Finland and the Basic Income experiment

[phil752 10]

12 minutes ago, Anna B said:

You pose some interesting questions, many of which have been doing the rounds on social media since the banking crisis, and that have been explained and answered with some degree of success, but the truth is, we are not supposed to know how it all works, otherwise we start asking uncomfortable questions that demonstrate what a flawed and unfair system is in place.

 

However on one issue, namely why shouldn't the state take on the role of issueing interest free money for the benefit of the people, has already been answered; the answer is, it can.

 

One of the core points in The Labour party manifesto is its resolve to set up a network of National Banks, using quantatitive easing for the people, to fund major infrastructure projects to get the economy moving and to provide proper, sustainable jobs. 

As Jeremy Corbyn says, if it's alright to create money via quantatitive easing to give to the banks, then why shouldn't it be applied equally to the benefit of the country.

 

So far, I've never heard a satisfactory argument against it, although of course, the Establishment and the powers that be, with a vested interest in propping up the current banking system and the status quo, are desperately putting spanners in the works to ensure it never happens. They of course want to maintain a system out of which they do exceedingly well. NeoLiberalism/Capitalism depends totally on maintaining unfair advantage and inequality, which is why we have such a divided world.  So keeping the likes of Jeremy Corbyn out of power by any means is number one on the aganda. 

 

It's also notable that any weaker country which tries to remove itself from the US petro dollar to aid its own  economic growth, seems to come to a sticky end via American invasion, intervention, or deliberate destablisation of said country/area.  

 

Just now, phil752 said:

As Jeremy Corbyn says, if it's alright to create money via quantatitive easing to give to the banks, then why shouldn't it be applied equally to the benefit of the country.

i don't see the difference

[Cyclone 10]

On 14/02/2019 at 17:11, woodview said:

How would many many people be better off? Is this from the admin savings, that could be dished out? Or does it mean the people who are actually working cough up more?

I don't mind paying more tax, for the NHS, education etc but I do if it's just going to be distributed without being on the basis of need.

Yes, from the saving in bureaucracy.

You seem to have got the idea that this is just a technique to increase benefits to the non working.  Firstly, as if that's a large proportion of people.  It isn't.  The majority of benefits recipients are in work.  Secondly, that isn't the purpose of a universal income. In fact it encourages work amongst the (small number) of non-working, because they have nothing to lose.  Unlike the current benefits scheme which disincentivizes working.

[Anna B 1,414]

On 14/02/2019 at 17:11, woodview said:

How would many many people be better off? Is this from the admin savings, that could be dished out? Or does it mean the people who are actually working cough up more?

I don't mind paying more tax, for the NHS, education etc but I do if it's just going to be distributed without being on the basis of need.

I've tried to make this point before: 

 

10 men make 10 cars. 10 cars are sold, 10 men are paid. The company makes a profit.

The 10 men are sacked and replaced by a robot.

1 robot makes 10 cars. 10 cars are sold. No men are paid, so company profits increase,*  

10 men are unemployed and poor. 

But

Robots do not buy cars.  Unemployed men can't buy cars, so  profits start to fall, and soon the company closes.

 

Globalisation, smart technology and increasing automation pose this dilemma right across the world.

However, *share the profits, and everyone benefits from smart technology, and advanced automation.  

Edited February 19, 2019 by Anna B

[ECCOnoob 1,042]

Why can't the 10 men go and find another job? why can't they retrain? Why can't they evolve and adapt to the changing world?

 

We've heard all that doom mongering stuff before.... Right back to the day when the typewriter was invented and killed off all those clerks hunched over their books then the computer was invented and killed off all those huge rooms of typists rattling away then AI and voice recognition has been invented which according to some is going to kill off all of our office jobs.

 

Somehow we are all still here.

[tinfoilhat 11]

On 18/02/2019 at 07:33, Cyclone said:

Yes, from the saving in bureaucracy.

You seem to have got the idea that this is just a technique to increase benefits to the non working.  Firstly, as if that's a large proportion of people.  It isn't.  The majority of benefits recipients are in work.  Secondly, that isn't the purpose of a universal income. In fact it encourages work amongst the (small number) of non-working, because they have nothing to lose.  Unlike the current benefits scheme which disincentivizes working.

How much bureaucracy do you think we can do away with? Genuinely enough to pay every adult £10k a year? How? Housing benefit can’t go away - at least in the short term. Are sickness/disability payments going? Probably not. You’ll need a safety net of some sort for Wayne and waynetta slob when they blow all their cash on labrini and scratch cards. So you’re saving on tax credits and unemployment benefit (and job centres if you want to do away with those - I wouldn’t). I don’t see that amounting to £10k eachdo you?

[Anna B 1,414]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Why can't the 10 men go and find another job? why can't they retrain? Why can't they evolve and adapt to the changing world?

 

We've heard all that doom mongering stuff before.... Right back to the day when the typewriter was invented and killed off all those clerks hunched over their books then the computer was invented and killed off all those huge rooms of typists rattling away then AI and voice recognition has been invented which according to some is going to kill off all of our office jobs.

 

Somehow we are all still here.

It's not doom mongering at all, if handled right it could be the leisured future we've all been waiting for. What work is left can be shared out, and more leisure can be enjoyed by all, but it will take planning and organisation on a scale that has not been seen before.

 

We are on the cusp of huge changes, some of which could be very positive, but this is not a future like any that have gone before so there is no blueprint. Industialisation in the 19th century brought more consumerism which fed jobs and completed a circle, but the next revolution will take more jobs away. 

 

When the industrial jobs in the North disappeared in the 1980's the decline of the North began and hasn't really recovered since. Some found new employment but many foundered, creating the under-class with its permanently unemployed. A lot of the new types of industry, like the financial sector, tended to be focused on London and the South East, leaving vast swathes like the North East behind and financially disadvantaged. London and the South East has become overcrowded with house prices unaffordable for many.

 

Globalisation is going to mean many places worldwide will have similar problems and would be better off working together in cooperation, rather than in competition. The more successful countries such as Finland and its Scandinavian neighbours are far more Socialist and streets ahead of us in this. Unless we want to see the world split into the desperately poor masses and the few super rich elite we need to find ways to emulate the Scandinavians rather than the ultra Capitalist American model.. 

 

Meanwhile the 'Northern Powerhouse' remains a fantasy and HS2 will take so long to build it will be obsolete before it's even begun. Has nobody realised that in a fast moving world we need to move and adapt far more quickly, and prepare well in advance? That's something that unlike Finland, we never seem to do.  We need long term planning and a strategy that needs to be underway now. And hopefully not leave people behind. The future is just around the corner, we need to decide how we are going to deal with it.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by Anna B

[I1L2T3 10]

I’ve never seen so many people argue against something that is to their benefit because of the unfounded fear that a tiny section of the workforce - the section that will be unemployable in any economic system - will get something for nothing.

 

Excellent posts from cyclone and Anna B above that explain the benefits and need for a systemic change very well.

[I1L2T3 10]

8 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Why can't the 10 men go and find another job? why can't they retrain? Why can't they evolve and adapt to the changing world?

 

We've heard all that doom mongering stuff before.... Right back to the day when the typewriter was invented and killed off all those clerks hunched over their books then the computer was invented and killed off all those huge rooms of typists rattling away then AI and voice recognition has been invented which according to some is going to kill off all of our office jobs.

 

Somehow we are all still here.

Because jobs are getting increasingly automated. The jobs possibly won’t be there so it depends on our capability to invent new types of work. I think when you get people scratching around trying to make money from delivering takeaways on a pushbike etc.. then it’s a sign we’re hitting the end of the line. Practically everything is getting automated. You wouldnt believe some of the software my company trialled a couple of years ago. We and a client backed off from it (for the time being) because it had the capability to kill off up to 40% of the jobs at the client and it was uncomfortable in terms of employee relations in the way the software worked. I think they will go back to look at it at some point. They’d be mad not to.

[Cyclone 10]

9 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

How much bureaucracy do you think we can do away with? Genuinely enough to pay every adult £10k a year? How? Housing benefit can’t go away - at least in the short term. Are sickness/disability payments going? Probably not. You’ll need a safety net of some sort for Wayne and waynetta slob when they blow all their cash on labrini and scratch cards. So you’re saving on tax credits and unemployment benefit (and job centres if you want to do away with those - I wouldn’t). I don’t see that amounting to £10k eachdo you?

Probably not, but we don't have to save that much because lots of money is already spent on a huge variety of benefits, all of which would be rolled into the budget for the basic income.

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

Because jobs are getting increasingly automated. The jobs possibly won’t be there so it depends on our capability to invent new types of work. I think when you get people scratching around trying to make money from delivering takeaways on a pushbike etc.. then it’s a sign we’re hitting the end of the line. Practically everything is getting automated. You wouldnt believe some of the software my company trialled a couple of years ago. We and a client backed off from it (for the time being) because it had the capability to kill off up to 40% of the jobs at the client and it was uncomfortable in terms of employee relations in the way the software worked. I think they will go back to look at it at some point. They’d be mad not to.

Someone has to program the robots, design the cars, and so on.

It's the type of work that changes, it shifts towards tertiary employment rather than primary (coal mining) or secondary (manufacturing cars).

[Annie Bynnol 612]

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

I've tried to make this point before: 

 

10 men make 10 cars. 10 cars are sold, 10 men are paid. The company makes a profit.

The 10 men are sacked and replaced by a robot.

1 robot makes 10 cars. 10 cars are sold. No men are paid, so company profits increase,*  

10 men are unemployed and poor. 

But

Robots do not buy cars.  Unemployed men can't buy cars, so  profits start to fall, and soon the company closes.

 

Globalisation, smart technology and increasing automation pose this dilemma right across the world.

However, *share the profits, and everyone benefits from smart technology, and advanced automation.  

That analogy does not work.

It describes a stagnant company in a stagnant economy, in which the workforce does not get new skill and unable to adapt to technological change, competition and customer demand and eventually fold without Government protection -Detroit.

In reality there would be are several companies in which 10 men make 10 cars. 10 cars are sold, 10 people are paid. The company makes a profit.

To keep making a profit the company must use some of its profits to research, develop products, retool and market new products thus creating jobs. Controlled growth is an essential component of any business model.

From the original 10 men  there are now 15 people involved in manufacturing and another 10 involved in support, product development, R&D,  marketing etc.

Robots replace some workers because they are cost effective and accurate and make up for lack of skilled  people.

Of the replaced people some will reskill to operate, maintain, make and train the robots and receive higher wages.

The company now employs more people than it did at higher wages, to buy the cars.

 

The  only fly in the ointment is that you can move robots to another country when the Government of the country changes the rules.

[I1L2T3 10]

56 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Probably not, but we don't have to save that much because lots of money is already spent on a huge variety of benefits, all of which would be rolled into the budget for the basic income.

Someone has to program the robots, design the cars, and so on.

It's the type of work that changes, it shifts towards tertiary employment rather than primary (coal mining) or secondary (manufacturing cars).

The automation we looked at used machine learning. For example it worked out that a hundred people at the client were doing the same repetitive task several times a day, using the same sequence of clicks and keystrokes. It worked out how to execute the clicks itself, distilled to a single request and 100% accurate every time. No human error.

 

20 jobs potentially gone

[Cyclone 10]

Very low skilled jobs.  And someone had programmed the software that could learn to do that, someone else built the hardware (maybe more robots involved), someone delivered and installed it, etc...

 

The plow put a lot of people out of work, so did the combined harvester, but we managed to get by.  We no longer employ people to run in front of cars waving a flag, and what happened to all the coach drivers (that's horse and coach, not the motorised version).