Finland’s SHOCKING basic income experiment results

Hudson Murphy
Hudson Murphy

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

rt.com/news/451028-finland-basic-income-results

A limited experiment with “basic income” in Finland failed to move the needle on unemployment or self-employment, but those who received no-strings-attached government money reported feeling happier, to the surprise of no one.

Beginning in 2017, some 2,000 recipients of unemployment benefits were given a monthly stipend of €560, tax-free and without any conditions, as part of an experiment in simplifying welfare and lowering unemployment.

A preliminary report published on Friday by the Finnish welfare administration Kela shows that the experiment’s effect on unemployment or self-employment was almost nonexistent. However, the recipients of the stipend reported feeling happier and less stressed than the control group, made up of those who received traditional unemployment and welfare benefits.

“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,” said Minna Ylikännö, lead researcher at Kela. “They were also more confident in their future and in their ability to influence societal issues.”

However, they were also “no better or worse than the control group at finding employment in the open [labor] market,” according to Ohto Kanninen, research coordinator at the Labour Institute for Economic Research.

Kela statistics showed the stipend recipients worked an average of half a day more than the control group, and actually earned €21 less on average from self-employment. However, 55 percent of them described their health as good or very good – compared to only 46 percent of the control group. Stress levels were also eight percentage points lower among the stipend recipients, in line with reports from the program’s early days.

Attached: 5c5e2ba4dda4c8a35f8b45ed.jpg (142.94 KB, 980x551)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0
mega.nz/#F!DpAz2IgQ!nW7bPNnpJFk5CAV3ypiaHw
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Thomas Rivera
Thomas Rivera

retard here, is giving people a €560 check every month cheaper than normal finnish welfare for the government?

what would the average finn who's on gibs lose if they dismantled unemployment benefits in favour of cash?

Carter James
Carter James

It said they got about 1/2th more than regular payments

Ayden Kelly
Ayden Kelly

Money is not better than basic supplies. Basic income can be spent on non-necessities, which is a problem. In order to eliminate welfare, a better solution is a universal standard of living. Basic housing, food allowance, water supply and electricity allowance will be enough. The idea is that people will work better and harder at their jobs due to forgetting about financial woes and trying to find the next meal. A good worker is one who does not worry about survival. If basic needs are met, natural human instinct is to acquire better things. Tastier food, a bigger house, internet. This will be an incentive to get out of the house.
Let's say the gobermint delivers a full package of rice to your home every month. You eat it because it's free, tastes fine, and keeps you alive. Let's say you want steak, however, you need money so you go work. This is a better incentive.
Let's say the government gives you a couple hundred dollars per month in the hopes that you go buy necessities. You go to the store, see some snacks, and buy them. They tasted good but won't keep you alive. You see a pair of shoes you want because youd old shoes suck. You buy them, but you can't survive on shoes. You see a nice outfit, tv, towels, a couch. Suddenly, you've run out of money to feed yourself.
UBI is too susceptible to human error. There's no guarantee it'll be put to good use.

Attached: psywizud.gif (1.73 MB, 315x315)

Hudson Bell
Hudson Bell

failed to move the needle on unemployment or self-employment,
Key point!

Another way of saying this is that people on UBI continued to find employment and start business at the same rate as the control group

John Baker
John Baker

this kind of thinking drives a lot of current policy and comes off as contemptuous to those receiving it
people who want non-necessities badly enough will simply barter away whatever stipend they're given. it would be more difficult with bulk staple food and housing but they'd figure it out

Austin Morales
Austin Morales

If they're dumb enough to give away their state-provided rice bags, perhaps they were bound to starve anyways?

Luis Moore
Luis Moore

it would be more difficult with bulk staple food and housing
… that's the point

Brandon Myers
Brandon Myers

Satan
makes sense

Easton Johnson
Easton Johnson

Well yeah, people are stressed when money is tight. Having more money makes people happier, up to a point, because it makes life easier and removes things that make you unhappy.

getting basic income doesn't change how likely you are to get a job
Why would having money affect job availability? Why would this even be a question?

Michael Perez
Michael Perez

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."

Christian Edwards
Christian Edwards

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

Aaron Wilson
Aaron Wilson

this kind of thinking drives a lot of current policy and comes off as contemptuous to those receiving it
both contempt and empathy towards the general population are needed in order to create a good policy, ideally in equal proportion

Jack Wood
Jack Wood

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

Isaac Gonzalez
Isaac Gonzalez

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

Juan Campbell
Juan Campbell

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

Brandon Sullivan
Brandon Sullivan

be unemployed Finn
be stressed out as hell because of not having a job
spend time looking for a job and trying to survive in that frozen hell
<gubrmint gives you extra 500 EUR a month
suddenly not stressed but bored
spend time looking for a job and trying to survive in that frozen hell
Wow. This snownigger research almost says that while it's comfy to get more gibsmedat, it doesn't change people's relation to production. Who could have expected that Zig Forums will be right again?

Nicholas Brown
Nicholas Brown

this would be a good thing probably

Justin Bennett
Justin Bennett

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:
Kela statistics showed the stipend recipients worked an average of half a day more than the control group, and actually earned €21 less on average from self-employment.
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 (49.18 KB, 223x195)

Isaiah Rogers
Isaiah Rogers

Why would this even be a question?
"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

Levi Collins
Levi Collins

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

youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0

Ryder Gutierrez
Ryder Gutierrez

guaranteed employment
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?

Mason Kelly
Mason Kelly

2811160
in the united states the snap card program was engineered around this principle and yet people still manage to trade them for cigarettes and lottery tickets
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.

Ryder Perry
Ryder Perry

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

Nathaniel Wright
Nathaniel Wright

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).

Brayden Perry
Brayden Perry

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”.

Connor Ward
Connor Ward

Does anybody here actually support UBI?
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).

Thomas Johnson
Thomas Johnson

redditors are the biggest supporters of UBI

Josiah Robinson
Josiah Robinson

the audio noise is maddening

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit