It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finland plans to give every citizen a basic income of 800 euros a month

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
"My question is, how much of this "handout" comes from fiat printing, IF ANY?

It is my understanding it is entirely fiscal, even with the currency of Finland being the EURO this is being done within its own nation's powers, and not through the EU central bank."



Finland makes 85 billion from taxes, so to do this they would need to use 50 billion of that tax to make it work. Hmmm




posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: interupt42

They did this in the US with the poor people and they became so dependent on it that they virtually became slaves.


[citation needed]

Proof please.


What kind of proof would you like? The US spends $1 trillion a year on various sorts of welfare benefits. About half of this is from the Feds and the rest from the states and cities. It includes plain welfare, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, the "projects" (housing), etc. Food stamps alone costs over $80 billion a year. I don't know if you have ever been around the "welfare class," because if you have spent any amount of time there you know it becomes a way of life. Generation after generation "gets on welfare" and stays there, making more babies to garner increased income. A nuclear family is unnecessary because fathers aren't needed and do not contribute to the household. Jobs are unnecessary because women "devote full time to raising the children," and if they got a job, it would be at the minimum wage and less than welfare. It simply is not cost-effective.

These are the takers, not the makers. They are not even the "working poor" because they don't work. And this goes on and on and on and on, and those who do work pay for them. I'm not saying this is a bed of roses or anywhere near a "good life" because it is crime ridden and rife with an underground economy of drugs and violence. It's also terribly difficult to get out of. Getting a decent education from that space is virtually impossible. It's not that any of these people are stupid, but they are devoid of any education, making all this a self-perpetuating cycle.

When you dis-incentivize work, people don't. And throwing a trillion dollars a year at the issue doesn't work either.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

I don't think basic income makes much sense without implementing other changes simultaneously but something must be done. What people don't seem to understand is that the first world is going through another great economic shift like the one from agrarian to industrial.

Since the 70's we've been deindustrializing. (Human) Labor demand has been declining at the same time manufacturing output has been increasing. Employment has been shifting to lower paying service jobs but many of those jobs are also being increasing rendered obsolete by computerization (kiosks, self check outs, automated customer support systems, etc). Look at any industry and you'll see it. In the 90's companies like Avon and Sony were already completely automating their warehouses; in the not to distant future, we'll likely see long haul trucking jobs replaced by driverless trucks. Amazon is trying to replace delivery drivers with drones. Driverless technology will also put out of work bus drivers, cab drivers and eventually cargo ship crews, commercial airline pilots and others. 3D printing is going to be a further blow to everything from manufacturing to logistics and retail. Speaking of which, there's a lot of money being poured into automating construction with giant '3D printers' that will build a house in a few days at a fraction of the cost — there goes construction.

This isn't a trend that will be reversing barring some sort of unforeseen cataclysm that undoes the last several decades of technological advancements. Even in the sectors where human labor isn't being entirely supplanted, incremental gains in efficiency are eliminating jobs all the time. I've done my part, believe me. I am the co-creator and principle developer of a warehouse management system. How well I'm doing my job is most often measured by how many man hours of labor I can decrease.

Interestingly, the areas that are benefiting the least from automation/computerization are the ones that are seen as the most problematic — think healthcare and education. This isn't a coincidence folks.

Other countries have been working on strategies to compensate for the decreasing labor demand. Notably France decreased their standard work week to 35 hours and Germany has implemented job sharing programs. The results so far have been mixed and that too should be expected as companies in a given sector, like biological organisms, evolve over time in competition with one another.

Raise the minimum wage? Shorten the work week?

Employers adapt to compensate. They'll cut wages and raise prices and find ways to get more labor out of less people — further driving automation and computerization.

Meanwhile, we're effectively paralyzed by political ideology and dogmatic economic and social theory that itself hasn't adapted to the changing world. Blame the lazy poor! Blame social welfare programs that "make them dependent!" Blame government regulation! Blame the EPA! Blame corporations (which is like blaming a shark for being a shark)! Blame liberals! Blame conservatives!

We're so obsessed with blame that we can't look for actual solutions, only some group to punish for an evolutionary process.
edit on 2015-12-5 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: misscurious
a reply to: interupt42

There will be alot of immigrants heading to Finland..


Hell yes. Unless they publicly announce you are not going to get it unless a citizen of the nation for 10-15 years and must be physically living in the nation to receive it, they will see themselves over-run for free checks.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

50 Billion...

Is this more expensive than the welfare programs that are being cut?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

This is a prime example of the sort of outmoded thinking I'm talking about. Labor supply does not increase labor demand. If tomorrow every single person in this country magically had a PhD and a BURNING desire to work, what change would there be?

Would that increase our exports? Nope. Would that increase domestic demand for goods and services? Nope.

Too many of us are stuck in this rut of thinking we just have to find the right group to blame for everything and this belief that for every problem, there is somebody to blame makes us blind to objective reality.
edit on 2015-12-5 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

It does not include everyone.. only those who are receiving benefits and who are in income traps. This money is less than they are receiving now.. rents and living is expencive here



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: schuyler

This is a prime example of the sort of outmoded thinking I'm talking about. Labor supply does not increase labor demand. If tomorrow every single person in this country magically had a PhD and a BURNING desire to work, what change would there be?

Would that increase our exports? Nope. Would that increase domestic demand for goods and services? Nope.

Too many of us are stuck in this rut of thinking we just have to find the right group to blame for everything and this belief that for every problem, there is somebody to blame makes us blind to objective reality.


Spot on .

Once the manufacturing and Services are fully automated ( 10 - 20 years ) the economic system will change naturally.

Current Socio - Economic model we follow leads to Neo-Feudalism .

In an information based egalatarian system of socio - economic model ; Jobs would be optional .

Your microscope could pay for rent while your solar antenna could pay for your holiday and food .



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: misscurious
a reply to: interupt42

There will be alot of immigrants heading to Finland..


I doubt it. It sounds from another thread here that 800 Euros isn't really enough to support a household on in Finland.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

pretty much agree with everything you just posted.

Change is coming in a revolutionary way , we can argue all we want if it should or shouldn't but the fact is that argument is irrelevant. Its coming whether we want it or not.

We have the biggest Oligopolies investing time and money into automation. Like you said visualization of the work environment, 3d printing and robotics is a game changer.

Heck we even have the technology and resources today to live in the matrix if we wanted to. Perhaps in the future we will be the ones that put us in a matrix like environment by choice.


I see this another gov't scheme to appease people but in reality steal from them. The more money is available the more things cost. No way around that.

edit on 041231America/ChicagoSat, 05 Dec 2015 14:04:09 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432




Once the manufacturing and Services are fully automated ( 10 - 20 years ) the economic system will change naturally.


In 30-50 I think goods and services will be made instantly. You order a product from Amazon it will be directly printed out on your 3D multi-purpose device at home.

You want a home or car printed out than head over to the local Giant 3d multi purpose facility for your area.

It will surely get interesting than.

I imagine raw materials will still be a strong industry.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
a reply to: Xtrozero

50 Billion...

Is this more expensive than the welfare programs that are being cut?



Hell yes, that is over 60% of all the taxes they raise. Small country that gets 85 billion per year total so I think sometimes people seem to think all countries are in the trillions or close to it.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka

It does not include everyone.. only those who are receiving benefits and who are in income traps. This money is less than they are receiving now.. rents and living is expencive here


The OP said everyone would get it including the rich. So what you are saying is they are just cutting benefits for the poor by relabeling it and making it an over all reduced amount. I have said many times that socialism works well on small populations with a high percent of that population in the private work force. As people drop out of private work to live on the Government and/or Government job numbers grow out of control the socialism system breaks down and fails very badly like we see in Greece. There are a number of EU countries feeling the pain of this right now, and Finland most likely is one of them.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: schuyler

This is a prime example of the sort of outmoded thinking I'm talking about. Labor supply does not increase labor demand. If tomorrow every single person in this country magically had a PhD and a BURNING desire to work, what change would there be?

Would that increase our exports? Nope. Would that increase domestic demand for goods and services? Nope.

Too many of us are stuck in this rut of thinking we just have to find the right group to blame for everything and this belief that for every problem, there is somebody to blame makes us blind to objective reality.


So you are for the welfare cycle where the working poor and middle class suffer? The rich are doing fine and those who do nothing are happy to continue doing nothing. The working poor live worse than the welfare crowd and the middle class is unable to invest in their future making them dependent on the government when retirement comes. Thankfully you can be progressive and see past the outmoded thinking. What exactly do you propose other than deincentivizing welfare?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Basic income model is at this moment only an experiment which is planned to be tested in 2017 with a testing group.
This is not like everyone will get that.. i am actually curious what kind of test group they will take... we´ll see in 2017.

When they started to plan this .. we did not have this amount of refugees and not this amount of illegal refugees either. This model is outdated as situation is atm different than when they started to plan this and pretty much failure already.



edit on 5-12-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe


So you are for the welfare cycle where the working poor and middle class suffer? The rich are doing fine and those who do nothing are happy to continue doing nothing. The working poor live worse than the welfare crowd and the middle class is unable to invest in their future making them dependent on the government when retirement comes. Thankfully you can be progressive and see past the outmoded thinking. What exactly do you propose other than deincentivizing welfare?


The welfare cycle? A cycle is a repeating series of events. First lets keep in mind that social welfare programs only started in 1935 with FDR's New Deal in response to the Great Depression. Let's examine one example:

The original Food Stamp Program existed from 1939-1943 and benefited about 20 million people (about 15% of the population). The economy recovered in the build up to WWII and food subsidy ended entirely for 18 years. There were a few limited pilot programs starting in 1961 and then in 1964 the Food Stamp Act was passed which appropriated funds for people living in 40 counties and three cities. It wasn't until 1974 that food stamps were nationwide.

That was 40 years ago.

Despite what most people may believe, the actual average generational period is ~33 years. 40 years is not enough time to establish an inter-generational cycle that would support any hypothesis of welfare deincentivizing people from entering the workforce.

That's point #1. Now for point #2.

Here's a graph of the percentage of the American population benefiting from food stamps by year, taken from the FRED population data series.



...and here's a chart showing GDP growth with gray bands marking recessions:



There's an uptick for the double-dip recession that started about the time of the 1979 oil crisis (Iranian Revolution) and was over by the end of 1982. Then there's a drop until the next recession in 1990 (preceded by the 1990 oil price shock stemming from the Iraq invading Kuwait). Then after growth is re-established, the percentage drops year after year — starting even before PRWORA (Aug 1996) — until the early 2000's recession hit in late 2001, following the double whammy of the tech bubble bursting and the stock market crash following 9/11. This was a longer duration recession but the tech sector recovered and if you look closely, the percentage was starting to drop again right up until boom, the "Great Recession."

Using the percentage of the population enrolled in food stamp programs as an indicator, the historical data does not support your political rhetoric-misinformed opinion.
edit on 2015-12-5 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Ksihkehe


So you are for the welfare cycle where the working poor and middle class suffer? The rich are doing fine and those who do nothing are happy to continue doing nothing. The working poor live worse than the welfare crowd and the middle class is unable to invest in their future making them dependent on the government when retirement comes. Thankfully you can be progressive and see past the outmoded thinking. What exactly do you propose other than deincentivizing welfare?


The welfare cycle? A cycle is a repeating series of events. First lets keep in mind that social welfare programs only started in 1935 with FDR's New Deal in response to the Great Depression. Let's examine one example:

The original Food Stamp Program existed from 1939-1943 and benefited about 20 million people (about 15% of the population). The economy recovered in the build up to WWII and food subsidy ended entirely for 18 years. There were a few limited pilot programs starting in 1961 and then in 1964 the Food Stamp Act was passed which appropriated funds for people living in 40 counties and three cities. It wasn't until 1974 that food stamps were nationwide.

That was 40 years ago.

Despite what most people may believe, the actual average generational period is ~33 years. 40 years is not enough time to establish an inter-generational cycle that would support any hypothesis of welfare deincentivizing people from entering the workforce.

That's point #1. Now for point #2.

Here's a graph of the percentage of the American population benefiting from food stamps by year, taken from the FRED population data series.



...and here's a chart showing GDP growth with gray bands marking recessions:



There's an uptick for the double-dip recession that started about the time of the 1979 oil crisis (Iranian Revolution) and was over by the end of 1982. Then there's a drop until the next recession in 1990 (preceded by the 1990 oil price shock stemming from the Iraq invading Kuwait). Then after growth is re-established, the percentage drops year after year — starting even before PRWORA (Aug 1996) — until the early 2000's recession hit in late 2001, following the double whammy of the tech bubble bursting and the stock market crash following 9/11. This was a longer duration recession but the tech sector recovered and if you look closely, the percentage was starting to drop again right up until boom, the "Great Recession."

Using the percentage of the population enrolled in food stamp programs as an indicator, the historical data does not support your political rhetoric-misinformed opinion.


I think you're mistaking my comments for being against helping those in need. Naturally the food stamp cycle will follow along with economic cycles. It seems you have a problem with the term 'welfare cycle'. In the place I grew up most of the families that were on welfare the children and the children of children have stayed on welfare. There has been no real opportunity for them to move up into self-sufficiency. There is also no real incentive because unskilled labor is cheap. We can throw up charts and graphs, but the reality is right in front of us. Without skills it's better to stay on government benefits. Not nearly enough money is spent on job training for people willing to go out and make something of themselves.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime. Self-sufficiency is not a goal for the social service agencies and it should be.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I exist, pay me. God, how mankind survived this long with this genetic predisposition for laziness and theft is anyone's guess.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: Xtrozero

It does not include everyone.. only those who are receiving benefits and who are in income traps. This money is less than they are receiving now.. rents and living is expencive here


The article wasn't specific but it indicates that because of the Finland constitution it must be equal for all? However since I'm not from Finland nor are there details on the plans I can't say whether that is true or not.

However, I can't imagine they would give the top% gov't assistance. but than again that is the problem with gov't : Its all or nothing based on the few and no way to apply common sense when it makes sense to.




Finally, the proposal raises the question of whether it’s really fair to give a relatively better off individual the same amount of welfare as someone who’s truly struggling. Finland’s constitution insists that all citizens must be equal, though, of course, equality can be interpreted in many different ways. So far, there’s no definitive answer as to whether national basic income will create a more or less equal society.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

I'm all for education and training (I'm constantly trying to educate myself and add to my own professional skill set) but the best you could hope to do is change who is poor and not the number of poor — a number that is only going to increase under the current economic system and employment paradigm because of technological advancements that are increasingly eliminating the need for human labor.

This isn't even a new idea. In the 1930's Keynes predicted that by 2030 the standard of living would be four to eight times higher in "progressive countries" (no leftist connotation, essentially "First World") because of efficiency gains realized through our rapidly accelerating technology. He was right — here in the US, our real per capita GDP is 6x what it was in 1930.

Where he was wrong was in predicting that this six fold increase in productive output would lead to something like a 15 hour workweek. Why?

In my opinion it's simply because we haven't done anything about it yet. Most people don't even know why we have a 40 hour workweek. At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, common schedules might be 10-16 hours a day, 6 days a week. It really wasn't until 1910s (and several decades of struggling by the labor movement) that we started to see the 8 hour work day adopted by industries. Notably, in 1914, Henry Ford changed the standard work for his company from 9 hours to 8 and after his profits went up (two-fold in two years), his competitors and companies in other industries took notice. Then in 1926 he really went off the rails and switched Ford employees from a six day, 48 hour workweek to a five day, 40 hour one. His reasoning in interviews was basically that people needed leisure time to enjoy the fruits of their labor (such as driving their Model Ts) and that having more leisure time would actually be better for the economy because people spend money on leisure (dirty socialist obviously). Anyway, what really cemented the 40 hour workweek in the US was the The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which is also where got time and half for overtime from.

So there's another belief we seem to be stuck with, that there's something intrinsically "right" about a 40 hour workweek.

Anyway, I've drifted way off topic (even my own) but I'm not saying that the answer is to put more and more people into social welfare programs at all. Honestly, the way I see it is that more people should be working less hours but this isn't happening because there's no incentive for the uber rich to do anything differently than they are doing right now. That brings to mind another problem I see with the course of our economic development — wealth at the top is increasingly accrued from capital gains and not income.
edit on 2015-12-5 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join