Finland to test 'universal basic income' for the unemployed

Yourself isit

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not swayed by arguments that we have already reached the pinnacle.
Nor am I convinced that in our globalised economy that manufacturers are close to their suppliers (or to their customers for that matter). Supply chains have grown larger and more dispersed, not the other way around.

One of the reasons jobs are not coming back to the west of that the supply chain is in Asia. Mostly China.

I don't know what you mean by 'make up for' job losses of drivers. If drivers are engineered out of a system, then there is nothing to make up for in productivity terms.

Come on. Make up for the jobs lost. Make up for the demand lost. You haven't even proven that productivity will increase significantly or at all, or that any increases will go to existing workers. Driverless cars (or freight) will reduce costs. Don't assume that that will even translate into lower prices, it could easily go to higher margins. In fact that's how western economies have been trending these last two decades. This is an acceleration of that.

Its just my own prediction, based on a pattern we've seen again and again.

I keep trying to point out the differences between robots creating more industrial goods (a clear productivity win provided there is demand for the goods) and firing all human drivers. The former creates more goods, the latter just reduces costs for individual companies but also external demand as wages collapse for those workers.

Owryan

There was a study done a few years ago that tried to work out how much a universal payment of €188 would cost the state.

From memory it came to a tax rate of 57% on all income over the basic rate to fund both the system and the rest of the running of the state.

WhiteMemento9

How do we pay for it Joe?

This is more or less at the core of the problem. Many of the posts in the thread talk independently about automation, living wage, taxes etc but the reality is that they are linked in this problem coming.

The living wage will become a necessity everywhere as jobs become harder and harder to find. The incentive will be there to work but while jobs become more and more scarce the ability to find one will be the problem. It seems many think this Utopia will exists with people not working if they would rather not and all those who want to top up there wage go earn a few quid on the side. The jobs simply won't be there to do this. The problem then becomes, with an ever reducing work force and tax base, how do you afford to keep paying all these people a living wage?

Yourself isit

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

With automation & self service being more available its inevitable more jobs will be cut or lost in the longer term,, although Im kinda on the fence about the basic income idea- I do think governments need to do something to protect people from job losses due to improvements in technology & more self service, when I say more self service some people may or may not have heard about this new type of self service,, self service in bars/pubs it was reported this month in some bars in London there is self service tap and pay for your own pints .

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/16/contactless-beer-pump-worlds-first-london-bar

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/techandgadgets/selfserving-beer-pump-could-cut-queues-during-busy-times-of-the-year-a3421836.html

+ there is also self service wine bars in parts of America also,, chances are that once this newer type of self service has being introduced - it will slowly take off over time & lead to a cut in the availability of bar jobs .

I saw self service pints in london years ago. Not sure why they think it's new. I have reasons to doubt that these things will work but for now I'm assuming they will and wondering where the new jobs come from.

Yourself isit

Owryan wrote: »

There was a study done a few years ago that tried to work out how much a universal payment of €188 would cost the state.

From memory it came to a tax rate of 57% on all income over the basic rate to fund both the system and the rest of the running of the state.

Is the 188 also taxed at a marginal rate?

WhiteMemento9

Owryan wrote: »

There was a study done a few years ago that tried to work out how much a universal payment of €188 would cost the state.

From memory it came to a tax rate of 57% on all income over the basic rate to fund both the system and the rest of the running of the state.

Those figures I presume are quoted on estimates of the current economy. Why does nobody seem to factor in the reason the living wage is currently being tested is due to the unemployment problems that are coming. When unemployment rises heavily due to automation I wonder how that 57% will change.

The way all this is funded will not be from taxing the ordinary worker. It simply won't work.

Owryan

Not that I can remember, the tax was applied to all earnings over the basic 188.

The key point was it would give people more freedom about what levels of employment they wanted and would encourage people to come off the dole.

As more people started working then there would be room for tax cuts.

Study was carried out during the boom. It also looked at the likes of vat and other taxes but I can't remember the details.

I only found it while researching a college essay

Yourself isit

Owryan wrote: »

Not that I can remember, the tax was applied to all earnings over the basic 188.

The key point was it would give people more freedom about what levels of employment they wanted and would encourage people to come off the dole.

As more people started working then there would be room for tax cuts.

Study was carried out during the boom. It also looked at the likes of vat and other taxes but I can't remember the details.

I only found it while researching a college essay

So the 57% isn't marginal, it's a high flat tax?

KyussBeeshop

As I explained earlier, and people are seeing/discussing now - the policy is a Trojan Horse for (among other things) implementing a Flat Tax, and destroying Progressive Taxation (once the redistributive effects of the Basic Income are eroded/redirected).

Phoebas

Yourself isit wrote: »

One of the reasons jobs are not coming back to the west of that the supply chain is in Asia. Mostly China.

Actually, one of the upsides of robotics is the possibility of bringing jobs back from the East.

In Ireland for example, BoI are investing in software robots. They had previously offshored a lot of mundane IT work (low level stuff like updating one system with data from another). This technology allows them to have that work done here.
Not as many jobs as before, but those jobs are better quality.

Same is true of a lot of offshored manufacturing.

WhiteMemento9

Owryan wrote: »

Not that I can remember, the tax was applied to all earnings over the basic 188.

The key point was it would give people more freedom about what levels of employment they wanted and would encourage people to come off the dole.

As more people started working then there would be room for tax cuts.

I would love to read that article. It sounds like they think this is part of some back to work scheme that will lower unemployment levels. A fundamental change in the way we live and work is coming over the next decade which will involve huge levels of people not working. We won't have a tax base to pay.

WhiteMemento9

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

As I explained earlier, and people are seeing/discussing now - the policy is a Trojan Horse for (among other things) implementing a Flat Tax, and destroying Progressive Taxation (once the redistributive effects of the Basic Income are eroded/redirected).

"You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin him once"

Eventually a point will be reached when no disposable income through lack of redistribution means a huge slow down in the economy. Who the **** buys all the goods and services to maintain a consumerism based economy? I feel it will only be at this stage that the world will finally start to think about how to solve these problems.

Grayson

Yourself isit wrote: »

I saw self service pints in london years ago. Not sure why they think it's new. I have reasons to doubt that these things will work but for now I'm assuming they will and wondering where the new jobs come from.

The self service tables that guinness brought in here were a disaster. But to be fair it was because you had to run a tab for them.

I think a pay as you go system for something like wine could work better. Until someone gets locked, falls and blames the bar for not stopping them.

KCross

It was all downhill once they invented the wheel! Think of all the jobs lost there

The rest of this thread predicting mass unemployment because AI is going to turn into skynet is just scaremongering.

Owryan

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I would love to read that article. It sounds like they think this is part of some back to work scheme that will lower unemployment levels. A fundamental change in the way we live and work is coming over the next decade which will involve huge levels of people not working. We won't have a tax base to pay.

No. It was a study on the cost of everyone receiving a basic level of income, nothing to do with a back to work scheme. Afair it was written before the crash. It was a couple of years ago so I cannot recall everything but the figures mentioned stuck in my mind.

Effectively it said such a model was not feasible without other sources of tax to bring in the needed revenue.

I might have it referenced n an essay I ll go look after

WhiteMemento9

KCross wrote: »

It was all downhill once they invented the wheel! Think of all the jobs lost there

The rest of this thread predicting mass unemployment because AI is going to turn into skynet is just scaremongering.

A person is employed because it makes economic sense to do so. What if every single job that needs to be done, does not make any economic sense when done by humans when compared to automated version?

This reality is coming. Anyone denying that is akin to crying the world is flat at this stage. People will still be needed in the workforce to a certain extent but at a tiny fraction of the currently employed numbers.

sdanseo

Saipanne wrote: »

I always wondered why other people don't pay for my lifestyle?

Yay. Bring it on.

You live in Ireland. Should you ever become unemployed, other people will pay for your lifestlye.

KCross

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

A person is employed because it makes economic sense to do so. What if every single job that needs to be done, does not make any economic sense when done by humans when compared to automated version?

This reality is coming. Anyone denying that is akin to crying the world is flat at this stage. People will still be needed in the workforce to a certain extent but at a tiny fraction of the currently employed numbers.

The world is flat so!

You are taking progress and putting negative scaremongering spin on it. Nothing more.

Yourself isit

Grayson wrote: »

The self service tables that guinness brought in here were a disaster. But to be fair it was because you had to run a tab for them.

I think a pay as you go system for something like wine could work better. Until someone gets locked, falls and blames the bar for not stopping them.

Here's why I think that won't work. People already can serve themselves wine in some french restaurants - it is on tap - but that's generally the cheap and cheerful places. And self service is common in buffets. No need for automation (except to stock up the buffet maybe). But again that's cheap.

When most people go out they want to be served.

Yourself isit

KCross wrote: »

The world is flat so!

You are taking progress and putting negative scaremongering spin on it. Nothing more.

Do you have any actual counter argument?

WhiteMemento9

KCross wrote: »

The world is flat so!

You are taking progress and putting negative scaremongering spin on it. Nothing more.

I am not putting a negative spin on it? Do you think people working less is a bad thing? It is only so if we don't shape the future in a way that makes it a bad thing.

Why can't progress mean that people don't have to work and that is a positive thing rather than a negative thing?

steddyeddy

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I dont understand what the difference is between "Universal Basic Income" vs The Dole.

So in finland they are receiving 560 euro a month with no strings attached. In Ireland you get 814 euro a month with strings attached.

What difference does the strings make?

I suppose less pressure, more dignity and more room to improve themselves.

Arcade_Tryer

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

A person is employed because it makes economic sense to do so. What if every single job that needs to be done, does not make any economic sense when done by humans when compared to automated version?

This reality is coming. Anyone denying that is akin to crying the world is flat at this stage. People will still be needed in the workforce to a certain extent but at a tiny fraction of the currently employed numbers.

Religious forum >>>>>>>>>

Yourself isit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Religious forum >>>>>>>>>

He wasn't making a religious argument.

Arcade_Tryer

Yourself isit wrote: »

He wasn't making a religious argument.

They're using religious rhetoric. If it looks like, sounds like....

Water John

I wonder if that UBI study was by CORI with Fr Sean Healy?

You know around the time Bertie has that St Paul moment in Inchidoheny and became a communitarian.

Remember, the second line of thinking, parralel to driverless cars is, less car ownership not more. We summon a car to take us from A to B.

Owryan

Water John wrote: »

I wonder if that UBI study was by CORI with Fr Sean Healy?

You know around the time Bertie has that St Paul moment in Inchidoheny and became a communitarian.

Remember, the second line of thinking, parralel to driverless cars is, less car ownership not more. We summon a car to take us from A to B.

CORI have one from 2014, universal payment of 150, higher again for oaps. Think they also proposed a payment for children. If I remember correctly they wanted a flat 40% tax rate on all earnings over the universal payment. Almost all sw payments done away with too.

The one I spoke about was esri/oced or something like that.

maninasia

Grayson wrote: »

Yourself isit wrote: »

I saw self service pints in london years ago. Not sure why they think it's new. I have reasons to doubt that these things will work but for now I'm assuming they will and wondering where the new jobs come from.

The self service tables that guinness brought in here were a disaster. But to be fair it was because you had to run a tab for them.

I think a pay as you go system for something like wine could work better. Until someone gets locked, falls and blames the bar for not stopping them.

It's been possible to self serve wine for probably a hundred years or more from vending machines.

People go to restaurants and bars so they have social contact and feel like they are being served.

KyussBeeshop

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The Basic Income is a Trojan Horse policy - it is really a business subsidy, not an income subsidy, because businesses are just going to slash the wages they pay workers over time, until they soak up the gains workers make from the Basic Income.

All that has to be done to transform it from an income subsidy to a business subsidy, is to slash wages.


The Basic Income will also legitimize politically, the destruction of the entire welfare system - because the purpose of the Basic Income, is to replace all other forms of welfare payments, and unify them into one easy to attack target: The Basic Income.

So, once a big enough economic crisis hits, and the deficit scaremongering reaches its height, the first policy on the chopping block will be the Basic Income - and when that is slashed down to a pittance (without any discrimination between different types of welfare recipient, like there is today - making it much harder to justify cuts in todays system), it will pretty much take out the whole welfare system with it.


The Basic Income is also a Trojan Horse policy aimed at destroying progressive taxation. It is almost always paired with a policy aimed at introducing a Flat Tax system, which means that when businesses undermine the Basic Income by slashing wages, and when deficit scaremongering leads to a slashing of the Basic Income, we will be left with a Flat Tax system where lower income people pay more taxes than before, but without the Basic Income redistributing those taxes back to lower income people.

Effectively, once the policy is implemented and then slashed, it will lead to a massive reduction in tax for higher income people and the wealthy, and a massive increase in taxes for lower income people and the less-well-off.


The Basic Income is easily the most dangerous Trojan Horse policy that exists right now - and people generally seem to be completely blind to that.


In addition to that, we are nowhere near a level of automation advancement, that there will not be enough jobs for everybody - it should be obvious to people, just by looking at the massive amount of work we need to do to stop climate change, that there is no shortage of urgent work left to be done, in massive infrastructural redevelopment and R&D aimed at stopping climate change as soon as possible.

The entire automation argument, is aimed at fooling people into believing that long-term-unemployment is an acceptable state of affairs (despite there being no end of urgent work that needs doing), and for supporting a push to a Basic Income.

Sadly, that's a very real possibility.

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm not seeing lower demand. The number of humans is still increasing and the number of middle class humans is increasing faster than ever before.

But if automation takes away the need for, say, 50% of the workforce - then jobs will become scarcer. Therefore, much of the middle class will be unemployed, and living on a basic income.

€188 euros a week wont pay for as many new shiny toys as €600 - €800 euros a week - so, while the increase in productivity will be possible, the demand from an affordability viewpoint could well be sadly lacking....

Yourself isit wrote: »

I can't see how any of that adds to productivity in terms of more goods and services being produced. Or makes up for the lack of demand.




I'm not. You don't seem to get that the productivity is dependent on (anticipated) demand to begin with.

Companies anticipate demand and don't spend on capital in recessions. There's a feedback loop you don't get. Supply doesn't produce its own demand despite what Says law predicts. Product can remain unsold.

Producing more stuff with robotics is only useful if there is somebody there to buy it. So it needs wage increases (or price deflation but that has nasty side effects).

My thoughts, exactly.

KCross wrote: »

It was all downhill once they invented the wheel! Think of all the jobs lost there

The rest of this thread predicting mass unemployment because AI is going to turn into skynet is just scaremongering.

Is it? How do you know?

Certainly, as a bare minimum, the possibility needs to be considered, and plans to deal with the potential problem need to be put in place.

Iwasfrozen

No one who proposes a UBI has ever been able to show me how it would be costed.

Funny that.