Should be "happier but still jobless". No one lost jobs as a result. the result was that the jobless were happier. An improved situation.
Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
91–100 of 345 posts
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the prevailing ideology dictates that if you're not working you are worthless and you should not feel happy.
It's a tough sell you gotta admit it. That money came from someone making an effort (even if it was in form of large [reluctant]corporate taxes). Also slacking (I am half a slacker on the way to ~zero) is toxic on the long run. I always thought of universal income as way to allow me to grow without a burden. Learning, helping, producing (whether art, tools, ...). It's supposed to help strengthen the social tissue.
yes that money came from someone making an effort, but on the premise that it came from someone who derive happiness by doing the work not because of necessity.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the key difference was that you could also earn money from other work without losing the government money. This means that you can take on part time jobs without freaking out that you will lose unemployment. This also means (for local business owners) that you can hire people for part time / spec work without being concerned about long term effects. This is a big deal for small businesses.
...which of course the study showed they didn't do, it showed the cohort did not take on more part time jobs.
[deleted]
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#94did they really have to study this? We have decades of welfare to analyze. UBI is dead in the water. Call it a negative tax rate instead.
UBI is different from welfare because you don’t have to qualify for it, so it removes any incentives to alter your life to qualify for welfare.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your own citation: "Rewards kill creativity. Some twenty studies have shown that people do inferior work when they are expecting to get a reward for doing it, as compared with people doing the same task without any expectation of a reward. That effect is most pronounced when creativity is involved in the task." Would this not suggest that people do their best work when they aren't doing it for the paycheck? In oth…
>given UBI, anything an individual may do would be his or her own prerogative and therefore represent higher quality output. But having fun making art means little to an economy. Having less fun designing a robot to pick potatoes will transform an economy. Creativity is nice, but it doesn't directly correlate with additional value.
I wasn't really referring to economic value, nor was the quote or the cited article itself.
The proposition was that people will do the least work for the most reward where possible.
The cited article suggested that rewards result in poor quality work.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#96did they really have to study this? We have decades of welfare to analyze. UBI is dead in the water. Call it a negative tax rate instead.
I'm not sure I understand your point. This is different to existing welfare, so it makes sense to actually study how people react to it in practice.
A negative tax rate is one way to do it, it all depends what you want to encourage, and the implementation details of course. Negative tax rate would presumably only be paid to workers, so would be good for low paid workers. This particular study was for unemployed people, so wouldn't gain from negative tax. I don't know if this basic income continued to be paid when people got jobs, but if not would tend to disincentivise at least low paid work, it's unclear to me if at scale that would push up wages at the lower end due to lower supply.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#97It's a general misunderstanding that Basic Income is some sort of job program, it's not. It's a job replacement program for a society where there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. Basic Income should provide fundamental living cost support in a society that has no jobs so there is no "but" in there. Edit: Keep in mind we already have Basic Income it's just conditional. UBI is di…
> there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. And yet the US has full employment. Could it be that Finland lacks jobs for some reason other than technology?
The US does not have full employment. The actual percentage of working age people who are employed is below peak levels. Also quite a few people are working part time.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be solved by ai/automation, which they reason why basic income is needed in the first place.
>That would be solved by ai/automation Lots of these topics have different outcomes when you start to assume sci-fi tech. I won't argue about what life should be like when we build fusion reactors or figure out nuclear 3D printing.
At least we can start work/strive for it right now.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#99> The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs I'm confused, was that ever the expected goal of basic income?
If someone can't put in the effort to get a stable job because they are too busy dealing with the immediate consequences of a lack of income, giving them a handout might be expected to help. And IIRC, we've seen that with one-time cash assistance of a significant amount.
Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your own citation: "Rewards kill creativity. Some twenty studies have shown that people do inferior work when they are expecting to get a reward for doing it, as compared with people doing the same task without any expectation of a reward. That effect is most pronounced when creativity is involved in the task." Would this not suggest that people do their best work when they aren't doing it for the paycheck? In oth…
>given UBI, anything an individual may do would be his or her own prerogative and therefore represent higher quality output. But having fun making art means little to an economy. Having less fun designing a robot to pick potatoes will transform an economy. Creativity is nice, but it doesn't directly correlate with additional value.
I guess I'm kind of confused- additional value to what exactly? The GDP in America is massive but I don't know what are the returns of a growing GDP to my experience as a human, to my family, to my friends, to my quality of life. Will I pass by less homeless people on the way to work if I work harder? Will there be less hungry children in my schools if I make the economy grow, and by how much? What "additional value" is actually occuring?
(EDIT: This is a genuine question; I'm not highly educated on economics and I'd like to know the approximate models that currently exist on how much growing the economy helps numbers like homeless population, healthcare coverage, lifespan, birth survival, food security...)