Finland’s SHOCKING basic income experiment results: People love to get paid for not working

No, m8.

If people decide to spend their money on "unnecessary" things, that's up to them. But it's also frankly pretty unlikely. Most people are going to prioritize food and shelter, and it should be their choice what kind of food and what kind of shelter they get.

The problem with UBI isn't that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions. It's that in a rentier-capitalist society, UBI can only function as a temporary bandaid. For a while, necessities will be more affordable to workers, and bargaining power will increase as the choice ceases to be 'work or be homeless.' However, over time rentseeking activity will cause more inflation, and the value of the UBI will eventually go down and the issue of raising the amount given will again be politicized the way welfare was before and wage stagnation is now - ie capitalists will lobby to keep it low. Meanwhile, landlords will see this influx of money and probably raise rents and/or try to get more special concessions out of the government.

Even this situation will be an improvement over the current one, seeing as welfare in the US basically doesn't exist anymore - but in the longterm, it will not be empowering, and it will be very difficult to maintain the initial advantages. The way to make this possible is to reject UBI until landlordry has been effectively abolished as a profitable career, and bribery has been effectively removed as a legal expression of political "speech."

So that's why ebt and free housing fails in America. They have to cut the welfare check.

both contempt and empathy towards the general population are needed in order to create a good policy, ideally in equal proportion

Finland s ubi wasnt ubi. It was different. Works well in other places that are trying it out.

It wanst universal and it wasnt basic, but much lower.

UBI Is just an excuse to privatise all public service's because "Well everyone can afford it anyway now" before the UBI Itself is dismantled for Austerity purposes

...

this would be a good thing probably

You: Enacts policy meant to sustain unemployed people in a society without available jobs
Results: Policy meant to sustain unemployable people does not raise employment
You:

But hey, it shows people are happier and healthier when they get more money, and they even work half a day more.
These results:
Tells us that it works exactly as expected. It allows people to be self employed in less immediately profitable areas.

Also daily reminder that UBI is a shit and guaranteed employment is much better under capitalism.

Attached: surprised pikachu.png (223x195, 49.18K)

"gotta get them leeches off welfare"

the real problem is that if you're on welfare and unemployed, you're probably long term unemployed and simply won't get ever hired within the capitalist system

UBI is trash, anti-technological development, and most importantly a Trojan horse:

youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0

Is there a way to enforce this under capitalism? Would it basically be forcing certain regulated companies/industries to keep some sort of quota or would there just be a lot more employment by the government for public services?

I remember when I was young and living in section 8 housing we were able to keep food on the table because everyone would bolt to our apartment on stamp day and sell their stamps to us. I remember mowing lawns and doing chores for people and being paid in food stamps.
This is rampant and really does nothing to help anything. If people were just given real actual welfare and left to their own devices it would be cheaper and simpler and we wouldnt be making crimes out of nothing.

Both. It basically means a company cannot fire a worker unless they have another job ready. Its been done before in socdem countries.

It actually is a somewhat interesting result that there wasn't a significant decrease in how much people search for jobs, because this contradicts what millions are taught in introductory econ classes. People who teach these classes should get regular beatings until they make their teachings fit the data.

Sounds like a total clusterfuck.

Yes.

There are several ways: 1. Increase public-sector employment until everybody has a job. If that is done, there is no need for min-wage legislation in the private sector. 2. Force every firm to employ people proportional to some measure of firm size. But it isn't necessary to force them to directly employ the people; it would be enough to have some tax-and-subsidy system, so that firms finance jobs in proportion to their size (and firms creating more jobs than what their size dictates would get a subsidy).

Does anybody here actually support UBI? It seems like every time I’ve seen it argued for, it’s usually either a libertarian, a Silicon Valley futurist type, or some kind of Bernie-adjacent/DSA socdem, and the argument is usually either moralizing or talking about automation.

In the moralizing case you get the left that will say “we need to decouple work from income, everybody deserves to live!” etc. and this just seems like utopian idealism. It almost always falls back on the imperative of this moralizing. The other case is maybe more based in some real prediction about future needs, automation CAUSING income to be decoupled from work by necessity because the work won’t exist anymore in the private sector. That is all fine and good, but I don’t see why a leftist would support this supposed state of affairs outright. You’re basically arguing at that point that it is necessary to perpetuate class society by making an entirely dependent class of people who live off of the minimum that the bourgioesie will give them and tolerate it indefinitely? And this in the midst of a society that has advanced so far that work is literally disappearing? It’s obvious why the right wing supports it, I don’t see why the left would except for socdems that are chronically trapped in thinking “it’s the best we can do, we have to compromise, maybe we can get the bourgies to give up their capital willingly in the future”.

I do but because I'm unemployed. Of course I would like a socialist revolution instead but while living in capitalism of course I would like to have money without having to work (or having to work less at least).

redditors are the biggest supporters of UBI

the audio noise is maddening

I do because I'm on disability, which is technically not the same as welfare, but is for all intents and purposes very similar. If UBI was instituted, the stigma of being on welfare or disability would be lessened, and I wouldn't have to worry about losing the money I get.

UBI is supported by Neoliberals who wanna slash and burn all other services.

maybe some of the people who support UBI are
but not all and i don't think even most are

It's easier to write a check for gibsmedats than to have government services that specialize with it.

Like, just use that check for a foot doctor instead of having a government agency of foot doctors.

So it’s doesnt matter the form of the welfare system because capitalism requires a reserve army of labour, and only an increase in the amount speant in the building of infrastructure will create jobs, UBI is a better way to do benefits but ultimately a capitalist system will have unemployment. I am 100% willing to believe however that less stress in the long run means, less crime, more stable relationships etc. I would say bet that over the long term that would in fact translate to lower unemployment, but these are the kind of effects it might take a whole generation to see.

and redittors are either silicon valley bots or liberal technological futurists of the kind that allied with the bolsheviks and then got purged by Stalin. There's a reason futurists were purged in the late 1920s, and it became an epithet against certain artists (though of course stalinism had its own shit trends and some futurist stuff is kino

Attached: Part_of_the_Show_Machinery_(Lissitzky).jpg (1280x1499, 230.52K)

didn't futurists become fascists?

Something tells me the connection between futurism and (italian) fascism is mostly an ad hoc explanation to define fascism through a cultural and anti-materialist lens. A liberal writing on the origins of fascism will put their lens on a handful of petit-bourg futurists who became fascists and not on italian industrialists employing fascists as strike breakers.
So no, I doubt the connection between futurism and fascism is relevant.

they did. the original futurist movement was italian and many of its young adherents (and ultranationalist students who were moved by modernism, the scale of violence and regimentation potentiated by new technologies of industrialization, and the rapid acceleration and destruction of tradition) did become fascists. intellectual futurists like marinetti and the florentine futurists (forgot their name)* circles became fascists. of course futurism became an international movement and its aesthetics and techniques could be adopted by any ideology, as the bolsheviks did with that famous lissitsky poster of the red triangle penetrating the white circle. the british had vortecism which was the equivalent. But there's no denying that futurist ideology insofar as it had one involving the praise of violence, war, and a crazy obsession with technology and machines could and did fuse into fascist ideologies and the ideology of the technocrats and large industrialists that supported ultra right movements. It's very eerie the similarities between the transhumanist and silicon valley obsessions we have today.

dude, the futurist connection was real. before wwi the futurists, national syndicalists and the italian nationalist association were the closest approximation to proto-fascism that existed in Europe until 1919, and there was a shit ton of overlap between their movements, especially with regards to their espousal of imperialism. All joined together (along with even civiv republicans) to call for the Invasion of Libya and the joining of WWI. The invasion of Libya was pushed by big business interests through the italian nationalist association and at the same time was supported by futurists because their glorification of war and the use of new italian war products to destroy and reorder an oriental territory. It was their wet dream. For national syndicalists, Italy's status as a "proletarian nation" aka the weakest great power led them to support the invasion for the sake of breaking outside allied economic stranglehold and setting up autarkical empire. Mussolini was a leading socialist and editor of the leading socialist periodical and his support of the Libyan war led to his expulsion and his political wilderness and his move into ultranationalism

also of course the shenanigans of the futurist d'annunzio was the aesthetic and political template that mussolini copypasta'd, especially with regards to his takeover of Fiume where he set up a proto fascist state for a year in 1919 to prevent the city from going to the new yugoslavian state

But that may not be a bad move. Now we have the illusion of public services because the government sort of presides over them (even though in a lot of cases it gives concessions to privateers). When completely private people could really get mobilized about it.

Hey faggot. Don't call Rijeka fiume.

this is a success, we should consider this implementation a success

while sound in concept, the primary purpose and end goal of a ubi is the end of work, at least it should be, the idea isn't to make sure people have shelter and food, that's just regular old food stamps, rent control, and welfare, the ubi is a step closer to that work free utopia

Except that's wrong you dumb ass

britannica.com/event/Fiume-question
it was called the "Fiume Question" at the time and italians dominated the discourse on it so their name for the city stuck at the time and in the historiography. Fiume is also a cooler sounding name tbh, though i'm indifferent that the name wasn't allowed to be kept

...

I agree completely. There is no need to keep capitalism alive anymore, especially with all the automation. And apartments should be free - rent is the biggest scam ever.

Is stress full
The requirement for unemployment is to apply to minimum 4 jobs/month. Some employers have setup application forms with option "i don't actually want the job just need to send application" because unemployed being forced to spam employers.
The stress comes from if you do not do any applications through the unemployment job service and they demand to know where you applied or are cutting your check. If they find out you didn't then this happen youtube.com/watch?v=s96drQkfpPI

Attached: hard-at-work.jpg (697x845, 149.26K)

Unemployment benefits are dependent on your previous work history and with the combination of unemployment benefits,basic income support benefit and housing benefit you can revise anywhere from 1200-700€/month

How long would it take for someone to run out of local jobs to apply for?

...

Is there any way UBI would be defensible from the point of view of LTV? Especially with high automation? I mean, I guess lolberts who think that value = use value = 100% subjective can easily justify UBI / negative income tax in their mental framework, but I don't really see how would recirculation of value bring any benefit to workers.

good god, had i read that just before or after sneezing i would have had a brain aneurysm
50% more?

Read these posts:

LTV shows that UBI is borderline useless, political analysis indicates it is a privatization push.

wtf i hate UBI now

This policy has made people happy. Why do you want people working harder you fucking porky twat?

That's not how it works.
In France, Sarkozy privatized electricity and water, there was no protests against it, and we got nothing but a price hike.
There was protests from the based CGT when Macron announced he was privatizing our national train company (SNCF), but he didn't care that much and went on with his plan. There was no protests or boycott from alcoholics and low-paid workers when he decided to privatize our national lottery company, probably one of our most profitable public company ever.
You will get nothing from privatization except a continuation of the dystopian cyberpunk shit we are already living in, but with boring tech.

Attached: muammar_gaddafi.jpg (600x400, 90.52K)