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

[Maxperson]

So let's assume that's accurate, though I'm not sure what kind of jobs those were.

Perry liked to tout how he made more jobs in TX during the recession, but guess what, those jobs paid less than the ones that were lost, so "skilled workers" weren't going to settle, they were going somewhere else.

That means jobs as numbers aren't enough. They have to not suck. Roustabout jobs in the Dakota's may be high paying and recruiting, but not everybody's willing to leave their family for 6 months to live in their pickup truck to take a shift down there (and yes, that's what those jobs are like). They are also dangerous.

I'm not going to shame somebody for not wanting certain kinds of jobs, even though I was plenty willing to move 1500 miles to get my big job. That ain't how most people are wired.

Most of Perry's jobs were fast food, retail and unskilled factory work. He attracted that sort of business to Texas. The number of jobs like you are talking about in the Dakota's is very small compared to the huge surplus of skilled work available at good wages for those who become trained. There's no shaming involved. There's plenty of work. We should be training (yes I'm back to that word) people to do them.

 

[Janx]

Most of Perry's jobs were fast food, retail and unskilled factory work. He attracted that sort of business to Texas. The number of jobs like you are talking about in the Dakota's is very small compared to the huge surplus of skilled work available at good wages for those who become trained. There's no shaming involved. There's plenty of work. We should be training (yes I'm back to that word) people to do them.

Where I was going with this, is that if we're not willing to "give people money" we aren't going to be be willing to "give people money for training". Flat out, the pattern that actually happens is that there is resistance to spending money on the demographic of people who need help.

So somebody like you will say "they just need to be trained, problem solved" and not actually get to the spending of money to do so because those people are lazy, should do it themselves, etc.

regardless of how it is phrased, getting people unstuck requires giving them money in some fashion, whether directly or on their behalf.

All that remains then, is do you want to spend money on poor people or not. The particulars are of course up to discussion, but that's what people who really want to say "no" are using to avoid saying "yes"

 

[Maxperson]

Where I was going with this, is that if we're not willing to "give people money" we aren't going to be be willing to "give people money for training". Flat out, the pattern that actually happens is that there is resistance to spending money on the demographic of people who need help.

Yes and no. Yes, there is resistance to getting people help. That's very true. The no portion is that there are degrees of unwillingness. I'm not very willing to hand a homeless guy money, but I am sometimes willing to buy a homeless guy a hamburger. You will find it easier to persuade people to do something useful, than to do something that is not useful at all. Throwing money at people to get them trained and become productive members of society is much more preferable than just throwing money at people for nothing.

So somebody like you will say "they just need to be trained, problem solved" and not actually get to the spending of money to do so because those people are lazy, should do it themselves, etc.

If I could enact the program tomorrow, I would. It's not "somebody like me", but rather the politicians. What I am suggesting would solve the problem and would be easier to enact than to just hand money out to everyone in the country for nothing,

regardless of how it is phrased, getting people unstuck requires giving them money in some fashion, whether directly or on their behalf.

Yes, I agree with that.

All that remains then, is do you want to spend money on poor people or not. The particulars are of course up to discussion, but that's what people who really want to say "no" are using to avoid saying "yes"

If you're suggesting that I am saying they need training in order to avoid saying yes, then you are very wrong on that. I very much want to say yes, with the strings attached that I've been advocating here. If you aren't suggesting that, then I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, so please rephrase.

 

[Janx]

If you're suggesting that I am saying they need training in order to avoid saying yes, then you are very wrong on that. I very much want to say yes, with the strings attached that I've been advocating here. If you aren't suggesting that, then I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, so please rephrase.

This answer is sufficient. Let's assume that you and I now agree that we need to spend money on poor people. Probably everybody on this thread now agrees with that stance.

All that differs is "how are we spending that money and possibly where does it come from. The US spends much more on foreign aid than it does on social programs, so for continuing discussion, we could all temporarily agree to screw helping other countries while we help ourselves. Thus, "what are the ways to spend the money" is the only discussion of merit for our purposes.

What I don't like to see is extremist positions that say "no that way is wrong, won't work, my way is right" Something in the middle is more often the correct solution, in my experience.

What that means is, $800/month to everybody isn't perfect, but it will help some % of the target demographic (aka the poor people we want to help).

Let's acknowledge the positive benefit, not just argue we're right that it'll totally suck and it's the wrong solution.

So what's the next idea? Offer $800/month as college support (tuition, books, room and board, etc)? That's just me taking Finland's idea and MaxPerson's preference to emphasize retraining.

Framing the discussion this way is less absolute, and more likely to sway people to your way of thinking, or keep an open mind on alternatives.

I'm not any better at it, but I am sure it'd be a better way to have the discussion that doesn't frame everybody as a bunch of losers who won't go learn a new trade. Which is what we're at risk of if we think "training" is the absolute solution, and it turns out the people don't take to it. Situations are far more complex than that on why somebody doesn't seem to do something to better themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

This answer is sufficient. Let's assume that you and I now agree that we need to spend money on poor people. Probably everybody on this thread now agrees with that stance.

We agreed all along on that much.

All that differs is "how are we spending that money and possibly where does it come from. The US spends much more on foreign aid than it does on social programs, so for continuing discussion, we could all temporarily agree to screw helping other countries while we help ourselves. Thus, "what are the ways to spend the money" is the only discussion of merit for our purposes.

If we aren't going to spend other money on it, then yes, I'm for using foreign aid on our people. I think there are other areas we can draw from, though.

What that means is, $800/month to everybody isn't perfect, but it will help some % of the target demographic (aka the poor people we want to help).

Let's acknowledge the positive benefit, not just argue we're right that it'll totally suck and it's the wrong solution.

So what's the next idea? Offer $800/month as college support (tuition, books, room and board, etc)? That's just me taking Finland's idea and MaxPerson's preference to emphasize retraining.

Framing the discussion this way is less absolute, and more likely to sway people to your way of thinking, or keep an open mind on alternatives.

I'm not any better at it, but I am sure it'd be a better way to have the discussion that doesn't frame everybody as a bunch of losers who won't go learn a new trade. Which is what we're at risk of if we think "training" is the absolute solution, and it turns out the people don't take to it. Situations are far more complex than that on why somebody doesn't seem to do something to better themselves.

I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes. Rather than give $800 a month in tuition and such, I'd like to see government funded trade schools created specifically for people who are on cash aid. Let them go to the school for free. I'd even be for giving additional money to people who are in school getting A's and B's as an incentive.

 

[Janx]

I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes. Rather than give $800 a month in tuition and such, I'd like to see government funded trade schools created specifically for people who are on cash aid. Let them go to the school for free. I'd even be for giving additional money to people who are in school getting A's and B's as an incentive.

So let's work on this idea, it has more specific parts, which unfortunately means I can point out concerns, but please understand I'm trying to see if they are show stoppers.

You'd like a requirement to only pay for success. What happens to the folks who fail? Example, my boss's son is using is GI bill money to do a computer science class. He's failing. badly. It's a mismatch, and he doesn't have the right stuff. GI bill has rules, that if he fails, he can lose the whole enchilada.

Shipping "candidates" to a special school isolates them. That kills any networking chance they would have had by going to the same school as other people. Not just in what school the recruiters come to, but also in meeting people from better walks of life and seeing role models for higher classes of living. It also may have the issue of stigmatizing students from there (as in "oh, I see you're from GovSchool, those guys are low class")

I suspect its valuable to set deadlines/goals for these candidates, which is what I think you're aiming for. Somebody can't be a professional student to suckle at the government teat forever. But we might need a little buffer on what failing a class or two might mean, as a student tries a study, sees they suck at it, and needs to switch majors. That's actually what failure should mean, is that you're in the wrong program...

Are any of these concerns show stoppers, or can the idea be shifted to better handle them?

I'd be more in favor of paying to put candidates into existing schools. perhaps not harvard, but the US has plenty of schools already with more reasonable rates and decent results. Blending these people in with existing population will give them mentors and peers they can look up to and perhaps connect them. It's hard to get out of the ghetto when everybody you know lives in the same ghetto.

What if everybody got a bucket of money to spend on school. Your choice on when/where to go, so long as the money is spent on tuition, room & board while enrolled. It lasted 5 years because it's handed out on a per month basis while enrolled. Bonus on any money not spent providing you get a diploma.

One kid could go to harvard, where this supplements his loans, scholarships. Still owes money to Harvard, but much less.

One kid goes to welding school. Gets done in 6 months, and gets the rest as a bonus that he uses to buy a new truck (with warranty) so he can reliably get to work.

One kid goes to A&M, mostly covers his bills, gets a small loan to cover the gap and graduates with a BS in 4.5 years because he flunk a math class and retook it.

 

[delericho]

I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes.

Who gets to choose which classes are worthy of the 800/month subsidy? And what is the sanction if the recipient doesn't pass those exams?


(Because if we're talking about poor people, they're not going to be able to repay the money. And if we cut off their funding for the next set of classes we've just created someone with no means of income and no means of training for one. That person still has to eat, so either needs a subsidy (money for nothing) or will turn to crime.)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess the biggest problem with a 800 € flat money might really be that people could still use it completely irresponsible. But how many would that really be?

Finland will figure it out, I think.

 

[CapnZapp]

I guess the biggest problem with a 800 € flat money might really be that people could still use it completely irresponsible. But how many would that really be?

Finland will figure it out, I think.

Why is that a problem?

I mean, isn't it a self-correcting problem?

(I am continually astonished how some people favor freedom for all. Except the poor, who apparently need to be micromanaged beyond all limits of human decency... You would almost think all the concern for what they spend their welfare checks on isn't concern at all, and instead an intentional effort to making life on welfare as humiliating as possible...?)

 

[delericho]

Why is that a problem?

I mean, isn't it a self-correcting problem?

While I might be just about okay with letting a foolish adult learn the error of his ways like that, I'm much less cavalier about it if that foolish adult has children to look after.

You would almost think all the concern for what they spend their welfare checks on isn't concern at all, and instead an intentional effort to making life on welfare as humiliating as possible...?

To an extent. But there is also a genuine issue there. It's not so long ago that payday at the shipyards in Glasgow would see a number of women waiting at the gates for their husbands, because too many of those hard-working, hard-drinking men would come home drunk and penniless if they weren't stopped.

That's one of the reasons why child support in the UK is paid to the primary carer (usually the mother) rather than to the household as a whole - because when it was set up the father was the main, and often sole, bread-winner and, sadly, couldn't always be trusted. And so the powers-that-be took steps to ensure that the mother had at least some money coming in.

(You might also want to read "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt, which also shows much the same issue. Actually, you might just want to read it for it's own sake - it's very good.)

For the overwhelming majority of people, rich and poor, it's not an issue. But there's a small minority for whom this is a genuine issue, and if we're talking about a real-world policy rather than a thought experiment, it is worth some consideration.