Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

Could you clarify which people specifically you're talking about? I'm not trying to disagree with you. It's just that the main examples I'm thinking of are retired folks receiving social security and people with disabilities.

If it were socially acceptable for an artist, scientist or entrepreneur to fall back on "welfare" for some amount of time to work on a project, improve themselves or bootstrap a startup, I think you'd see that more often (including outcomes that end up contributing back to society.

Which is why basic income is such a good idea. If it's unconditional, and not tied to an assertion that "I am poor and cannot feed myself otherwise", I think you'll start to see more capable people leverage it for uses other than basic survival.

It still doesn't answer the question of whether that investment (as a society) would pay off, but its a fair bet that it would at least be a different group of people leveraging it.

That is not at all what basic income is about. The point of basic income is not as a means to enable anything; it's a natural byproduct of and solution to a problem, the problem of ever increasing automation removing the need for human labor. There will come a time when exchanging labor for capital is no longer a workable system because the demand for human labor will have collapsed due to automation and robots doing everything. Thus without the ability to sell labor, most people no longer have capital with which to participate in an economy. That's what basic income is meant to solve. It's in no way meant to release human capital to foster in a new age, it's meant to allow humans to live in a new age where labor simply isn't necessary and thus labor based economies no longer exist.

This works to disincentivize people from contributing their time and effort to the economy for fear they will lose the "basic income" that the government provides.

A real basic income is different: the governments says here is a check that should meet all your basic needs and then some and please feel free to do whatever you want with your time, including contributing it to the economy by starting a company, interviewing for a job you actually want, or what have you.

I'm not well versed in the structure of European welfare systems, but when you look at the US welfare system there are some absolutely perverse incentives that discourage people from working their way out of it. Numerous programs have a sharp income cliff: make more than $x and you no longer get this benefit at all. I have talked to people who have quit a job because they got a promotion and would no longer receive benefits to help pay for the place they were currently renting.

It's bewildering to me that there's no political will on either side to fix this. All it would take is requiring graduated income checks so for every $1 you make more in wages you lose less than $1 of benefits.

So I have some optimism for basic income that if you have a truly inalienable source of income with no strings attached that it'll open up a ton of creativity and value.

Apparently, in Belgium, the welfare system is targeted towards providing financial incentives to less-fortunate people, awhile the Canadian welfare system is more directed towards 'fulfilling life'. Apparently a lot of immigrants to Belgium migrate to Canada even if they make more 'free' money in Belgium, because of this reason. Tyler Cowen's written a bit about it, and you might need to look it up, but I found it verrry interesting.

I believe that this is one of those long term deals, it won't be the first generation which learns to live with it but following generations will. By the third it should be entrenched and cultural norms will be that you don't another persons stuff and your needs are met.

As of right now there is too much opportunity to game the system which in itself requires a much more robust system within the government to track all the aid dollars it spends. The danger is that this will force a move away from physical money. This is because it allows government to manipulate the money you have. It leads to totalitarian control as they can simply outlaw an activity by preventing expenditures on it. So in the end the money will need to be independent of the governments as well. (it will be sold to stop terrorists, drug dealers, and other "bad" people)

The EU model is closer to basic income and Harry Potter is one example that does show up from that well. There are actually quite a few works of art made by people 'on the dole'.

Most ambitious people -- the people who have personality characteristics that lead them to achieve interesting things -- want more than this. As a result, most are not willing to live exclusively on the dole.

The thing a basic income might accomplish is to allow people to make path changes. As it stands a person's well being is directly tied to their income and very few people make enough or can live debt-free enough to save enough "FU money" to take any length of time off without severely threatening their future (e.g. eating retirement savings). Basic income would allow people to take a step back and reevaluate whether their current path is best.

Welfare is needs-based not wants-based. It doesn't do that.

Personally I think a minimal basic income could go a long way toward eliminating bullshit jobs. A bullshit job is any job that if (hypothetically) eliminated while the person is still paid, nobody would be poorer in any tangible way. It's a job that does not actually need to be done and doesn't actually benefit anyone.

Since our society depends on jobs to move money around, bullshit jobs must continue to exist even when those doing them know they are doing nothing of value. Basic income would allow them to make the intelligent decision to stop doing meaningless and valueless work.

I think the experiment should be done. I'm not sure if it's going to work but there's only one way to find out.

That isn't the same as no responsibilities.

> Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability.

Capitalism isn't a meritocracy and hasn't been for some time (if ever).

Basic income (along with other ideas intended to improve the value of human capital) helps level the field so people can focus on things like a better education, etc.

Frankly, I think we need to focus more on providing access to better education (e.g. Free community college, technical schools, bachelor degrees) with reasonable application restrictions (e.g. Fields with low demand such as many Art/soft skill majors should have caps on how many free degrees are available while fields with high demand should be uncapped).

I think that'd get us alot further than basic income would in regards to your criticism.

HOWEVER, basic income isn't primarily about improving human capital...its just one of the reasons:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/5_reasons_to_consider_a_no_s...

1) Reduces poverty

2) Stabilizes aggregate demand since people who are primarily relying on it for income are going to spend it on goods/services for survival.

3) Certain social ills (e.g. Domestic abuse) are reduced as its easier to escape bad situations. Children are more likely to finish high school.

4) It is more efficient in terms of dollars spent than existing programs (except Social Security)

5) Human dignity

1. They're barely enough to feed yourself and pay for rent, if even. Nothing more.

2. The authorities keep you busy filing paperwork and sending applications for awful jobs. Don't meet your quota, miss a deadline, don't make a meeting, or refuse any job (even if quite beneath your qualification), and your benefits are cut.

3. If you're unemployed, long-term planning is impossible.

4. Higher education is not available. Job training may or may not be.

I suspect that most unemployed are by and large less educated -- so what do you expect? Basic income would allow education. And that may, as you put it, carry us into a new age.

Disclaimer: I only know about the situation in Germany, and only from (educated, but not IT) acquaintances, not personal experience.

Two thoughts here: 1) What specifically do you mean by "wave of accomplishment"? How should that be measured?

2) You will need to cite some proof of this assertion. I can think of many anecdotes of successful people (J.K. Rowling, for instance) who achieved success while on welfare.

>>Modern Western societies are rich enough that smart, motivated individuals can mostly rise to the level of their own ability.

Not sure this true, but I'd like to see any data you have on this point as well. As it stands, social and economic mobility is limited by birth, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/20...

I'm the same way. I'm excited that we as a species are testing it out, but I'm also glad that it's not my direct economy it's being tested on. I really hope it's successful, and I think it can be, but it's also quite risky.

There's some kind of selection bias there already. I'm not saying those people were not creative, passionate, hard-working to begin with. But many have ended up in that situation after going through things that tend to, well, crush you, for lack of a better word.

1) You seem to be thinking of idealist communism, where everyone gets the same paycheck no matter what they do. BI is not like that. The idea with BI is that you get a basic income for nothing. It's just that: basic. Not luxurious, not even very good. Enough to live in a crappy little apartment with a roommate maybe. The incentive to do better is simple: do you want to live in a crappy apartment with roommates, or do you want something better? If you want more than the basic, then you need to get a job.

2) For the "not-so-huge wave of accomplishment", you're missing something pretty big: crime. All those lower-class people getting checks from the government may not be accomplishing much, but they're generally not committing crimes, and as a result, our crime rates are at historically low levels despite what the sensational news media would have you believe. Now why aren't they accomplishing more? Probably because most more-capable people aren't on welfare, they're gainfully employed. But you're also missing other stuff: a lot of these people getting government checks DO work, they just do it under-the-table. They do odd jobs: home repair, yard work, etc., and get paid in cash so they don't lose their check. The government may not like this, but it does add to the economy, and it shows that BI is a workable concept: these people frequently DO want to work, but for whatever reason, regular full-time employment escapes them, either because there's not enough full-time work available (and part-time doesn't pay the bills because there's no benefits and the minimum wage is too low, so they stick with welfare and under-the-table work), or because they have some physical or mental problems that keep them from holding down a regular job. Whatever the reason, most people really do want to make more money than the bare minimum, you just don't see it because it's cash-based and not reported to the IRS.

BI means you can afford to live. Welfare gives you a spot on a waiting list to get into a SRO dump full of drug addicts and $100 remainder to eat, buy hygiene products, and transportation for a month. Nobody can live off that so going to loan sharks, doing under the table exploitative labor and daily hustling are needed at least here in Canada.

At least, that is my dream :P

Whether this experiment succeeds or not, it is well worth trying. Finland is a very good bet to start this experiment because of it's small size, homogeneous population etc. It would be very difficult to do such an experiment in big, diverse countries like the U.S

But that's no surprise -- the reason they're receiving the money in the first place is because they are unable to work in some capacity. It's need-based (old age, disability, etc.). The basic income system would give it to everyone, widening the demographic considerably.

>Just about everything that we consider a real advance comes from people working the system that exists using their own ingenuity, not from people allowed to escape the system by providing them an inalienable source of income.

It's not at all clear that lack of guaranteed income plays a roll in the 'ingenuity' of the working population. In fact, if we look at the extreme examples, founders of highly successful businesses often had significant family income that allowed them to accomplish what they have.

There is no "welfare". There's SNAP(food stamps) with a princely average payment of $125, which has time limits on eligibility and mostly goes to working households. There's TANF which only goes to households with children and has both time limits on eligibility and work requirements.

What there absolutely is not is some sort of program where millions of people are paid to sit around think of ways to build a better mousetrap. The idea that there is remains one of those pernicious myths that just won't seem to die.

In a wider perspective, life has become easier for humans over the last 15,000 years. Does this mean we are less motivated; or have more energy available for non-immediate needs?

When I was younger I lived off the (UK) state for a while. I ran political campaigns to protect our right to silence, volunteered nightly at a suicide hotline and worked on clean water projects. Friends of mine produced artwork and installations.

Eventually we all got proper jobs, some making iron-sculptures for a living, some putting on weight in offices. But a lot of productive work was done. Now we were in our early twenties, we would have done something, but I remember my room-mate staggering in from a dead end job and slumping down as I went off to my second "volunteer" job.

It seemed far more acceptable 20 years ago to do this but most humans will do something meaningful with their lives if the next few months rent is sorted out.

It's the worry about where next weeks meals and shelter are coming from that limit most people's horizons, not a in are lack of artistry or passion in their soul.

I would say that there's a fair sized wave of accomplishment coming out of this group. Has Zuckerberg ever had to have a real job?

They are both cherry picked groups, and have vastly different backgrounds that affect their level of productivity. Giving everyone $8,000 per year would have vastly different results for different people. It's hard to say what the net effect would be.

Most immigrants / refugees I know would be happy not receiving benefits such as basic income as long their children get all the benefits and opportunities that natives do.

No it isn't. It is very simple to say "Green Card (no basic income) -> Citizenship (basic income) transition depends on N years of taxes paid on time with a dollar value greater than 25 hours/week at minimum wage (or some equivalent proxy value)."

I don't care about money. To me, time is the most valuable thing that money buys (aside from food/shelter). I make money so that I can retire and have the freedom to work on what I want rather than what an employer or boss orders me to. Basic income would give me complete freedom of time, thus allowing me to retire right now and do 100% what I want to do.

Yes some landlords would definitely try it, but I think they'd be quickly corrected by the market.

For low-income households Finland already has a housing allowance system. It would be one of the benefits probably obsoleted by basic income (though there are good yet-unanswered questions on eg. how to handle geographical differences in rent levels).

With rent is is different. If a landlord tries to change the price of an apartment because tenants have more money, people will look for another apartment immediately. Unless they collude or there is a shortage of apartments, the pricing should stay sane.

> A basic citizen income is incredibly expensive and essentially a massive benefit to the richer classes.

How does it benefit the rich in particular?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

The post-work economy is coming, especially in Finland. The opportunity to create new services, digitally, with the freedom to fail but without the need for investment spent on just keeping the lights on and paying wages etc.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Would you prefer to have poor people dying in the streets? The measure of civilization since the French Revolution has not been how a country treats its wealthy, but how it treats the poorest. As societies, we have agreed that humans have a right to life and happiness but for the most part we're still too much in love with the myth of merit to follow the consequences of this idea -- and it is certainly in the interest of the wealthy and powerful that this should continue. It flatters a man's self-love to believe that he has earned his place in life by his own sweat and toil, when the reality is that if divested of social relations and one's normal milieu very few of us would rise to any degree of prominence. We have slowly accepted the idea that hardship, debility, or infirmity should not necessarily be a judgement against a person's worth, but we are too infatuated with ourselves to believe it wholeheartedly. And so we grant a basic existence, but conditionally: only those who meet an arbitrary moral standard are permitted to live. Basic income recognizes that imposing that moral standard is itself immoral. If you agree that citizens have the right to not die in the streets, or at the least that it is unseemly for a wealthy society to permit such, then you cannot argue against a basic income with any degree of consistency.

One such difference being that everyone in a society gets the basic income with no strings attached meaning that there is no perverse incentive not to work. With a basic income people are free to work and gain additional income on top of the basic income and to do so for whatever motivations best inspire them free from the fear of starving.

The economists Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek both argued for a basic income.