Switzerland rejects free money for all

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,893
Korea
#71
Finland engaged in a limited experiment with a universal basic income which has produced some preliminary findings:

Helsinki (AFP) - A groundbreaking trial providing a guaranteed basic monthly income to 2,000 jobless people has led to improved wellbeing but failed to boost employment, Finnish authorities announced on Friday.

Last December the Nordic nation concluded a two-year experiment in which a randomly selected group of unemployed people were paid an unconditional, tax-free 560 euros ($634) a month.

Researchers studied whether the no-strings-attached income could better incentivise jobless people to find work than traditional unemployment benefits, which may be docked as soon as the recipient starts earning money.

Although the widest such study to be conducted in recent years in Europe, the Finnish trial was limited to participants who were already unemployed.

Proponents of a true "universal income" call for a monthly payent, sometimes described as a citizens' wage, to be given to everyone regardless of their wealth, family or work situation.

Nevertheless Finnish researchers believe their findings provide important insights for reforming the country's system of welfare payments.

"The recipients of a basic income had less stress symptoms as well as less difficulties to concentrate and less health problems than the control group," Minna Ylikanno, lead researcher at Finland's welfare authority Kela, said in a statement.

"They were also more confident in their future and in their ability to influence societal issues," she added.


Results at this stage are preliminary and relate only to the first year of the study, meaning Friday's findings are far from conclusive.

But a hoped-for stiumulus to levels of employment has not yet materialised, the project's researchers said.

"The recipients of a basic income were no better or worse than the control group at finding employment in the open labour market", Ohto Kanninen, research coordinator at the Labour Institute for Economic Research, said in a statement.

...
So in short, positive health and psychological benefits, no clear reduction (or increase) in propensity to find work. Note that this program was limited to people who were already unemployed. Of course as always, there are real limits to what we can infer from a single study, especially given the findings are preliminary and focused on the first year of the study; no one should leap to any conclusions. I'm a bit confused as to why the authors of the study imagined a "stimulus to levels of employment" would occur in this situation, though: a mere 2,000 recipients of a relatively small stipend aren't enough to produce large scale economic effects which might increase employment, and the receipt of a UBI stipend produces no incentives to "settle" for a job quickly that a traditional unemployment stipend does not, so if anything, one might expect recipients of a UBI to go back to work more slowly, taking time to train or improve their skills. Given that, being "no better or worse than the control group at finding employment int he open labour market" is an interesting and arguably positive result.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#72
"Free Money For All" is a loaded statement seemingly derived from the Victorian notion of "the deserving poor". Or possibly from a fear of anything with fear of anything with a socialist odour.

The notion of "the deserving poor" is highly a judgemental notion, yet deeply imbedded in most capitalist societies.

There is no such thing as free money. Nor does the government have any money. It's all OUR money.

Part of the role of governments is to provide infrastructure and protection of it citizens:EG armed forces, police, roads, basic utilities, health, education and welfare. Part of its role is the redistribution of wealth. That includes looking after citizens who cannot look after themselves.

State welfare systems produce a defacto minimum income. Having a officially guaranteed minimal income is a bit confronting for some, I'm sure'.Especially those who habitually judge the deservedness of others.

Not going to happen in a country with a strong protestant tradition. It is from such countries that the notion of the deserving poor originated., That suggests to me that politicians would be reluctant to install such a system. The public would resist it, as indeed would some of the intended recipients

In Australia ,the word "bludger' is used for a parasitic person. (it originally meant "pimp ') I can'y think of any Aussies who would welcome that epithet. I suspect it's the same in any other countries

the deserving poor
old-fashioned
people who are poor but have good qualities and are not responsible for having little money

Examples from literature

  • All that remains is handed over to the deserving poor.
  • Great efforts are made by the organized charities of the city to relieve the sufferings of the deserving poor.
  • His interest in education and the liberal arts was great, and with his consideration for the deserving poor and those in class servitude, was indulged in at no inconsiderable cost to his pocket.
  • One eventful night he counted out his accumulated wealth, and resolved to distribute it amongst the deserving poor.
  • The city is divided into small districts, each of which is in charge of a visitor, whose duty it is to seek out the deserving poor.
THE DESERVING POOR | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
 
Jul 2017
123
Europe
#73
Free money for all is a bad idea right now, but it will be inevitable in the future, as automation and the AI advances enough to render human labour unnecessary. In the near future, we will have smart robots that will do most of the low paid jobs that today is done by low paid workers, mostly immigrants. This is why we will need some kind of universal income in the future, especially for the low income workers as fewer people will actually need to work due to the advent of the AI.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,654
#74
Free money for all is a bad idea right now, but it will be inevitable in the future, as automation and the AI advances enough to render human labour unnecessary. In the near future, we will have smart robots that will do most of the low paid jobs that today is done by low paid workers, mostly immigrants. This is why we will need some kind of universal income in the future, especially for the low income workers as fewer people will actually need to work due to the advent of the AI.
Such a system will indeed be needed in the future. It needs to be 'seamless' though - that is it needs to be geared so that a person working would not under any circumstances end up as losing things because of working. What i mean by this is that there is very little incentive to take short part time gigs if you would lose the benefits fully at the same time. Instead it needs to gradually shift from 'fully on universal income' to 'partly on salary, partly on universal income' to ' fully on salary'. In other words any work must benefit the worker too.
 

Similar History Discussions