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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Yeah, well... these women would nowadays get their own €800, so not sure how this is applicable.

That's one of the reasons why child support in the UK is paid to the primary carer

And for those programs where children are included in basic income it's reasonable to expect that to continue.

In other words, we're not discussing "let's protect the weak and defenseless" (women historically; children).

We're discussing whether it's a good argument or not to be against basic income because it would mean paying real money to people instead of food stamps and other directed payments (since nobody is seriously suggesting basic income should be payed out in anything other than cash*)

*) Not actual cash. I guess Finland is way too automated to offer actual cash payouts...

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, well... these women would nowadays get their own €800, so not sure how this is applicable.


And for those programs where children are included in basic income it's reasonable to expect that to continue.

In other words, we're not discussing "let's protect the weak and defenseless" (women historically; children).

We're discussing whether it's a good argument or not to be against basic income because it would mean paying real money to people instead of food stamps and other directed payments (since nobody is seriously suggesting basic income should be payed out in anything other than cash*)

*) Not actual cash. I guess Finland is way too automated to offer actual cash payouts...

Yup, that's my concern, which is why I'm so interested in someone doing the cash only route.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You shouldn't assume. You know what that does. No. I do not support a 100% inheritance tax. Nor do I support a 0% inheritance tax. The difference here is that the money was earned by an individual and he has the right to give it to who he wants. It should be taxed as gift income. The government does not earn the money it gives out. It takes it from those who do. One does not equal the other.

And those who make the money are the people who, in a democracy, the government is responsible to. You aren't one of these people who thinks that the allocation of money through capitalism is completely fair are you?

The problem with Greece is the entitlements. It gives waaaaaaaaaaaay too much to the people who don't earn what they are given.

The problem with Greece is fraud. It was lying and encouraged to lie about what it was doing. It wasn't giving out more money than Scandinavia, for example. It was just not telling the truth and it was encouraged to lie by the people in charge of the Euro. Reality finally caught up.

False. These are high paying skilled worker positions. We lack skilled workers to fill them.

This is rubbish. If an individual company paid more than market rates and with decent pay and conditions it could get the skilled workers from other companies. If a company actually valued skilled workers it could train them up itself - but a lot of companies are far too penny-pinching to want to train their own workforce.

So what you are suggesting is that companies get to externalise their training costs and make the government pay to train workers that they are too cheap to train. This isn't as blatant corporate welfare as some (and it's certainly not as blatant corporate welfare as keeping the minimum wage low and letting Wal-Mart supplement its wages via food stamps). But what you are arguing for here is for corporate welfare for companies that are too cheap to either pay market rates or to train up their own workforce.

LOL What a joke. The only people trying to keep people poor with programs is the left.

If keeping people poor means keeping them alive, possibly. But that's because the alive appears at best optional for the worst of the right.

The strings I'm suggesting are required training so that the person can actually contribute to society instead of being a sponge.

You're suggesting spending money on corporate welfare, letting corporations sponge off the state. And then mysteriously claiming that depressing wages for corporations not prepared to either do their own training or pay market rates for skilled workers is going to help poor people.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The way I would do it is to have them fail twice (semesters, not classes) to bomb out. If they're having troubles, they should know it fairly early and be able to switch/drop classes and get new ones.

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")

This is true, but there aren't always classes available at regular schools and waiting to get into such a school is not an option. If they can find a regular school for a comparable price and get in right away, I would not have an issue with them being able to go to one. Otherwise, it's better to get them trained and out into the market. Recruiters would come to these schools, too.

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...

Not a class or two. Two semesters. Many people have problems with a class or two.

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.

First, these people are going to often have to get through high school before they can go on to a trade. Second, I'm not talking about universities. I'm talking about trade schools. Teaching them a trade like nursing, programming, homeland security, etc.

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.

I'm not in favor of paying for more than 2 years. People can learn most trades in 6-18 months.

 

[Maxperson]

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.)

They aren't going to have to repay the money. This is about helping them become productive members of society, not putting them into m ore debt. If they fail out of school, they can go into the charity shelters that give free food and a roof to people on the street. Remember, this is not the only thing I think needs to be addressed. Ideally, if America gets its act together and starts taking care of its people, the crazy people that Reagan tossed onto the streets would be put back into institutions and cared for, leaving much more room in those shelters for the poor people who have decided to be homeless rather than pass classes.

 

[Maxperson]

And those who make the money are the people who, in a democracy, the government is responsible to. You aren't one of these people who thinks that the allocation of money through capitalism is completely fair are you?

The government is responsible to (and for) everyone, not just those who make money.

The problem with Greece is fraud. It was lying and encouraged to lie about what it was doing. It wasn't giving out more money than Scandinavia, for example. It was just not telling the truth and it was encouraged to lie by the people in charge of the Euro. Reality finally caught up.

So their moronic entitlement programs which bankrupted them have nothing to do with it. Got it.

This is rubbish. If an individual company paid more than market rates and with decent pay and conditions it could get the skilled workers from other companies. If a company actually valued skilled workers it could train them up itself - but a lot of companies are far too penny-pinching to want to train their own workforce.

I provided links showing that I am right on this. There aren't nearly enough skilled workers to cover all of the jobs. If you have anything other than "Nuh uh!" as a response, show the links.

So what you are suggesting is that companies get to externalise their training costs and make the government pay to train workers that they are too cheap to train. This isn't as blatant corporate welfare as some (and it's certainly not as blatant corporate welfare as keeping the minimum wage low and letting Wal-Mart supplement its wages via food stamps). But what you are arguing for here is for corporate welfare for companies that are too cheap to either pay market rates or to train up their own workforce.

No I'm not. You don't get to twist helping poor people become skilled into corporate welfare.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The government is responsible to (and for) everyone, not just those who make money.

Which is why assuring that everyone has their feet under them is a good thing.

So their moronic entitlement programs which bankrupted them have nothing to do with it. Got it.

Their entitlement program is a whole lot less moronic than e.g. spending money to hold wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or even wasting money on a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world several times over. For one thing it's a decent fiscal stimulus and for another it provides actual benefit to the citizens.

And now we've established that both Britain and America do things sillier than the Greek entitlement programme and waste far more money doing them we need to look at the difference. Which is fraud - the Greek Government lying about things.

I provided links showing that I am right on this. There aren't nearly enough skilled workers to cover all of the jobs. If you have anything other than "Nuh uh!" as a response, show the links.

Where?

Because the simple fact is the employers who are whining that there aren't enough skilled workers aren't doing the obvious thing. They aren't raising wages. This has been checked. In a market here there are genuinely too few skilled workers then, if you pay any attention to market forces at all, those skills are more valuable. So there should be a bidding war between employers to get those workers. (Hint: average pay increases <5% in a sector aren't really that much)

Show me those bidding wars. Show me cases where employers have tried doubling salaries in a market and still come up with nothing. Because if you can't it means one of two things. Either that the employers are acting as a cartel to try to keep prices down or that they are unwilling to follow the laws of supply and demand and are therefore not paying market rates.

And in either of those cases my heart bleeds for the employers. Who can't find skilled employees for a price they are eager to pay - and so are moaning that they aren't out there at all.

No I'm not. You don't get to twist helping poor people become skilled into corporate welfare.

Then you don't get to palm off your training expenses onto the government - and then claim that you aren't getting government handouts. Companies can train people - and indeed should train people. The government training people in work skills quite literally is the company externalising its costs.

 

[Maxperson]

Their entitlement program is a whole lot less moronic than e.g. spending money to hold wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or even wasting money on a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world several times over. For one thing it's a decent fiscal stimulus and for another it provides actual benefit to the citizens.

Sure. Letting the U.S.S.R. be the only ones with nuclear weapons would have been a fantastic idea. That way they could have taken us over and we would have been so much better off under their socialistic rule. Why didn't we think of that? The war in Iraq was a waste. The war in Afghanistan was not.

And now we've established that both Britain and America do things sillier than the Greek entitlement programme and waste far more money doing them we need to look at the difference. Which is fraud - the Greek Government lying about things.

Eh, no. Greece couldn't afford their silly spending, which is the problem.

Where?

Because the simple fact is the employers who are whining that there aren't enough skilled workers aren't doing the obvious thing. They aren't raising wages. This has been checked. In a market here there are genuinely too few skilled workers then, if you pay any attention to market forces at all, those skills are more valuable. So there should be a bidding war between employers to get those workers. (Hint: average pay increases <5% in a sector aren't really that much)

In this thread is where. Go look it up. Raising wages won't do jack as there aren't enough skilled people to fill all the jobs. A billion dollars an hour won't suddenly force that skill into people. Perhaps wages need to be raised, but that isn't the primary problem. Training is.

Then you don't get to palm off your training expenses onto the government - and then claim that you aren't getting government handouts. Companies can train people - and indeed should train people. The government training people in work skills quite literally is the company externalising its costs.

Am I getting that training? No. I'm not getting a government handout. If you are going to falsely equate training with corporate welfare, then you have to falsely equate handing out money with corporate welfare. Giving people $800 a month will allow those corporations to pay lower wages. Corporate welfare!!!!!!

Except not. Corporate welfare is directly given to corporations. Tax breaks, money grants, and so on.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sure. Letting the U.S.S.R. be the only ones with nuclear weapons would have been a fantastic idea. That way they could have taken us over and we would have been so much better off under their socialistic rule. Why didn't we think of that?

At the peak of the cold war the United States had more than 31,000 nuclear missiles. That's not "Enough for a deterrent" - even the current almost 5000 is an addiction. Not helped much by the chain of command and pork barrelling being ridiculous.

Eh, no. Greece couldn't afford their silly spending, which is the problem.

And they thought they could spend it because of the fraud involved.

In this thread is where. Go look it up. Raising wages won't do jack as there aren't enough skilled people to fill all the jobs. A billion dollars an hour won't suddenly force that skill into people. Perhaps wages need to be raised, but that isn't the primary problem. Training is.

OK.

If you raise the wages to a billion dollars per hour lots of people will go through training and people will be going for speed records getting trained. It's called supply and demand. And the classic way to get a skilled workforce is to train your own. At which point you don't complain there are too few skilled workers - you are responsible for your workforce.

But the cheapskate employers would rather whine than either raise wages or train enough people.

Am I getting that training? No. I'm not getting a government handout.

And this is you demonstrating how short-sighted you are. You are getting the government to cover your costs. You want the trained workers. But you want the government to do it for you. It's a corporate subsidy that replaces a large chunk of your training budget or your wages bill.

The government is covering your costs.

 

[Maxperson]

At the peak of the cold war the United States had more than 31,000 nuclear missiles. That's not "Enough for a deterrent" - even the current almost 5000 is an addiction. Not helped much by the chain of command and pork barrelling being ridiculous.

Who cares. Governments do silly things. We can afford it. Greece can't, yet does it anyway.

If you raise the wages to a billion dollars per hour lots of people will go through training and people will be going for speed records getting trained. It's called supply and demand. And the classic way to get a skilled workforce is to train your own. At which point you don't complain there are too few skilled workers - you are responsible for your workforce.

Current demand vastly outweighs supply.

But the cheapskate employers would rather whine than either raise wages or train enough people.

It's not the employers job to train people. Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.