
Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income - salmonet
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/business/economy/universal-basic-income-finland.html
======
JackFr
If its only going to jobless people, not UBI.

This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it
is _universal_. If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the
change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation
wage. Do they stop working?

This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.

~~~
gambiting
I'm from Poland, where recently the government introduced a "500+" program,
which means that every family in the country receives 500PLN per month, per
child, from the day they are born to the time when they are 18 year old.

Now, my parents run a company which mostly has physical workers - and for a
physical worker, in the "poorer" part of the country, 1500PLN/per month(after
taxes) is an ok salary.

The day the 500+ program started, several employees left, literally saying
that they have 3-4 children, so by just getting the money from the government
they will be better off than working and they don't need a job anymore. They
are all jobless and living off 500+ as far as I know.

I would say that's a pretty good indication what will happen with UBI - I'm
sure there's loads of people who wouldn't leave their jobs because they like
having more money(me included) but for a lot of people if free money is enough
to get by then that's what they are going to live on.

~~~
ido
And yet "Kindergeld" (same principle in Germany & Austria) is more money than
that and has existed for decades, and neither country has a much higher
unemployment rate than Poland (much lower than Poland in Germany, about the
same as Poland in Austria). Furthermore they have fewer children per woman, so
this apperantly did not spur a huge baby boom.

So not really sure what we can learn from that. Perhaps salaries are simply
too low in Poland?

~~~
wlievens
Kindergeld in Belgium (Flanders) is about 120€. That's a little over 10% of
thr minimum wage. In this Polish story it was 33%, big difference. What ratio
is it where you are referring to?

For reference, full time day care in Belgium will cost you about 500€ per
month if you are not poor.

~~~
ido
It's 190€ till age 26(!) in Germany but you get other benefits (most
significantly a large income tax break, and 14 month parental leave).

Childcare is about 0-400 depending on your income but you have to be outrigh
wealthy to get close to the latter (we pay 128€/m with a high 5-figures €/year
household income).

------
kr7
Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going
to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave
differently than if it was permanent.

~~~
readittwice
So true, thanks for writing that!

Don't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money
over their whole life and you will see vastly different results.

Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only
to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people
with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to
part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do).

~~~
thwarted
_Don 't give them the money just for two years, but guarantee them the money
over their whole life and you will see vastly different results._

Since people born into wealth are "guaranteed money over their whole life",
can't we study what they do with their life compared to what people who are
not born into money do with their life? How or how not would this kind of
study produce meaningful, legitimate results?

 _Another "problem" with this kind of study is that they are giving money only
to unemployed people. Because it would be also interesting to see what people
with jobs would do. I suspect a lot of people would switch from full-time to
part-time jobs (at least that's what I would do)._

There is some aspect of this kind of experiment/study to find out how
individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the
past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional
generation. If UBI were truly universal, it would need to be multi-
generational. And how would those born with it, never having known anything
else, treat/understand work? There's no such thing as "switching from a full-
time to part-time jobs" in this context, or at least the impact and meaning of
doing so is different than those who have a concept of what not having the
guaranteed income means.

~~~
readittwice
That study wants to shed some light on whether UBI is viable or not, but
limits UBI for two years. I suppose people are then less inclined to change
anything in there life and just see UBI as a nice, not-life-changing win in
the lottery. People are not behaving as with a "real" UBI. Can we agree on
that?

 _There is some aspect of this kind of experiment /study to find out how
individuals would perform if they didn't have the guaranteed income in the
past but then suddenly do, but that's only meaningful for the transitional
generation._

IMHO you can't ignore this that easily. When more people are quitting their
jobs or switch to part-time jobs from full-time jobs due to UBI, the
government loses taxes but now needs to pay for UBI. This is super-important
to see if this whole thing is financially feasible.

IIUC you are arguing that people that grew up with UBI would behave
differently compared to people that just switched to UBI? To be honest I don't
feel this particular convincing, why should this be the case? There probably
isn't any data on it either. Even if it would, the government/state still has
to get through the transition period. One could with the same right claim that
future generations are less inclined to work/educate than the transitional
generation and thus make financing UBI even more difficult.

~~~
thwarted
_IIUC you are arguing that people that grew up with UBI would behave
differently compared to people that just switched to UBI? To be honest I don
't feel this particular convincing, why should this be the case? There
probably isn't any data on it either._

No, I'm saying that this is worth studying, exactly because (I agree) there
isn't any data on it.

One problem, as you point out, is the ongoing cost. Socialism works better
when there is a capitalist system, externally, to set the prices and help
determine demand. The Eloi need the Morlocks to provide for them. The monetary
cost for any UBI _experiment on individuals ' actions_ is, by definition,
being paid for by something outside that experiment. But that's fine, this
experiment is meant to answer the question of how the recipients respond to
it, not how/if it is or is not long term viable (however the results of this
experiment would eventually need to feed into that). And my point is we can
start to answer this experiment by examining what people who are born into
money do. What kind of jobs do they take? How do they act when they have a
guaranteed complete safety net? There is a lot of data available on this, and
it is not time limited like a two year study would be.

------
austinjp
What's to stop UBI from "cancelling itself out" due to inflationary effects?

Prior to UBI, the lowest possible income is zero. After UBI, the lowest income
is X. The poorest people in the nation will have an income of X, so X becomes
the new relative zero, the new baseline. Prices of everything (food, housing,
whatever) will reset relative to X. So uni will become worthless shortly after
it's introduced.... but only if it is truly universal.

Someone feel free to tell me if I'm missing something.

~~~
titanomachy
Say you have $0 income. A new policy comes into force that gives you $500 a
month basic income. Even if prices increased 10x you would still be better off
than before. Prices would have to increase an infinite amount for you to be
able to afford the same amount of goods as before (zero). Even if you had
$500/month before, you'd still be better off as long as prices don't increase
more than 2x.

I don't know enough to advocate for or against basic income, but I'm pretty
sure that it doesn't amount to a no-op. Whether it's done through printing
money or taxation, it ends up redistributing wealth from wealthier people to
poorer people.

In the case of printing money, the resulting inflation would cause everyone's
money to be worth less: rich people, having more money, would end up losing
more. In the case of taxation, the redistribution is more direct.

~~~
grkvlt
Sure, but if hyper-inflation results in that USD 500 buying me a loaf of bread
each month, I think 'better off than before' is kindof irrelevant. There have
to be tangible benefits to the recipient over and above, say income from
finding pennies in the street...

------
ScottBurson
_Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting
unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance._

Worst. Idea. Ever.

I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in
the US.

I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it
doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give
recipients a disincentive to work more, that would be a huge, huge
improvement.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Is there any data backing up the idea that it actually is a disincentive?

1\. Anyone I know that has received benefits for being unemployed desperately
wants to be employed again.

2\. In the UK, unless things have changed, you can work up to 16 hours per
week while receiving unemployment benefits and I believe the benefits you
receive gradually falls with the amount of work you get paid for.

3\. If you suddenly lose your job benefits aren't built so that you can
maintain your current life style. You likely have car, insurance, and mortgage
payments to make and the benefits you're receiving either just get you by or
you have to renegotiate some of that debt. Not a situation you want to be in
long-term.

~~~
stale2002
I mean, if I was offered half of my current salary (which is, admittedly high,
as a software engineer) for free under the condition that I don't work, I'd
totally take that deal.

~~~
iopq
And you can, if you get fired.

~~~
cmurf
Uhh I think to get unemployment you have to be laid off (fired through no
fault of your own). I'm not sure how you think he's getting paid 1/2 his
current salary if he's fired, that sounds like $0.

~~~
iopq
Not true. If you get fired for not attending your job, you don't get
unemployment. If you get fired for performance reasons, you get unemployment.
My father got fired for "insubordination" aka his manager not liking him. He
still got unemployment.

------
noonespecial
>It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and
_minus penalties for amassing extra income._

That last part is huge. A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a
feature of nearly every current system. It is extremely important that someone
test a system without this in it to see how a people react.

This looks like a very important test for the viability of UBI.

~~~
sampo
> _A disincentive to work by cancelling benefits is a feature of nearly every
> current system. It is extremely important that someone test a system without
> this in it to see how a people react._

One example we can look at are university students in Finland. They get 340€
per month student benefit plus €200 student rent support, a total of 540€ per
month.

This student benefit is not decreased as long as a student earns less than
1000€ per month from other income. And yes, the students are quite eager to
take part-time and short-term jobs.

~~~
lastyearman
Except you can just barely live on student benefit. Either you take debt or
work, so I don't think the two can be compared.

For me I was bumping on the limits while on receiving student benefit, so it
made no sense for me to work any more hours than I did. Had I worked any more,
the pay would have been effectively zero, which is crazy in my opinion.

------
mrleinad
Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it?

This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and
free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over
losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow.

The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is
that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn't be able to exploit human
beings, as all capitalist systems do. That's it. That's their whole argument.
The rest is just dressing it up with empty moral questions about "giving away
the fish instead of teaching how to fish".

~~~
pgwhalen
The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get
people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger
in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume
even these basic needs.

I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

~~~
saycheese
Worth noting that less than 100 people on Earth have the net worth of half of
Earth's population; half of the world's population is 3.5 billion people.

Notable source:
[https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-bill...](https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-
wealthy-half-world-population-combined)

~~~
tgfgvc
Do less than 100 people on Earth have taxable monthly income (which can be
used for UBI) same as half of world's population? Or same income as UBI for
half of world's population? Net worth is irrelevant.

~~~
mrleinad
It's far from irrelevant. It's the core of the problem.

I don't give a c __p about taxable income. They should not have that much
power. Period. Take it away from them and put it to good use.

------
applecore
How is it "universal" if recipients are required to be jobless?

~~~
dvdhnt
So UBI is fundamentally a safety-net; insurance, if you will.

The "universal" quality is that all people will be eligible for UBI. Everyone
will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI guarantees.

It's sort of like the popular phrase in the U.S. - "everyone is guaranteed the
same opportunity but not the same outcome". Thus, while all will have access
to UBI, the payout will be determined by individual circumstances.

Regarding Finland's program, it's likely they had to choose a group of
individuals who were easiest to justify paying UBI under current popular-
thought. Therefore, they chose a group already receiving or eligible for
unemployment/assistance and argued they were simply replacing one for the
other. That is of course just an educated guess on my part.

So, yes, UBI itself is in fact universal although the initial rollout, or
test, is highly compartmentalized.

Edit: As someone pointed out, I'm probably confusing UBI with GMI - Guaranteed
Minimum Income.

It's starting to feel like we're discussing rules on laying a foundation while
others are already fast at work on their fourth and fifth floor, i/e, what's
the point of giving everyone a ladder if the roof is consistently growing out
of reach?

~~~
applecore
_> Everyone will receive the difference between what they make and what UBI
guarantees._

This isn't UBI either.

UBI would simply give everyone the same income without subtracting the
difference for extra earned income. You could earn millions and still receive
your basic income.

~~~
zzalpha
As you define it.

I define UBI as having a floor on people's income, where the government
ensures everyone is above that floor. So it's universally ensuring everyone
had a basic income.

~~~
kgwgk
Your definition is not the usual one, I think.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income)

[http://basicincome.org/basic-
income/faq/#income](http://basicincome.org/basic-income/faq/#income)

~~~
zzalpha
If I'm understanding it correctly, what I may be thinking of is partial basic
income (as defined by Wikipedia). Maybe.

------
fpp
From a first cross-read, this article is bluntly discrediting UBI.

Starting with numbers: about 204M working age population in the US - hence the
USD10K to each of them example would just make somewhere what is spend yearly
for military and banks - the 8 times numbers cited in the article of what is
spent today does not make any sense.

The linked article does not mention any amounts that Finland wants to provide
to the 2k people - instead it is referring to Swiss calculations - last
numbers I've heard with Finland were on par with current social security /
poverty level pays (~EUR600 p/m) - this of course does not enable most of the
key effects intended with an UBI (money into spending, freedom of choice for
work etc) - it only continues the current system (with some potential savings
within the administration).

To get a better understanding we have to at least repeat the Canadian
experiments from the 1920s (proven that it is substantially beneficiary for
the economy overall) - more money than poverty level, people must gain freedom
by the possibility to live.

Given that soon a large proportion of people will not have a chance to find a
job that will allow them to survive, we either go back to lords and serfs or
actually look into potentially sustainable solutions.

------
jganetsk
I agree with basic income, but most analyses of it are backwards.

For most of history, governments addressed unemployment by starting wars. By
shipping off to war, the unemployed temporarily get a job. They either come
back dead or ready to take a new job in an economy revitalized by the stimulus
of government war spending.

John Maynard Keynes noticed this pattern, especially during the Great
Depression and WW2, and made a brilliant suggestion: continue with these
government interventions, but keep the government spending and drop the war
part. We call it "Keynesian economics", but really, what Keynes invented was
capitalist peace. And guess what, since then, no two countries that both had
McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's.
[1]

We need a Keynesian boost today, not because of technological progress, but
rather the contrary: the rapid technological progress of the 20th century that
brought tremendous economic prosperity to humanity has finally come to a
grinding halt. Let's stop denying this. The stream of lifechanging
breakthrough inventions of the 20th century, from A (antibiotics) to Z
(zippers), have ended. As a result, we now suffer from secular stagnation,
something Keynes understood very well back then, and Larry Summers understands
in the present. [2]

It's especially absurd to claim that automation is the cause of this.
Automation has already upended society: it was called the Industrial
Revolution and happened 200 years ago. The upheaval caused then to human lives
and employment was far more dramatic than anything happening today.

And basic income is simply the most fair way to apply Keynesian policy. It is
more fair to split the money up and distribute it equally to every individual
than it is for the government to buy things on their behalf. Highly
distributed spending will also avoid creating market distortions and liquidity
traps. [3] And the resulting economic boost will lead to increased tax
revenues and, who knows, maybe more jobs -- this time not subject to labor
market distortions caused by people being desperate for work.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree)
[2] [http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-
stagna...](http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagnation/)
[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap)

~~~
stretchwithme
Keynesianism is like making waves in a pond and pointing out how much higher
the water has risen.

It ignores where the resources come from and the jobs being performed in other
parts of the global economy that must be cut, often in some other country,
because the resources are being used for something else.

If a country is going into debt to stimulate, its pulling resources from other
countries where jobs have to decline. But perhaps those declines are more
spread out and harder to measure and understand. So we can make the mistake of
thinking they don't happen.

But what if a country stimulates by printing money, not borrowing? Money is
only a medium of exchange, not an actual resource. Creating more of it just
means more it has to be used to get the same result, if you look at what
really happens over time, as opposed to comparing prices the day before you
print with prices the day after.

~~~
jganetsk
It's totally misleading to think of the economy as a pond holding a fixed
quantity of water. The water level does change, and sometimes you need to make
waves to do it.

For this, you should read Paul Krugman's babysitting co-op analogy, a basic
description of how an economic depression functions:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-
op](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Babysitting_Co-op)

~~~
stretchwithme
At any given moment, the available resources ARE fixed. They aren't increased
by moving them around.

If you increase the amount of money available, that bids up prices for the
existing resources.

If low skilled labor is already fixed at an artificially high price (like a
minimum wage), a general price increase will reduce the value of the fixed
wages paid under these arrangements and increase employment.

But you could accomplish the same thing by lowering the minimum wage.

No additional value is created by stimulus. The extra money is just
undermining the effect of things that have been hobbling the market all along.

But creating more money has other destructive effects and causes people to
make unsound investments. It creates bubbles. These bad results can take years
to develop.

All the quantitive easing the Federal Reserve did after the financial crisis
has helped re-inflate the housing bubble. Rising rents that also cause people
to have to move or suckers them into buying into the bubble. A replay of
earlier stimulus.

While all the churn in the economy benefits some industries, it destroys
wealth for all income levels in the long run. It puts the country in further
debt and makes us weaker.

Instead of resources flowing to industries that make the country more
prosperous in the long run, we over-invest in real estate.

Without all the subsidies, both direct and indirect, real estate would be a
much smaller part of the economy and there would be more capital for
investments that actually create more wealth, instead of things that merely
appear to do so in the short run.

------
wjossey
tl;dr

Finland is going to selecting 2,000 unemployed individuals, at random, and
offering them cash without strings. Current unemployment schemes, they
believe, hold back individuals from finding part time work / any work because
the benefits outweigh the job opportunities. They hope that this new scheme
promotes people to take work and have an adequate safety net to prevent
homelessness and hunger.

~~~
pvdebbe
I wonder why the participants couldn't be chosen from the whole working-age
pool. Unless, the final system is not meant for working people at all, going
against everything the universal welfare meant to solve. Doesn't surprise me
one bit.

~~~
scott_karana
If it works well, I suspect they'll widen trials.

------
snicky
What's the evidence that results of such study could be generalized to the
entire population? I mean, yeah, 2000 people seem like a big group, but one
might have different ideas about what to do with free money if the society
around stays exactly the same vs when everybody else is also entitled to UBI.
When I'm unemployed and look around and see all my friends work I might feel
quite ashamed of myself and willing to change, but if all of them "retire" at
30 instead this might not be exactly the case.

------
itazula
This reminded me of the Y Combinator Basic Income project. The last I read
about that was this: [https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-
income/](https://blog.ycombinator.com/moving-forward-on-basic-income/) I
wonder what the status is?

------
muse900
What is that gonna achieve exactly? Aren't prices gonna just inflate upwards
and things become less affordable?

If you just pay everyone X amount of money every month for whatever, it just
means that in order to produce something you'll need to pay someone a lot more
than that X amount in order to work and produce it and also it means that that
item is gonna increase massively in cost in order to pay the items production
itself.

I am highly against that idea.

You want to solve issues? Give free food/water and shelter for survival, thats
all a human needs. It doesn't need to be a food from a chef or Evian water or
a house with even an internet connection. All it needs is just to provide some
safety that that person is not going to die of starvation or weather. Other
than that if you want to have a better have and lifestyle well you have to
work for it.

~~~
atmosx
> What is that gonna achieve exactly? Aren't prices gonna just inflate upwards
> and things become less affordable?

It is a try to save capitalism from itself. You see, today's tech is turning
entire sectors obsolete (e.g. self-driving cars). In a standard capitalistic
economy, you work at XCorp who pays you (the employee) in order to be able to
buy their products. This model worked in the 20th century where industries
(e.g. Ford) had thousands or even millions of workers all over the place. Now
we have 5-member companies running startups with millions in turnover.

Today average Joe has a very hard time finding a job that will allow him to
create a family and live well and no, not everyone can become an engineer,
lawyer, doctor or banker.

So, we either find a way to re-distribute wealth or we're up for a bumpy ride
that will end bad for everyone...

Universal income is an idea that is making rounds and is generally accepted by
modern economists (left, right and liberals) in various forms of course. The
idea is that someone with rather basic needs, will spend all his income in
food, shelter, clothes, etc. So, since it's nearly impossible for them to find
job, just give them money to spend buying stuff, even iPhones if possible...

I believe that we're in a phase of uber-consumerism. To sustain this kind of
unnatural growth, capitalism needs to find virtual ways of creating demand or
we need to start exporting to mars.

------
buryat
Implemented on a big scale it'll lead to higher inflation and ultimately will
increase stratification.

------
leke
I could relate to the article. I'm currently living in Oulu, and was also
working for a Nokia contractor until 2011. Unable to find work, I went back to
polytechnic college for 3.5 years to update my skills and perhaps wait out the
recession. Unfortunately, the situation hasn't gotten any better and my new
bachelor's degree doesn't give me any advantage.

There are plenty of entrepreneurs requiring people of various backgrounds, but
these are generally unpaid positions. I am currently writing a web-app for a
charity, and have just launched a customised wordpress site for a new
business. These are of course unpaid, and like the article states, it's not
worth the risk of starting my own business (being a freelancer for example) as
it would mean coming off benefits completely and hoping you'll make enough to
pay for everything you need to pay for. UBA would suit me great. I could
become that freelancer instantly, and with no fear. That company, who's
website I just launched wanted to pay me, but legally it was impossible due to
the reason I just mentioned (freelancing).

I'm also currently writing a language learning app, a mashup of my favourite
features of DuoLingo and Memrise in my free time. Perhaps monetising that in
some way may lead me out of this stagnation.

------
romanovcode
This is not UBI (universal basic income), this is re-branded welfare.

~~~
aninhumer
Not exactly. While it's initially only being offered to unemployed people, it
will have reduced bureaucracy and won't be withdrawn if people start earning.

It's by no means a perfect test of UBI, but "re-branded welfare" isn't really
fair either.

------
nradov
Instead of just giving people money our governments at federal / state / local
levels should become employers of last resort for everyone who has exhausted
their welfare or unemployment benefits. Guarantee 30 hours / week at minimum
wage to anyone who wants to work. Even if it's just trail maintenance or
graffiti cleanup they will at least be maintaining basic employment skills,
and have enough spare time to retrain for something better.

~~~
Ericson2314
What's the point of making people do stupid ass jobs?

Now I'm all for spending money on the commons in ways the private sector is
too petty to address, but do this for the results of the investment, not just
for employment.

I'm more OK with adjusting UBI to cancel out fluctuations in infrastructure
spending.

~~~
nradov
There's nothing ”stupid ass" about cleaning and beautifying our public spaces.

------
Mz
_Now, the Finnish government is exploring how to change that calculus,
initiating an experiment in a form of social welfare: universal basic income.
Early next year, the government plans to randomly select roughly 2,000
unemployed people — from white-collar coders to blue-collar construction
workers. It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle
and minus penalties for amassing extra income.

The government is eager to see what happens next. Will more people pursue jobs
or start businesses? How many will stop working and squander their money on
vodka? Will those liberated from the time-sucking entanglements of the
unemployment system use their freedom to gain education, setting themselves up
for promising new careers? These areas of inquiry extend beyond economic
policy, into the realm of human nature._

I am not a fan of the idea of _universal_ basic income, but I would love to
see the existing social safety net system get tweaked to be less retarded. I
hope this experiment goes good places.

------
vivekd
It seems like we can learn so little by selecting only for jobless people. The
best way to do a BI test seems to me to get a random sample so we can test how
it affects people in various circumstances. Selecting a specific demographic
like this seems more a political move than a scientific one.

------
return0
A country with very good welfare like Finland is the worst place to test UBI,
which is supposed to replace welfare.

------
ahallock
I feel like we're creating a new government program to counter the failures of
an existing one: education. If people had marketable skills, it would be a lot
easier to find work. Perhaps tax revenue should go to education and training,
instead.

I think we're a long way off from total automation of most industries.

~~~
mattlevan
Or perhaps we should drastically reduce government's role in education
altogether. After all, we were doing fine before the Department of Education
opened in the seventies!

~~~
ahallock
That would be ideal. Government-run education does not respond to market
forces, so I don't trust them to produce skilled graduates.

------
osmala
The model selected maybe problematic. A) There are additional benefits for
helping to pay rent which are income dependent. B) There are special
circumstantial increases to benefits replaced by basic income, that state has
to pay inorder to fill its constitutional equality requirements. For instance
increases in unemployment for dependent children, expenditures for education
program participation for unemployed... Now testsubjects get them by applying
for them. Whats potential problem is what it takes to LOOSE them, its a risk
factor on every action to earn temporarily, or taking a risky move to try to
start a business. Latter causes also a high risk at the end of experiment,
unless you have folded it long before end of experiment.

------
shurcooL
> jobless

> universal

Doesn't sound very universal. One of the big factors that make it a good idea
is that receiving the basic income shouldn't make you disincentivized from
doing more and getting a job, etc. Otherwise, how is it different from
existing welfare programs and such?

------
fnj
As many have noted, this is _not_ UBI; full stop. Also, you can't "test"
something that is supposed to be universal by definition, on a micro scale and
to a selected subset.

------
mjs7231
I fully expect someone to claim this is completly different because of detail
xyz, but this has been done before. It worked out better than expected.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-
happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people)

------
jobsforall
And like all UBI experiments it will ultimately fail because UBI is
essentially a form of theft.

Hiding behind the money illusion doesn't fool anybody for long.

[https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-
basi...](https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-
theft-a95eeedb5aad#.1xcz4nzwk)

------
SCAQTony
Finland's population is 5.439 million, It may work for 2000 people but will it
be workable and scale up to 10-million, 50-million or 100-million people? I
believe the "square cube law comes into play.

Square cube law: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-
cube_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law)

~~~
CopOnTheRun
Why would the square cube law come into play here? I don't understand how it's
related to this context.

~~~
SCAQTony
Ooops. I should have referred to the Economies of scale rule instead. Perhaps
10-people could manage 2000 payouts whereas as the population grew to 200,000
or more regional offices and support staff would grow and inefficiencies would
become more expensive.

------
koolba
What's stopping people from taking their universal income and moving to a
different country with a lower cost of living. Do you you have to collect it
in person? A UBI of $1-2K/month isn't that much in the western world but you
could live like a king[1] in the third world.

[1]: _Okay maybe not a very rich king but but you 'd definitely be doing more
than fine._

~~~
conanbatt
Assuming that recipients are also taxed on their world income there is little
difference between someone not working and living somewhere else or or not
doing it without the country. It might be something unfair but i cant fathom
it being significant at scale.

The problem is the people coming in: how do you stop high levels of
immigration from people that would not be as productive as finnish people and
hence would quickly become a drain on the state. The greatest single enemy of
open immigration is welfare.

~~~
omash
Don't give it to the people coming in?

~~~
conanbatt
Theres something uneasy about 2 people doing the same job at the same gross
salary, but different net salaries.

~~~
koolba
Uneasy to you maybe. If the immigrant has it worse not coming to the land of
free money and jobs (even if they're not getting the free money), they're
still better off than not coming.

Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If you
work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of your
jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax does.

~~~
conanbatt
> Uneasy to you maybe. If the immigrant has it worse not coming to the land of
> free money and jobs (even if they're not getting the free money), they're
> still better off than not coming.

Its a market distortion that could create all kinds of problems.

You could argue that's discrimination( there are equal pay and equal wages
laws around employment).

You would not be allowing immigrants from doing a wide range of jobs that are
desirable (and hence pay less) and 'condemn' them to do the worse jobs that
pay more. So for example, immigrants will be less represented in arts,
journalism, administrative work. Low paying jobs in general will not be living
wages without UBI. Think that minimum wage is likely to drop considerable if
you have UBI.

It undoubtedly creates an "US vs them" gap measurable in money.

> Separately, in a way we already have that uneven net for the same work. If
> you work two jobs you get paid less (net) than one person doing either of
> your jobs (for that job, not total). That's what's what a progressive tax
> does.

UBI is very likely not going to apply to most workers, _maybe_ minimum wage
and down. You dont really need much of a minimum wage if you have an UBI,
which means many pleasent low skill jobs would pay very little (clerical work
for example). So immigrants would be barred from such jobs without UBI.

Also its true that taxes make 2 people get different net income but that comes
from their wealth, not their nationality. Someone with a house and a mortgage
might get more income than an immigrant that has nothing. That makes it a
regressive tax (the immigrant pays taxes that goes to the richer guy).

~~~
douche
I'm curious in what universe clerical work is considered pleasant?

In a world with UBI, I'd be very tempted to pack it in and go do some
rewarding, enjoyable manual labor, like farming or forestry or carpentry or
improving hiking trails.

~~~
conanbatt
In comparison to janitorial, customer service, retail sales, garbage disposal,
truck driving, etc etc.

There are waves of people that would quit their job for a cozy
clerical/administrative work that was cost-effective for their suffering. HOw
much I dont know.

------
thomasfl

        Voters in Switzerland recently rejected a basic-income scheme
    

I can't understand why the Swiss politicians wanted to ask the general public
for a permission to do an experiment. How can the Swiss population be sure
universal basic income will not work when no nation has yet implemented it yet
across the whole population?

------
NIL8
For a good idea of what this type of program can do to a society, take a look
at the native Americans. The monthly allotment received by most only
perpetuates very serious social problems. I know that most who will push for
these types of programs have good intentions, but the outcome will probably
prove to do more harm than good, generally speaking.

~~~
danharaj
Yeah there's definitely nothing else to explain why Native American nations
are doing so poorly.

Edit: This was too snarky but also the parent comment is such a bold claim
with no evidence justifying it. Counterclaim: Canada and the US have done
plenty to destroy the fabric of native societies since their inception. As an
example, the residential school system of Canada[1] which ended in _1996_.
History is so forgettable isn't it?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system)

------
scoopr
Curious thing, Kela (who handle the benefits, among other things) made their
sampling code public[0]. The code doesn't really tell me anything though,
except that the random seed is taken from wall time.

[0] [http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun-
otantakoodi](http://www.kela.fi/perustulokokeilun-otantakoodi)

~~~
kakoni
Same as github link;
[https://github.com/kakoni/otantakoodi/blob/master/otantakood...](https://github.com/kakoni/otantakoodi/blob/master/otantakoodi.sas)

------
choonway
Why not universal basic housing. universal basic internet. universal basic
food. universal basic computer. Make it illegal to sell them on the open
market.

Anything except universal basic income. You want cigarettes / alcohol? do some
work on the internet. Amazon mechanical turk.

------
shinamee
Personally, I think this a great thing for creatives and researchers, knowing
they can spend as much time as they need to create real value for people
without having to think of revenue or investors profits.

I heard/read Swiss denied this proposal though, what a shame.

------
Ericson2314
Wow, everyone is complaining about the misleading headline rather than reading
the piece.

Oh, and this is the most positive non-opinion piece I've seen on UBI in a
major publication, people! How's that?

------
kahrkunne
I hate being "that guy" but am I the only one who expects this particular
brand of communism to not be any better than previous attempts?

Somebody's going to have to pay for this...

~~~
DonaldFisk
It isn't a brand of communism. It doesn't involve any nationalization. Also,
no communists have ever implemented basic income. It isn't even an exclusively
left wing idea. Milton Friedman supported it, Charles Murray supports it.

------
sova
Thrilled that the idea that ones basic needs be met as a basic human right is
gaining traction. Granted, in the form of our most common commodity-
abstraction apparatus (cash).

------
collyw
If it is given to jobless people then its not really _universal_ basic income.
Its just removing bureaucracy from the current system.

------
witty_username
Somewhat off-topic but wouldn't it be cheaper and better to test the basic
income in a country with low PPP (i.e. poor countries).

------
murtnowski
Wouldn't a better idea be to give it to people with lower middle income which
is more indicitive of the average household

------
gravypod
It's not ubi if it is not universal.

------
kobeya
I'm, that's not universal if it is restricted by means test or employment
status.

------
vondur
I'd assumed that Finland had a really strong welfare system like Norway and
Sweden.

~~~
jpatokal
It does, it's just structured badly.

------
throwaway1892
Well, from my experience in France, most of them will stay jobless.

~~~
throwaway1892
Still, the article make an interesting point. And their agenda is clear.

------
serge2k
How is this a test of UBI? It's just a welfare system.

~~~
undersuit
If you want to really test UBI and not have critics point out some stupid
difference between the test program and real UBI you need to implement a
permanent, world-wide, basic income. Other wise "it's not UBI."

So it's not UBI, it's a test.

------
eanzenberg
Why not tax accumulated wealth and assets?

------
nimoore
This is not UBI

------
randyrand
we have unemployment cash benefits in the usa. its quite similar in most
regards.

------
rhapsodic
I want to be on record here. Today, December 17, 2016, I predict that this
will fail. And by "fail", I mean that this will not become a universal
entitlement in Finland.

~~~
omash
Of course this "test" will fail, they're giving it to a group of people who
already have a specific state of employment. It won't be seen as a safety net
to follow their ambition because of its temporary, non-universal nature. It
might make sense for them to hoard the cash until the test is over or spend it
lavishly as a temporary reprieve from poverty.

I hope this won't create material to make a case against basic income in
future.

~~~
aninhumer
While I'm not particularly optimistic, I could imagine it succeeding by
temporarily eliminating poverty traps and providing stability for the
beneficiaries, allowing them to gain experience or pursue training and end up
in a much better position in two years time.

------
ChrisNorstrom
Will Finland admit publicly when it fails or will they just hide their idea as
if it never happened?

Remember Bio-Fuel? How progressive and wonderful it was suppose to be? Until
it caused a global food shortage and suddenly none of the media ever talked
about it again.

~~~
acbabis
Global food shortage? If you're talking about ethanol from corn, that doesn't
sound correct. Corn-based foods are dirt cheap

~~~
protomyth
Yep, the current prices of commodities are pretty low to the point it was a
campaign issue in farm country.

------
steakeater
UBI is a terrible idea. Anyone who thinks that the government handing out
money to everyone is a good idea needs to snap out of the propaganda machine.
Those who fund you, control you. There is no way around that. When the people
funding everyone is the government, and the people do nothing in return, that
places huge amounts of power in the hands of a single entity, and removes all
power from the people.

Large companies are getting larger. There are only a couple of choices in any
category, and single companies own many different markets. When you combine
that with UBI, you have the government handing you a check, and then you have
a choice of a couple of companies to spend that money. The difference between
this world and communism is almost nothing.

I have never heard of any group of people who were happy on government
welfare. Whatever the supposed problem this is supposed to address, it is not
a solution. People who are not working at all are not happy.

If I were to guess, I would say the real problems that need to be addressed
are:

too many extremely large companies, often supported by laws they lobbied to
create.

corrupt government that has no interest in its own country

population increases.

I mean, many of these people proposing UBI are living in countries where they
are actively increasing the population. If you have an unemployment problem,
why are you increasing the population?

~~~
Ericson2314
Wat.

\- UBI's lack of criteria is supposed to remove distortions. The population is
minimaly incentivized.

\- Employers loose leverage with UBI; large companies are major employers.

\- Everybody loves to hate on population size, but shrinking/aging populations
are dangerous for the economy. It's a much more complex problem.

~~~
steakeater
You are just replacing one leverage with another (employers with government).
In most places, the employers own the government anyway as they provide the
revenue.

I don't know what your first point means. Your last point, you are just
repeating what you have read somewhere. Population increases do not change the
aging population. The new people also age believe it or not.

Also stop being childish with your "wat" bullshit.

~~~
Ericson2314
> In most places, the employers own the government anyway as they provide the
> revenue.

[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-
source...](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-sources-
revenue-federal-government-0) corporate tax is only 10%. They are far to
influential, but not because this.

> You are just replacing one leverage with another (employers with
> government).

> I don't know what your first point means.

This I believe is the misunderstanding. UBI is designed so _nothing you do_
will affect your basic income; there are no conditions. Yes, on the meta-level
the UBI policy itself could be changed, but assuming it won't the government
has no extra leverage over the citizens.

> Population increases do not change the aging population. The new people also
> age believe it or not.

I meant:

\- Slowing population growth and longer life expediencies (Europe, Japan, US
might catch up a little bit) together result in more old people as a portion
of the total population. Some argue this is dangerous for the welfare state.

\- More population growth crates more demand and helps economy grow.

You can similarly argue growing economies are bad for human and environmental
health because more economic activity conventionally means pollution. For
example,
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/resea...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/14/researchers-
have-debunked-one-of-our-most-basic-assumptions-about-how-the-world-works/)
(sorry for the sensational headline). But growing economies are also very good
in other ways.

It would be great if we could have "barber poll" economies and populations
that always grow yet stay the same size, but calculus does not allow for this.

