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

[delericho]

I've never understood that logic. If you've determined that the minimum needed to sustain a kid is X dollars, would you give the second kid less than X.

It's not linear. Supporting two children costs more than supporting one, but costs less than double the amount.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not linear. Supporting two children costs more than supporting one, but costs less than double the amount.

You have to buy all the same food and clothing you did before. Electric and such would have been paid anyway. Schooling is not less if you have to pay for it. Diapers and toys are different for different age groups, so those have to be re-bought.

What costs less for the second kid?

 

[delericho]

You have to buy all the same food and clothing you did before. Electric and such would have been paid anyway. Schooling is not less if you have to pay for it. Diapers and toys are different for different age groups, so those have to be re-bought.

What costs less for the second kid?

There's a lot of stuff you don't have to re-buy, because the second child can re-use the same toys, pram, crib, clothes, etc that the first child used two years previously. And demand on things like electricity, phone bills and the like will go up as the number of children increases - but adding that first child is disproportionately more expensive.

 

[CapnZapp]

At no point did I suggest you'd get less welfare for earning a wage, I pointed out that if you're going to have a cut off where someone is 'well off' enough to not get the money, then you'd be creating a perverse incentive to NOT earn between whatever amount 'well off' is and whatever amount 'well off + $16k a year" is.

You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income.

If you by this mean it's better to sustain the feelings of hopelessness and failure by the unemployed in order to not have to question the holy Work Ethic, then I guess we're done talking.

If, however, you mean something else, feel free to further qualify and I'll listen.

You should take some time to read and understand the concepts of positional goods. That's one of the better arguments against this plan keeping people out of crime and rebellion. It will maybe keep people fed and housed, but it's not going to touch many of the causes of crime, of which things like positional goods are a strong motivator.

Why do you assume I'm not aware the desirability of certain goods is predicated on not everyone getting them?

As for the rest; if you're going to become a criminal anyway, I don't see why this scheme changes anything. I was commenting on how to cut down on the frequency of people that commit crimes out of necessity. But basic income isn't primarily about reducing crime.

Let's focus on the fact basic income takes away the stigma of not being a "contributor", and removes all the thousands of positions where you essentially pry in people's private lives and get to decide how they should lead their lives.

The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)

It's an initiative that shows great promise to upend the current situation, where people is treated like s**t.

 

[delericho]

You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income.

I'm pretty sure you've misinterpreted - he's saying that if you're going to introduce a basic income than it should be a universal basic income. Because odd things happen if it isn't.

The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)

Now, that's an interesting point. There are some jobs in #2 that we might not be able to find people to do if a basic income is introduced, and indeed it's possible that some of those may both require an actual human to do them and be essential for the running of society. I guess Finland will find out for us.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income.

If you by this mean it's better to sustain the feelings of hopelessness and failure by the unemployed in order to not have to question the holy Work Ethic, then I guess we're done talking.

If, however, you mean something else, feel free to further qualify and I'll listen.

Considering my point was directed only at the idea of a cut-off earning level at which the basic income shall not be paid, where did you get that I'm using that as an argument against basic income. "Perverse incentive" is an economic term only meaning that the incentive created is counter to the intent, it makes no value statements as to any merits for or against at all. I made the value statement when I pointed out that setting a ceiling does weird things and actually encourages people to avoid earning in the band of cutoff to cutoff+basic income. You're just itching for a fight if you think that's an argument against basic income rather than an argument against cutoff values for basic income.

Why do you assume I'm not aware the desirability of certain goods is predicated on not everyone getting them?

Most people aren't. Apologies.

As for the rest; if you're going to become a criminal anyway, I don't see why this scheme changes anything. I was commenting on how to cut down on the frequency of people that commit crimes out of necessity. But basic income isn't primarily about reducing crime.

Right, which was my point that a basic income is unlikely to reduce crime. It may, but most crime isn't predicated on acquiring the basic necessities of life, but on gaining status or status goods.

Let's focus on the fact basic income takes away the stigma of not being a "contributor", and removes all the thousands of positions where you essentially pry in people's private lives and get to decide how they should lead their lives.

I don't see how it removes the stigma of not being a contributor. I do agree that it's a streamlined welfare program that will be far less intrusive and cheaper to execute.

The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)

It's an initiative that shows great promise to upend the current situation, where people is treated like s**t.

A basic income doesn't remove that need to work, though, if your goal is to do better than you're doing. It (should) provide a safety net of minimum needs met, but that's not a fun or worthwhile life. Sure, you can choose to find other entertainment, but you will always be limited by the amount of the basic income, and that will be pretty limiting. You will live in tenements, most likely, as better housing costs are likely to levelize at a point where basic income won't be sufficient. You'll eat, sure, but not steak, as those prices will also likely trend higher. You'll be locked into a sustenance lifestyle within a few years of adjustment. That may be fine, but basic income will not solve any of the problems of the current welfare schema except government costs to implement. All of the other, attached possible ills of welfare follow basic income.

None of that is to say that I might not be very wrong. I'm looking forward to Finland's experiment with interest. If it does end up maintaining the current status quo with much less management expense, I'll at least be a great fan of importing it to the states (in some form, probably run at state level with some funding from the Feds to balance things out) for that one reason alone. However, I think it's far to optimistic to preach that it will solve many ills of the current welfare schema without evidence. You can make too many well supported arguments either way.

TL;DR: I like the idea, but I'm not sold on it. I'm interested to see how Finland's plan works out in a decade or so.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just to pick up on a couple of the issues raised.

First the "Subsidising Wall-Mart wages". This is actually not a problem. Wall-Mart tries to treat its employees on a citizens income the way it does in the US and the answer is walking out. Possibly accompanied by a raised middle finger and language that I won't use on ENworld. The €800 (plus free healthcare) is meant to be enough to live on. Therefore the workplaces need to threat their

Now it will cause parasitic charities and cults to be able to pay their workers nothing. And it will probably create an internship grind that makes the current one look sensible.

But most people like doing something. And what will happen is that the midlist of books will suddenly rebound, full of people with pretensions of being authors and able to support themselves. And barely professiona LoL players will be more popular - as will game designers and other semi-vanity jobs and almost all forms of art.

Basically with the ability of everyone to walk out of their job without starving crap jobs have to get a whole lot less crap - dangerous jobs have to pay more and customer service jobs have to treat their staff better. This also boosts the economy because people with little have to spend most of their money on stuff, meaning that the customer service jobs will still need to be done.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm pretty sure you've misinterpreted - he's saying that if you're going to introduce a basic income than it should be a universal basic income. Because odd things happen if it isn't.

Right. Sorry.

Now, that's an interesting point. There are some jobs in #2 that we might not be able to find people to do if a basic income is introduced, and indeed it's possible that some of those may both require an actual human to do them and be essential for the running of society. I guess Finland will find out for us.

Not sure I see it as a problem if this upends the way there currently exist a job at a pay that someone is doing only because he or she will otherwise fall out of society...

Chances are, that job could be eliminated if only the organization responsible gave a rat's arse about fixing it. And if the job is one of those rare ones that you actually need to get it done, but you can't just put a machine or robot on it... then chances are exceedingly high it was severely underpaid from the start, and everything's still golden - the organization is simply forced to increase the paycheck until they get applicants for the position.

Since every job effectively starts at €800 (even when your paycheck says zero) this shouldn't be hard to do.

Applied to America, one great benefit would be to eliminate the way companies take advantage of people, forcing them to take more than one job, or even to subsist on welfare. With basic income, you're empowered to say frack off to the Walmarts of the world if you don't like their job offer.

And to the pro-Walmarts in the audience: perhaps you can pay your workers even less now, since your pay checks now does not need to cover the essentials. Only whatever positional good that motivates your employee to work at all. (Hint: at €800 in today's Finland, I would guess everything except rent and basic nutrition would qualify as a "positional good")

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm always interested to watch other people engaging in grand experiments to change fundamental conceits of economics and see how it shakes out. I wish Finland luck, but I'm glad I'm not in Finland. Maybe I'll change my mind after this shakes out a bit.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just to pick up on a couple of the issues raised.

First the "Subsidising Wall-Mart wages". This is actually not a problem. Wall-Mart tries to treat its employees on a citizens income the way it does in the US and the answer is walking out. Possibly accompanied by a raised middle finger and language that I won't use on ENworld.

We think alike!

Yes, the problem isn't that companies try to get away with paying as little as possible. I realize that's merely rational, and that attempting to characterize companies using human emotions is futile.

The problem is instead that people have no other choice than taking them up on their offers.

With basic income, if people are alright with working at Walmart at whatever pay they're willing to give you, that irks me much less.

Walmart will then still take advantage of your desire to own shiny objects. But that's not nearly as bad as taking advantage of your desire to eat and be warm at night.

Assuming €800 is enough to cover a modest apartment and at least borderline-healthy foodstuffs, Walmart can lower their salaries to €1 a month for what I care.