Finland to pay unemployed basic income of $587 per month

[Jimbo]

HELSINKI (AP) — Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.
https://apnews.com/441e12c324b04d549c13 ... -per-month

Hearing more and more about this and if truck and taxi drivers and who knows who else will lose work due to automation, well, something's got to be done. Besides, what's money? Just some paper or plastic, right?

[Your Friendly Neighbourhood Postman]

First option.

Although the reactionary right, and especially the neoliberals, quite succeeded in spreading the old pack of lies that would lead to the second prognosis (which, among many, many other effects it had, led to the never-ending crisis and the endless greed that the world is suffering from), I think that same right will be put to shame by the Finnish route.

[Rayge]

$587 a month is not even remotely a living wage in most of Europe. As the money will be deducted from other benefits they receive, it is effectively merely a subsidy that allows people to take low paid jobs. Apart from the cutting of red tape, and the abandonment of any means test, it is difficult at first glance to separate it from the British tax credits system.

[Jimbo]

$587 a month is not even remotely a living wage in most of Europe. As the money will be deducted from other benefits they receive, it is effectively merely a subsidy that allows people to take low paid jobs. Apart from the cutting of red tape, and the abandonment of any means test, it is difficult at first glance to separate it from the British tax credits system.

It is a pittance but better than a kick in the ass.

I like looking at newest tech videos and I just saw a single machine that can replant a forest in minutes. It digs, waters and drops a baby tree into the hole and I thought there go all the forestry jobs FDR had for us to do in the depression. Another humungous machine built a massive ship. Something will have to be done.

[copehead]

A universal income looks pretty much inevitable in the mid term and I believe that the countries that embrace it first will benefit massively from an undamming of pent up creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. If you know that you are not going to become destitute how many people would write that book, make that music or make that picture or even start that business?

Unlike other step changes in human economics it is difficult to see where new jobs are going to come from to replace those lost to automation and computerisation.

All that will be left for humans are creative endeavours and things that are not possible for computers to do, which are few.

[Robert]

A universal income looks pretty much inevitable in the mid term and I believe that the countries that embrace it first will benefit massively from an undamming of pent up creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. If you know that you are not going to become destitute how many people would write that book, make that music or make that picture or even start that business?

Unlike other step changes in human economics it is difficult to see where new jobs are going to come from to replace those lost to automation and computerisation.

All that will be left for humans are creative endeavours and things that are not possible for computers to do, which are few.

The question would be, how will those countries benefit?

In the Netherlands we used to have a grant for artists. They were getting a certain amount every month - more than the minimum wage at the time - and all they had to do was deliver a piece of art to the administration every quarter to stay enrolled.This stopped somewhere in the late eighties.

To date we still have massive warehouses full of 'Art' from this program.

It did not lead to better art but it certainly led to more of it. I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

[Dr Markus]

HELSINKI (AP) — Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.
https://apnews.com/441e12c324b04d549c13 ... -per-month

Hearing more and more about this and if truck and taxi drivers and who knows who else will lose work due to automation, well, something's got to be done. Besides, what's money? Just some paper or plastic, right?

560 euros ? How much is a pint over there, so I can't get my head around if this is a lot or not for over there?

[Jimbo]

I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Google WPA art

[The Prof]

I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Artists have always had patrons. I can se the thinking behind it. Getting funding from Government rather than from wealthy patrons (with stipulations) doesn't seem that big a jump. Though it does seem like a scheme that was easy to abuse.

[copehead]

A universal income looks pretty much inevitable in the mid term and I believe that the countries that embrace it first will benefit massively from an undamming of pent up creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. If you know that you are not going to become destitute how many people would write that book, make that music or make that picture or even start that business?

Unlike other step changes in human economics it is difficult to see where new jobs are going to come from to replace those lost to automation and computerisation.

All that will be left for humans are creative endeavours and things that are not possible for computers to do, which are few.

The question would be, how will those countries benefit?

In the Netherlands we used to have a grant for artists. They were getting a certain amount every month - more than the minimum wage at the time - and all they had to do was deliver a piece of art to the administration every quarter to stay enrolled.This stopped somewhere in the late eighties.

To date we still have massive warehouses full of 'Art' from this program.

It did not lead to better art but it certainly led to more of it. I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Because people buy art in all forms from punk singles to operas and TPRPG games and that creates taxable revenue. And people will buy this in increasing amounts to fill up their spare time.

I also include entrepreneurial spirit, and that will also obviously generate taxable revenue.

Some people will just churn out shit, but others will create new worlds of the imagination which will generate huge amounts of taxable income. Creative industries are already a big and growing part of most post-industrial country's economy

[Robert]

A universal income looks pretty much inevitable in the mid term and I believe that the countries that embrace it first will benefit massively from an undamming of pent up creativity and entrepreneurial spirit. If you know that you are not going to become destitute how many people would write that book, make that music or make that picture or even start that business?

Unlike other step changes in human economics it is difficult to see where new jobs are going to come from to replace those lost to automation and computerisation.

All that will be left for humans are creative endeavours and things that are not possible for computers to do, which are few.

The question would be, how will those countries benefit?

In the Netherlands we used to have a grant for artists. They were getting a certain amount every month - more than the minimum wage at the time - and all they had to do was deliver a piece of art to the administration every quarter to stay enrolled.This stopped somewhere in the late eighties.

To date we still have massive warehouses full of 'Art' from this program.

It did not lead to better art but it certainly led to more of it. I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Because people buy art in all forms from punk singles to operas and TPRPG games and that creates taxable revenue. And people will buy this in increasing amounts to fill up their spare time.

I also include entrepreneurial spirit, and that will also obviously generate taxable revenue.

Some people will just churn out shit, but others will create new worlds of the imagination which will generate huge amounts of taxable income. Creative industries are already a big and growing part of most post-industrial country's economy

I am in favour of a base income. As far as art goes, it is doubtful if, as you suggest, this will lead to heaps of sellable art. Even if it would be sellable, who can afford it at $ 587/month?

You also mention jobs will be few in the future. If that is true, the model will be unsustainable. At some point money must be generated in order to distribute taxes as a base income. More than already the case, the Economy will become a joke & competition between just a few handful of corporations.

The base income concept has been floating around for several decades but, like Communism, it looks good on paper but forgets to take on board human nature.

[Robert]

I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Google WPA art

Those look pretty great but I guess it will always be possible to make a selection that won't look half bad.

In the Dutch situation: I have been to some depots as the government started to rent out the Art from the mentioned program in the early nineties and I needed decoration for my office. Out of the hundreds I saw at the time, I selected 4 or 5 that were okay. Before you start, that is not a matter of taste. Most of the works, whether I liked them or not, were poorly executed too. As if the artists were in a hurry to reach their quarterly deadline. Poor Sid has been right on so many levels:99% is shit.

I used to know some of these people that were in the program and most, indeed, made a quick work in the morning of the afternoon they were going to deliver it to the administration to stay enrolled.

[Jimbo]

I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Google WPA art

Those look pretty great but I guess it will always be possible to make a selection that won't look half bad.

I don't know if you Googled but there are hundreds of examples of some really great American art. I think there was a caveat that to be a paid artist your work had to be American in its theme. A nude or a vase of flowers wouldn't do. Also, there was a renaissance at the time, like the Harlem renaissance with amazing music, literature and poetry. If, indeed, a minimum guaranteed salary from the government will inspire people then FDR's WPA can help make that point.

[copehead]

The question would be, how will those countries benefit?

In the Netherlands we used to have a grant for artists. They were getting a certain amount every month - more than the minimum wage at the time - and all they had to do was deliver a piece of art to the administration every quarter to stay enrolled.This stopped somewhere in the late eighties.

To date we still have massive warehouses full of 'Art' from this program.

It did not lead to better art but it certainly led to more of it. I don't want to be too romantic about 'the artist' but what kind is it that needs a government grant to be able to create?

Because people buy art in all forms from punk singles to operas and TPRPG games and that creates taxable revenue. And people will buy this in increasing amounts to fill up their spare time.

I also include entrepreneurial spirit, and that will also obviously generate taxable revenue.

Some people will just churn out shit, but others will create new worlds of the imagination which will generate huge amounts of taxable income. Creative industries are already a big and growing part of most post-industrial country's economy

I am in favour of a base income. As far as art goes, it is doubtful if, as you suggest, this will lead to heaps of sellable art. Even if it would be sellable, who can afford it at $ 587/month?

You also mention jobs will be few in the future. If that is true, the model will be unsustainable. At some point money must be generated in order to distribute taxes as a base income. More than already the case, the Economy will become a joke & competition between just a few handful of corporations.

The base income concept has been floating around for several decades but, like Communism, it looks good on paper but forgets to take on board human nature.

You have it the wrong way round it isn't this idea that becomes unsustainable it is capitalism. You like many people cannot envisage that its time will be gone soon just like every other way of organising society has gone. As we live in it it becomes almost impossible to imagine life outside it and beyond it.

You flag up the problem of billions of people on the planet and no jobs for them and see this as a problem for them. Arse about face really it is the end of capitalism.

If goods cost nothing to manufacture, as means of production and resources become free and limitless, they become literally worthless.

You cannot sell things that cost you nothing to manufacture to people who have no money.

[Robert]

Because people buy art in all forms from punk singles to operas and TPRPG games and that creates taxable revenue. And people will buy this in increasing amounts to fill up their spare time.

I also include entrepreneurial spirit, and that will also obviously generate taxable revenue.

Some people will just churn out shit, but others will create new worlds of the imagination which will generate huge amounts of taxable income. Creative industries are already a big and growing part of most post-industrial country's economy

I am in favour of a base income. As far as art goes, it is doubtful if, as you suggest, this will lead to heaps of sellable art. Even if it would be sellable, who can afford it at $ 587/month?

You also mention jobs will be few in the future. If that is true, the model will be unsustainable. At some point money must be generated in order to distribute taxes as a base income. More than already the case, the Economy will become a joke & competition between just a few handful of corporations.

The base income concept has been floating around for several decades but, like Communism, it looks good on paper but forgets to take on board human nature.

You have it the wrong way round it isn't this idea that becomes unsustainable it is capitalism. You like many people cannot envisage that its time will be gone soon just like every other way of organising society has gone. As we live in it it becomes almost impossible to imagine life outside it and beyond it.

You flag up the problem of billions of people on the planet and no jobs for them and see this as a problem for them. Arse about face really it is the end of capitalism.

If goods cost nothing to manufacture, as means of production and resources become free and limitless, they become literally worthless.

You cannot sell things that cost you nothing to manufacture to people who have no money.

You, like so many others that are smart but have a blind spot for how humans function and what makes them tick,
are completely wrong. It's not going to happen and neither would you want that.

[copehead]

You, like so many others that are smart but have a blind spot for how humans function and what makes them tick,
are completely wrong. It's not going to happen and neither would you want that.

So you think that capitalism is the pinnacle of human achievement and cannot be replaced despite the growing evidence that it is failing everywhere.

You sound like a feudal squire viewing the post Black Death laws intended to stop a shrunken population hiring out their Labour to the best payer.

The end of capitalism is inevitable, it is all around us, AI and robotics ensure it.

As I said you cannot sell things that cost nothing to manufacture to people who have no money. Basic income is the first step on this path as it ensures people who do not have work can still buy goods and keep money circulating in this failing system where vast proportions of the wealth that needs to circulate in the economy to make capitalism function is being hoarded in fewer and fewer hands and not circulated. as the people who hoard this wealth control society this cannot be meaningfully reformed so the system will collapse.

Henry Ford understood that for capitalism to succeed you have to pay the masses to ensure they can buy the goods and services you are selling, that lesson seems to be increasingly forgotten, firstly working class pay was decreased in real terms and now they are coming after the middle classes.

Capitalism has already failed, that we are talking about a basic income shows this, there are not enough well paying jobs to ensure people can buy goods and services as it is

[Robert]

You, like so many others that are smart but have a blind spot for how humans function and what makes them tick,
are completely wrong. It's not going to happen and neither would you want that.

So you think that capitalism is the pinnacle of human achievement and cannot be replaced despite the growing evidence that it is failing everywhere.

No I don't, but I think it's the best system we have sofar experienced. Other large systems, like communism, have miserably failed.

The end of capitalism is inevitable, it is all around us, AI and robotics ensure it.

And these will be owned & controlled by the collective you think ?

As I said you cannot sell things that cost nothing to manufacture to people who have no money. Basic income is the first step on this path as it ensures people who do not have work can still buy goods and keep money circulating in this failing system where vast proportions of the wealth that needs to circulate in the economy to make capitalism function is being hoarded in fewer and fewer hands and not circulated. as the people who hoard this wealth control society this cannot be meaningfully reformed so the system will collapse.

Don't you see that's a vicious circle?

Henry Ford understood that for capitalism to succeed you have to pay the masses to ensure they can buy the goods and services you are selling, that lesson seems to be increasingly forgotten, firstly working class pay was decreased in real terms and now they are coming after the middle classes.

All he - brilliantly - did was skim some off some of the profits to pay more to his workers so they could spend it and spread higher wealth. He still demanded labour in return.

Capitalism has already failed, that we are talking about a basic income shows this, there are not enough well paying jobs to ensure people can buy goods and services as it is

Maybe so but there are degrees of Capitalism, from the wild west variety we see in, say, Russia to the more liberal variety we have in North Europe.
Capitalism works but needs to be managed to avoid people getting trapped between a brick and a hard wall.

[copehead]

You, like so many others that are smart but have a blind spot for how humans function and what makes them tick,
are completely wrong. It's not going to happen and neither would you want that.

So you think that capitalism is the pinnacle of human achievement and cannot be replaced despite the growing evidence that it is failing everywhere.

No I don't, but I think it's the best system we have sofar experienced. Other large systems, like communism, have miserably failed.

The end of capitalism is inevitable, it is all around us, AI and robotics ensure it.

And these will be owned & controlled by the collective you think ?

As I said you cannot sell things that cost nothing to manufacture to people who have no money. Basic income is the first step on this path as it ensures people who do not have work can still buy goods and keep money circulating in this failing system where vast proportions of the wealth that needs to circulate in the economy to make capitalism function is being hoarded in fewer and fewer hands and not circulated. as the people who hoard this wealth control society this cannot be meaningfully reformed so the system will collapse.

Don't you see that's a vicious circle?

Henry Ford understood that for capitalism to succeed you have to pay the masses to ensure they can buy the goods and services you are selling, that lesson seems to be increasingly forgotten, firstly working class pay was decreased in real terms and now they are coming after the middle classes.

All he - brilliantly - did was skim some off some of the profits to pay more to his workers so they could spend it and spread higher wealth. He still demanded labour in return.

Capitalism has already failed, that we are talking about a basic income shows this, there are not enough well paying jobs to ensure people can buy goods and services as it is

Maybe so but there are degrees of Capitalism, from the wild west variety we see in, say, Russia to the more liberal variety we have in North Europe.
Capitalism works but needs to be managed to avoid people getting trapped between a brick and a hard wall.

I am sorry Robert but this is simply just a failure of imagination. Who will own the AI, no one will, that is akin to asking who will own the people.

Capitalism worked, but it is in its death throws due to computerisation and the accumulation of wealth put to no economic work, not in our lifetimes but it is close now

What you have failed to get to grips with is: "you cannot sell goods that cost nothing to manufacture to people who have no money", and that is capitalism's end game.

[Robert]

No I don't, but I think it's the best system we have sofar experienced. Other large systems, like communism, have miserably failed.




And these will be owned & controlled by the collective you think ?



Don't you see that's a vicious circle?




All he - brilliantly - did was skim some off some of the profits to pay more to his workers so they could spend it and spread higher wealth. He still demanded labour in return.



Maybe so but there are degrees of Capitalism, from the wild west variety we see in, say, Russia to the more liberal variety we have in North Europe.
Capitalism works but needs to be managed to avoid people getting trapped between a brick and a hard wall.

I am sorry Robert but this is simply just a failure of imagination. Who will own the AI, no one will, that is akin to asking who will own the people.

Capitalism worked, but it is in its death throws due to computerisation and the accumulation of wealth put to no economic work, not in our lifetimes but it is close now

What you have failed to get to grips with is: "you cannot sell goods that cost nothing to manufacture to people who have no money", and that is capitalism's end game.

I thought I was quite imaginative. Let's give it a try.

AI is being developed by large corporations at a tremendous cost. They will not give it away for free. Any device produced that runs ( in part of whole) on AI technology will have to pay to the developer through a licensing system.

Or maybe you refer to a future much further ahead in which the whole world is 'managed' by AI ? Good luck with that. I don't think that will ever happen and if it does, the ' combine' will soon enough figure out humans are the least efficient beings on the planet for which there is no need and certainly not in their current numbers.

Other sectors of activity will emerge replacing the old jobs. In the 80's people thought the same as you think about AI. With the emergence of computers, all our jobs would be taken away! Truth is , unemployment rates today are lower than they were in the seventies.

I can imagine a society in which everyone does what he can and takes what he needs. There are indeed some small tribes hidden in the Amazone or places like that that function like that. Those are exceptions. I see no indication in history this has ever worked on a larger scale. It can still be imagined though.

[copehead]

AI is being developed by large corporations at a tremendous cost. They will not give it away for free. Any device produced that runs ( in part of whole) on AI technology will have to pay to the developer through a licensing system.

Failure 1. What happens when AI becomes self aware and the artificial become autonomous?

There are literally libraries of SF written about this from book like the Culture novels to Games like Fallout 4.

Sooner or later it won't be corporations that develop newer better AI it will be AI because they will be better at it than we are.

Or maybe you refer to a future much further ahead in which the whole world is 'managed' by AI ? Good luck with that. I don't think that will ever happen and if it does, the ' combine' will soon enough figure out humans are the least efficient beings on the planet for which there is no need and certainly not in their current numbers.

You admit that is a failure of imagination yourself.

Other sectors of activity will emerge replacing the old jobs. In the 80's people thought the same as you think about AI. With the emergence of computers, all our jobs would be taken away! Truth is , unemployment rates today are lower than they were in the seventies.

They aren't really though are they? Levels of employment are higher, levels of unemployment are higher and the earning power of most jobs is far far lower. With capitalism seeing Labour as a cost this isn't going to reverse any time soon is it?

What is replacing the industry and manufacturing of the post war period are non jobs in service industries where we all basically deliver online shopping to each other for breadline wages that have to be supported by government subsidy. We provide services to each other based on the dwindling amount of money that isn't hoarded by the super rich and is constantly pumped up by inventing money via Quantitative Easing.

How long can that go on?

I can imagine a society in which everyone does what he can and takes what he needs. There are indeed some small tribes hidden in the Amazone or places like that that function like that. Those are exceptions. I see no indication in history this has ever worked on a larger scale. It can still be imagined though.

It can if you can imagine the rapidly approaching point where goods cost nothing to produce because you have no labour or resource costs.

As I said, not our lifetime, but within a few centuries rather than millennia unless global warming knocks us for six. AI makes it inevitable in my view, we will create intelligences superior to our own and they will create intelligences vastly superior to our own. The idea that this would be dystopian seems pessimistic to me.