Finland Basic Income Trial - Printable Version

Finland Basic Income Trial - Printable Version

+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.li)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.li/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: World News (https://sinister.li/Forum-World-News)
+--- Thread: Finland Basic Income Trial (/Thread-Finland-Basic-Income-Trial)

Pages: 1 2

Finland Basic Income Trial - Oni - 02-11-2019

Apparently Finland trialed a program, which selected for people that were unemployed, and provided them with ~$600/monthly.

Quote:Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said.

From January 2017 until December 2018, 2,000 unemployed Finns got a monthly flat payment of €560 (£490; $634).

The aim was to see if a guaranteed safety net would help people find jobs, and support them if they had to take insecure gig economy work.

While employment levels did not improve, participants said they felt happier and less stressed.

When it launched the pilot scheme back in 2017, Finland became the first European country to test out the idea of an unconditional basic income. It was run by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency, and involved 2,000 randomly-selected people on unemployment benefits.

It immediately attracted international interest - but these results have now raised questions about the effectiveness of such schemes.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - geyu29 - 02-11-2019

Now i am hoping they atleast gave them introduction to the policy of the program.
Encouraging them to find work, and if they did not a percentage of that money would be taken back, but if they have it would not, perhaps only through other taxes.
You cant give out candy and not expect money back.

"Participants felt happier and less stressed" thats amazing.

I certainly dont think that such a policy would have such results, its also dependant on the demographic of the people chosen and the local industry, they should have provided information on job accumulation in other cities or regions of the country, than letting be by themselves.

The insurance institution should have acquired help of other agencies to provide some basic training for skilled workers or atleast provide information on how to acquire job skills and on-site training programs. It certainly doesnt seem like they used the scheme to its utmost benefit. And of course international players would question it, most of them are capitalist economies and societies, those that trade with finland wouldnt want such policies.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - mothered - 02-12-2019

We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

Quote:The experiment saw 2,000 people paid €560 (£490) a month, instead of their unemployment benefit

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - Nyx - 02-12-2019

(02-12-2019, 06:01 AM)mothered Wrote: We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

Quote:The experiment saw 2,000 people paid €560 (£490) a month, instead of their unemployment benefit

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

I can totally see why it was trialed. Not to say that I am surprised by the results though. Just a test and example of why a fully socialist society wouldn't work.

Humans vary greatly, however it stands to reason that there are far more humans that are lazy and unmotivated than the opposite. Other than just luck of the draw on genetics and family, this is the general reason why the social hierarchy exists as a pyramid, as the further to the top of the pyramid you get, the more and more motivated the people in those tiers are. This means that if humans were to ever try and live in a society that was socialist there would be 2 options in my mind:

A: Everyone does the bare minimum to get by happily and society becomes complacent and stagnant. It would be a happy world if it worked out perfectly, but most if not all progress that humans have been making would come to a grinding halt because nobody does anything.

or

B: The minority few motivated people drive society (or attempt to at the very least) while everyone else drags their feet still doing the bare minimum. The unmotivated would be happy for a while but unaccomplished in the long term which would end up creating wide spread depression (aka a bunch of 40 year olds killing themselves), but with no motivation to get a better job or to work harder, they wouldn't be incentivized to do more. The super motivated people at the top who are driving progress in society would quickly lose their enthusiasm and burn out when they see the McDonalds worker gets paid the same as them even though they just invented the cure for cancer. This would make everyone who actually does anything with their life unhappy and in turn would produce an insane turn over rate in skilled workers who actually progress society. As a result, everyone just ends up unhappy except for people who are born lazy, who would revel in the fact that they don't realistically have to do anything.

By the way, if anyone reads this just know that I have no sources or facts to cite, this post is purely opinion.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - geyu29 - 02-13-2019

(02-12-2019, 06:19 AM)Nyx Wrote:
(02-12-2019, 06:01 AM)mothered Wrote: We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

Quote:The experiment saw 2,000 people paid €560 (£490) a month, instead of their unemployment benefit

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

I can totally see why it was trialed. Not to say that I am surprised by the results though. Just a test and example of why a fully socialist society wouldn't work.

Humans vary greatly, however it stands to reason that there are far more humans that are lazy and unmotivated than the opposite. Other than just luck of the draw on genetics and family, this is the general reason why the social hierarchy exists as a pyramid, as the further to the top of the pyramid you get, the more and more motivated the people in those tiers are. This means that if humans were to ever try and live in a society that was socialist there would be 2 options in my mind:

A: Everyone does the bare minimum to get by happily and society becomes complacent and stagnant. It would be a happy world if it worked out perfectly, but most if not all progress that humans have been making would come to a grinding halt because nobody does anything.

or

B: The minority few motivated people drive society (or attempt to at the very least) while everyone else drags their feet still doing the bare minimum. The unmotivated would be happy for a while but unaccomplished in the long term which would end up creating wide spread depression (aka a bunch of 40 year olds killing themselves), but with no motivation to get a better job or to work harder, they wouldn't be incentivized to do more. The super motivated people at the top who are driving progress in society would quickly lose their enthusiasm and burn out when they see the McDonalds worker gets paid the same as them even though they just invented the cure for cancer. This would make everyone who actually does anything with their life unhappy and in turn would produce an insane turn over rate in skilled workers who actually progress society. As a result, everyone just ends up unhappy except for people who are born lazy, who would revel in the fact that they don't realistically have to do anything.

By the way, if anyone reads this just know that I have no sources or facts to cite, this post is purely opinion.

By purely 'socialists' standards, i guess you'd have to define that either by marxist or other leninism.
But like i said in previous post, the policy could have been improved, they got the results they were expecting from the current quality of policy, as i discussed some of aspects before.

Just because its sounds socialist, doesnt give international players to dictate capitalist values, the media is being used in this instance, same as whats happening in venezuela, but less is shown on the borders of mexico and the other countries bordering venezuela. This isnt a theory, its being covered by many new outlets.
And i disagree with you to some extent about 'motivation' because i have seen the richest being depressed with money, and poor happiest being poor but able to feed themselves, and any poor person will be exploited by gangs etc, this isnt a theory either, i have travelled countries and interacted with alot of people and listened to others tell the same. I guess you will see that 'hierarchy' at its best in the western world.

Although i'm not in either in that group or 'that' group of idealist views, i just happen to agree on working policies for each country's own conditions. Venezuela is very socialist, but they also has the largest proven oil reserves, i dont know what exactly happened. But big players will be getting the key to a lottery very soon in the near future.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - Nyx - 02-13-2019

(02-13-2019, 09:06 AM)geyu29 Wrote:
(02-12-2019, 06:19 AM)Nyx Wrote:
(02-12-2019, 06:01 AM)mothered Wrote: We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

I can totally see why it was trialed. Not to say that I am surprised by the results though. Just a test and example of why a fully socialist society wouldn't work.

Humans vary greatly, however it stands to reason that there are far more humans that are lazy and unmotivated than the opposite. Other than just luck of the draw on genetics and family, this is the general reason why the social hierarchy exists as a pyramid, as the further to the top of the pyramid you get, the more and more motivated the people in those tiers are. This means that if humans were to ever try and live in a society that was socialist there would be 2 options in my mind:

A: Everyone does the bare minimum to get by happily and society becomes complacent and stagnant. It would be a happy world if it worked out perfectly, but most if not all progress that humans have been making would come to a grinding halt because nobody does anything.

or

B: The minority few motivated people drive society (or attempt to at the very least) while everyone else drags their feet still doing the bare minimum. The unmotivated would be happy for a while but unaccomplished in the long term which would end up creating wide spread depression (aka a bunch of 40 year olds killing themselves), but with no motivation to get a better job or to work harder, they wouldn't be incentivized to do more. The super motivated people at the top who are driving progress in society would quickly lose their enthusiasm and burn out when they see the McDonalds worker gets paid the same as them even though they just invented the cure for cancer. This would make everyone who actually does anything with their life unhappy and in turn would produce an insane turn over rate in skilled workers who actually progress society. As a result, everyone just ends up unhappy except for people who are born lazy, who would revel in the fact that they don't realistically have to do anything.

By the way, if anyone reads this just know that I have no sources or facts to cite, this post is purely opinion.

By purely 'socialists' standards, i guess you'd have to define that either by marxist or other leninism.
But like i said in previous post, the policy could have been improved, they got the results they were expecting from the current quality of policy, as i discussed some of aspects before.

Just because its sounds socialist, doesnt give international players to dictate capitalist values, the media is being used in this instance, same as whats happening in venezuela, but less is shown on the borders of mexico and the other countries bordering venezuela. This isnt a theory, its being covered by many new outlets.
And i disagree with you to some extent about 'motivation' because i have seen the richest being depressed with money, and poor happiest being poor but able to feed themselves, and any poor person will be exploited by gangs etc, this isnt a theory either, i have travelled countries and interacted with alot of people and listened to others tell the same. I guess you will see that 'hierarchy' at its best in the western world.

Although i'm not in either in that group or 'that' group of idealist views, i just happen to agree on working policies for each country's own conditions. Venezuela is very socialist, but they also has the largest proven oil reserves, i dont know what exactly happened. But big players will be getting the key to a lottery very soon in the near future.

I wouldn't define the view I was discussing as Marxism and Leninism as those are both communistic ideologies, which while extremely similar due to their far-left views I don't view as entirely the same. In communism there is still a leadership involved whereas with just socialism the country is run entirely by the working class. Though if I were to talk about just communism, I'd probably be referring to Marxism as that is definitely the most prevalent ideology.

Though I do agree with your view that international players shouldn't be able to dictate a country's governmental structure, it is still wise to accept exterior criticism as people living in the socialist country may view it as a god send but may be blinded to all the negatives that come along with a socialist society.

You mentioned that you disagree when it comes to motivation as you've seen rich be unhappy with everything and the poor being happy with nothing, however In a socialist country there would be no rich and poor: everyone would be on equal footing with the same incentive to work. If there are 2 groups of people, the motivated and the unmotivated (which of course there would be, human nature basically creates some that are lazy and some that are driven) and they both receive identical benefits, one will definitely be working harder than the other. Because of that, in a socialist country I envision a class system that isn't ruled by wealth but rather the 2 sides that would end up becoming confrontational would be the motivated vs lazy.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - philxdl - 02-24-2019

Socialism all the way. They just want to have pople depend on the government

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - Hutsom - 11-18-2019

(02-12-2019, 06:01 AM)mothered Wrote: We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

Quote:The experiment saw 2,000 people paid €560 (£490) a month, instead of their unemployment benefit

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

Life is much more than just work and stress, 600 a month is not enough to be the only income so people must still seek jobs, The stress of a house and bills goes away. Keep in mind that Scandinavia as a whole are leading the world with general happiness and education rates. It requires much more than a simple mindset of ''why would people work when they get money for free"?

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - mothered - 11-19-2019

(11-18-2019, 11:41 PM)UplayAlts Wrote: Life is much more than just work and stress

I certainly agree with this.

I've just arrived home from work, after an exhausting 12 hour shift. I couldn't do It each and every day- It's simply too much strain, both physically and mentally.

(11-18-2019, 11:41 PM)UplayAlts Wrote: 600 a month is not enough to be the only income so people must still seek jobs

It depends on one's financial state.

If you're living alone and your house/apartment Is fully paid with no debts whatsoever, 600$ a month will suffice.

RE: Finland Basic Income Trial - Jiggly - 11-20-2019

(02-12-2019, 06:01 AM)mothered Wrote: We all work for one reason alone- "Income".

Why would anyone seek employment, when they're guaranteed a paycheck each month?

Quote:The experiment saw 2,000 people paid €560 (£490) a month, instead of their unemployment benefit

I'm at a loss as to why this was trialed.

I wonder if it was trialed to prove a point. There's a lot of campaigning for more free support from the government, and this trial would support the governments decision when they say "no" because they have evidence it doesn't work. I can't pretend to know if that was why they decided to trial it, but it's a fine example of how throwing money at a problem, doesn't necessarily fix the problem. If these unemployed individuals were given $600 per month in training programs, as opposed to free money, perhaps the results would have been very different.

I'm aware of full-time training programs in my own country that cost less than $600 for over a months worth of in-depth training. One such program has a 96% success rate of people going into desired career options afterwards.

tl;dr - Use intelligence, not money.