Finland to pay all its citizens 800 euros a month to fight unemployment

[Umbran]

Giving people money feeds consummerism, so it doesn't solve capitalism's environmental sustainability problem.

Giving people money well beyond their needs feeds consumerism. Giving them enough to just barely scrape by without much security feeds discontent. Giving them enough to survive with a basic and dignified quality of life... we don't know what this feeds, because we've not done it on any scale.

 

[Kramodlog]

Giving people money well beyond their needs feeds consumerism. Giving them enough to just barely scrape by without much security feeds discontent. Giving them enough to survive with a basic and dignified quality of life... we don't know what this feeds, because we've not done it on any scale.

I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.

 

[Umbran]

I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.

Well, let's remember that this is a measure to deal with a rising unemployment rate. That probably isn't happening without other attendant issues - it probably isn't like they have a healthy and robust middle class that isn't having any issues. That middle class is probably feeling a squeeze, and that leads to them not spending as much, which can lead to a further economic contraction, which is the way into a downward spiral.

Finland only has about five and a half million people. In a population that small, you won't feel many of the negative impacts of consumerism, and those impacts they do feel may be preferable to the impacts of a 10% unemployment rate.

 

[Kramodlog]

Well, let's remember that this is a measure to deal with a rising unemployment rate. That probably isn't happening without other attendant issues - it probably isn't like they have a healthy and robust middle class that isn't having any issues. That middle class is probably feeling a squeeze, and that leads to them not spending as much, which can lead to a further economic contraction, which is the way into a downward spiral.

Finland only has about five and a half million people. In a population that small, you won't feel many of the negative impacts of consumerism, and those impacts they do feel may be preferable to the impacts of a 10% unemployment rate.

We all feel the impact of consummerism. Global warming is one of them. The problem is that economic growth fueled by consumption doesn't always go hand in hand with our* desire to have a better relationship with our environement. One will have to give way. If we chose the environment, we have to accept that our standards of living and buying power will go down while making sure our less fortunate still will have decent living standards. Not an easy act to do and I can't say I have any solution in the context of representative democracies.


*Western countries and some other like Japan, Russia and China.

 

[Tonguez]

However, as we become more and more efficient, the welfare of the community depends less and less on the labors of individual people. In fact, you can come to the point where it is better for the community if you *don't* work, that you let the more efficient machinery do the job instead. Standing aside, then, can become the more valuable thing. The question is whether we recognize when we reach that point, or if we maintain the belief that someone who isn't working is morally inferior.

Civ taught me that when your population isn't working as labourers they convert to Artist, Scientist and Tax collectors. Its really then about whether Art and Science are valued as 'work' that contributes to overall wellbeing rather than applying primarily economic measures.

To me having more Artists and Scientist in the population seems like a great outcome of UBI, more Tax collectors may be not so much...

 

[delericho]

I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.

It's very likely that Finland's tax regime will be revised alongside the introduction of the universal income, meaning that those in the middle class will pay more taxes to offset their gain from UI (and the upper classes will pay considerably more). For those in the middle, their net income will probably end up about the same as it was before.

 

[Umbran]

We all feel the impact of consummerism. Global warming is one of them.

I'm well aware. But, then we have to consider several factors. For instance:

1) Finland seems to be doing pretty well on emissions already, so maybe they can afford it: http://www.stat.fi/til/khki/2014/khki_2014_2015-05-22_tie_001_en.html

2) Theirs is a policy for five million, not five billion. What they're doing may not be manageable if scaled up to the whole planet right now, but it *isn't* scaled up to the whole planet - it may be that this will actually maintain their economy by maintaining confidence, and that may provide the resources to continue to reduce emissions, where a recession would be a roadblock to reduction.

The simple fact is, "more money tends to lead to consumerism" is not sufficient to analyze a particular policy choice. Context matters, and we aren't informed on the Finnish economic landscape enough to really know what the impact would be.

The problem is that economic growth fueled by consumption doesn't always go hand in hand with our* desire to have a better relationship with our environement. One will have to give way

With respect, there's a logical failure there - "A doesn't always go with B" does *not* imply that you can't have both. It means that *sometimes* you can't have both. In order to get that one *must* give way, you must demonstrate that they *never* can go hand in hand, which you haven't done. Otherwise, the absolute phrasing doesn't hold, you see.

As noted, consumerism can help keep an economy healthy enough to continue the transition to alternative energy sources (which is an investment - if your economy doesn't have room for investment, you have a problem going green) and can also drive adoption of alternative technologies - consumerism aimed at the right products can lead to reduction in energy usage - so long as those things you consume are using less energy than what you used to do. For example, in the US, consumerism can be )(and is) used to drive folks to purchase new, more efficient cars and other transportation.

So, maybe it can be done, with careful management.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm still not sure why people who make above a certain amount (say 100,000), should receive that money.

I'm also wondering if this isn't way to subsidize the low paying jobs of some compagnies. Instead of having Wal-Mart or McD pay their employees a decent amount of money, society does it for them.

At that level you pay so much in taxes, it essentially disappears. It might appear to be an issue, but really isn't.

 

[CapnZapp]

That works today. In a decade, with the population having grown and the cost of living gone up, it's less true.



The problem with that is that now those employees have the option to just walk away, and still have enough money to live. That means that employers will need to compensate them for the opportunity cost of using that time for more enjoyable exploits, which will apply an upward pressure on wages.

Many people won't be content to have only 800 euros per month, not in a high cost country.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because it's cheaper to pay a handful of rich people that money than it is to run a bureaucracy to check whether they should get it or not.



There's some truth in that. But those jobs are going away anyway. There's virtually nothing in a McDonald's kitchen that can't be automated - it's just a matter of cost, and the cost of labour goes up every year while the cost of automation comes down. As for WalMart, those self-scan checkouts are making those jobs increasingly redundant.

And again, it disappears once you pay tax.