.
            Basic income didn't work in Finland. It's a nice idea but not practical because the money has to come from somewhere.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ShoulderRoll View Post
              Basic income didn't work in Finland. It's a nice idea but not practical because the money has to come from somewhere.
              How didn't it work? They say themselves in the article it'll take longer to tell the good & bad of it then how long its been going on.

              I'm not even sure how you would suggest it doesn't work at this point in such a small lil segment of people in the first place. There would be so many dynamics with this that there are very likely to be some great pluses, some solid pluses, some ok things, some bad things & a few things that are huge issues. Deciding if thats a overall net positive or net negative is a task in & of itself.

              But sh^t maybe you are right. It won't work. Then SOMETHING is gonna have to work otherwise we'll have a society of people selling sh^t to people who can't afford it. Good luck society the day that becomes the standard.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's actually a good idea if applied properly (just hand everyone cash to use/save up according to their needs and abolish mindblowingly inefficient welfare programs that hemorrhage billions into thin air annually) but it will never be applied properly. Politicians would be skewered for taking funds away from X and giving it to the middle class, called Hitler, etc.

                It will just be piled on top of the existing welfare state model therefore become non-viable.

                Poor people are every bit as greedy as rich people. They're just dumber at it/terminally myopic.
                Last edited by ////; 04-21-2018, 01:45 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The problem is that the entire system of money needs to be changed. If you're the only one trying to create a new system, your ties to the rest of the world economy will make it appear unviable, because of the whole "money coming from somewhere" status-quo. This idea, unfortunately, won't be taken seriously until it's too late, and rich robo-cops are keeping us at bay as we starve.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SunSpace View Post
                    The problem is that the entire system of money needs to be changed. If you're the only one trying to create a new system, your ties to the rest of the world economy will make it appear unviable, because of the whole "money coming from somewhere" status-quo. This idea, unfortunately, won't be taken seriously until it's too late, and rich robo-cops are keeping us at bay as we starve.
                    Local economies could be started based on a gold or silver standard. That would make certain that the money in circulation is backed by something real.

                    Get away from the world economy.

                    But the banksters will interfere and won't let this happen, guaranteed.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP