Finland to Introduce Universal Basic Income

[dragoncar]

It's a valid question about the residency requirement though

[GuitarStv]

I pay perhaps 50% taxes including all direct and indirect ones in a hcol area in the US, freezing my balls off and having to go to work and deal with a lot of bs.

If some people manage to live off my taxes and travel to tropical countries,  they are dole scum.

Obviously,  a disabled person, who stays home has to rely on the government,  isn't.

If you truly believe that people who receive welfare have such a great and easy time, why are you working and dealing with BS at all?  It would make more sense to quit your job now and enjoy the tremendous benefits you claim that these people have.

This is a strawman argument to which there's no point responding.

If you don't believe that those who receive welfare have a great and easy time, then why denigrate them?  They're in an admittedly worse situation than you are.  Even if they've chosen to spend their money in a 'tropical paradise'.

If you do believe that they're having a great and easy time, then my original question stands.

[iris lily]

There's no such thing as a free rider under a mincome strategy.

One of the things I love most about a universal basic income is the end of the judgypants complaints. I get so sick and tired of people whinging about how people spend their benefits. Benefits are meager. Someone with no kids on the jobseeker benefit in NZ (which is actually also for terminally ill patients, who are still expected to look for work and provide doctor's certificates even though they are on their death bed!) is given a maximum of $210 per week after tax. I couldn't live on that. I doubt many people could, and yet everyone feels entitled to comment on how it should be used and everything they are doing wrong, despite the fact they know absolutely nothing about the beneficiary's situation.

And I would welcome the converse, the whining voices that claim we do not ever do enough for the poor and downtrodden thru gubmnt resources would be silenced. I'll promise to shut up if you will, too--'Kay?

Really I would welcome a basic income program since I can see some real benefits to society according to my values, but I doubt it would be carried out in the way I'd like to see it.

[Matumba]

I pay perhaps 50% taxes including all direct and indirect ones in a hcol area in the US, freezing my balls off and having to go to work and deal with a lot of bs.

If some people manage to live off my taxes and travel to tropical countries,  they are dole scum.

Obviously,  a disabled person, who stays home has to rely on the government,  isn't.

If you truly believe that people who receive welfare have such a great and easy time, why are you working and dealing with BS at all?  It would make more sense to quit your job now and enjoy the tremendous benefits you claim that these people have.

This is a strawman argument to which there's no point responding.

If you don't believe that those who receive welfare have a great and easy time, then why denigrate them?  They're in an admittedly worse situation than you are.  Even if they've chosen to spend their money in a 'tropical paradise'.

If you do believe that they're having a great and easy time, then my original question stands.

I don't believe most of them are in a better situation compared to me.

Still,  if I pay taxes to finance their lifestyles,  I want them to get just enough money to survive and nothing more.

Also,  in my  opinion,  the poorest working person should be better off,  in terms of earnings and lifestyle,  than the richest person who depends on government benefits. 

Work should pay,  otherwise there is no incentive to work for many people,  particularly those doing unskilled work.

[GuitarStv]

I don't believe most of them are in a better situation compared to me.

Still,  if I pay taxes to finance their lifestyles,  I want them to get just enough money to survive and nothing more.

Hmm.  See, I'm not an altruist.  I want to pay for social services to improve my own life.  If giving someone just enough to survive means that they become miserable and more likely to break into my house, that's not a good solution.  If it means that there will be lines of people almost starving lining the pavement, making me feel uncomfortable walking around downtown . . . that's not a good solution.  If giving people that little bit more money means that an astronomically tiny percentage of them will abuse it . . . who cares?  It's still way better for me.

Also,  in my  opinion,  the poorest working person should be better off,  in terms of earnings and lifestyle,  than the richest person who depends on government benefits.

Why should someone from a rich family, who flunked out of every subject he ever took in school and then wasted every opportunity given him who grabs a job at a McDonalds be any better off than a hard working person from a poor background who wasn't able to afford an education and was injured on the hard, manual labor job so can't work any more?

Work should pay,  otherwise there is no incentive to work for many people,  particularly those doing unskilled work.

Agreed, productive work should pay.  It sounds like you're returning to the 'people on welfare all have it made' line of reasoning again here though.  If the conditions of a job are so terrible than people would rather go on welfare than do the job . . . that really just indicates that there's something terribly wrong with the job (be it pay, working conditions, etc.), not welfare.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Matumba's original point (aside from the commentary) is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

Does the UBI go to citizens wherever they are?  All residents citizen or not?  All resident citizens?  That's a whole can of worms right there.  'Cause yea, why not just run off to a low cost of living country and live it up on a beach sippin' rum?

I'm thinking it goes to all residents.  But sheesh, talk about incentivizing border-hopping for work.  Somebody smarter than I needs to work out those details.

I still think that this is something that will make a lot more sense once you see that first McDonald's that is staffed entirely by robots.

When the first FedEx truck drops a package off at the street for you, driven by a robot, package dumped by a robot, truck loaded and unloaded by a robot, from a warehouse run by robots, this will start to make sense.  Especially when that truck breaks down and the robot wrecker arrives within minutes to tow it away, and traffic isn't slowed at all because the robots all talk to each other and choose alternate routes.

There are a ton of jobs that robots are going to be better at.  Like computer programming and most engineering, and a lot of us are going to be surprised how quickly we get replaced.

"Robots building robots...now that's just stupid" -I, Robot

[GuitarStv]

When the first FedEx truck drops a package off at the street for you, driven by a robot, package dumped by a robot, truck loaded and unloaded by a robot, from a warehouse run by robots, this will start to make sense.

Jesus, can't even picture that.  I'm only 50-50 for getting a package dropped off at the right address from humans let alone robots.

[Roland of Gilead]

I kind of view this as similar to Childhood's End.

If everything is provided for you what is the incentive to do anything?

I wondered in the book and movie how they still had functioning urinals and such.   Who was still getting up at 7am to replace those worn urinal cakes when the aliens were providing everything?

[Kris]

There is pretty compelling new evidence that poverty dampens people's natural genetic abilities.  In which case, refusing to give people a social safety net that will allow them a basic level of human dignity is actually to the detriment pf our country:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/afps-iup121515.php

I, for one, would like it if the US ended ths century as one of the top competitors for best place to live. At our current rate, I think this is unlikely.  While, as I said before, Finland, and other northern European countries with a strong safety net are quiietly kicking our asses.  I wish we could get over this retrograde puritanical impuls that makes us so quick to smugly decide that impoverished people deserve to be impoverished and should stay there because it makes us feel superior.

[Matumba]

^this is not a politically correct thing to say,  but since I'm being a complete pig in this thread,  I'll say it.

Northern Europe is kicking US's and most of the world's asses not because of their political system,  but because of the quality of their people.

It's comes down to selective reproduction.  R-selection vs k-selection if you will.

Same thing in places like Hong Kong (the city with the highest average IQ in the world) and Singapore.

[okits]

^this is not a politically correct thing to say,  but since I'm being a complete pig in this thread,  I'll say it.

Northern Europe is kicking US's and most of the world's asses not because of their political system,  but because of the quality of their people.

It's comes down to selective reproduction.  R-selection vs k-selection if you will.

Same thing in places like Hong Kong (the city with the highest average IQ in the world) and Singapore.

Can you detail your thoughts a bit more on this?  Genuinely curious (if I'm understanding the r/K part) about how societies invest in individuals and what kind of population you end up getting with any particular approach.

[arebelspy]

Northern Europe is kicking US's and most of the world's asses not because of their political system,  but because of the quality of their people.

Correlation/causation.

Also What does it say to you that "higher quality" people, in your mind, are choosing those political structures?

Also I think the Germans in the 1930s had very strong opinions about some people being higher, and some lower, quality.  I wouldn't necessarily agree.

[arebelspy]

If everything is provided for you what is the incentive to do anything?

You only, ever, do things for money?

And you think everyone else is this way?

Who was still getting up at 7am to replace those worn urinal cakes

Robots. (In the future, not in your alien thing.)

[Kris]

^this is not a politically correct thing to say,  but since I'm being a complete pig in this thread,  I'll say it.

Northern Europe is kicking US's and most of the world's asses not because of their political system,  but because of the quality of their people.

It's comes down to selective reproduction.  R-selection vs k-selection if you will.

Same thing in places like Hong Kong (the city with the highest average IQ in the world) and Singapore.

You talk a lot like my ex-husband.

He was also a fan of the veiled master-race kind of thinking.

[Killerbrandt]

I really like the idea of basic income, as an idea.  It is difficult for me to imagine it working given the various existing levers we use for motivation today.  This is one of those, I think it could work, but I also think the implementation requires many things to happen which probably won't happen overnight.

I think it's probably worth considering the whole cultural evolution aspect of this.  This is where I'm coming from:

I have two degrees in engineering from top schools, I am a licensed engineer with a half dozen other credentials and certs.  I've been working since 2001 or 2007 depending on how you count certain types of work (I don't count work I did prior to the second degree as my career, but for this discussion it should be part of it).

I work hard, 90 hour weeks not out of the question if needed.  I'll work weekends, holidays, whatever.  The work I do is important and satisfying.  I protect people, I save lives.  All of this was deliberate.  I wanted a job where my contribution was significant.  I knew early on I was smarter than many, maybe most, so I knew I had a duty to pursue something intellectually difficult.  Had I been stronger I like to think I would have felt the same satisfaction pursuing something that made use of that.  Or beautiful, or musically talented, etc.

All of that, is, to the extent I needed a job in the first place.

If it were up to me, given unlimited resources, I wouldn't work at all.  I wouldn't have pursued the degrees  and I would never have worked a day in my life.  The most satisfying day for me is sitting outside, sipping an ice cold beverage, watching the day pass by.

There was never a summer day of my youth, a holiday since, or a weekend, where I've ever been bored.  I neither need nor actively seek any active stimulation.  I am content to just be. 

And I am not alone.

Without the need to work in order to provide food, I don't have the need to find better work because to the extent I work I want to make as much as possible.

So don't think that "those who can or want will" because there are tons of us who won't.  I don't feel bad about it either.  I would have no problem cashing that check every month either.  For me it was never about any other motivation.

I was raised, and the culture I grew up in right here in the USA, is that you work hard because you have to.  Nobody will hire you if you don't.  Most won't hire you either way, so you also need to get educated.  If you want to eat and have a place to stay you need to work.  That's just how it is son!  Everything else was tacked on, not as a reason to work at all, but as a way of thinking about the need to work so it didn't seem so bad.  The whole status, prestige, contribution, honor part of it.  All secondary, to mitigate the awfulness of work (and therefore unnecessary, if work is out of the picture).

So along with basic income, the culture has to evolve to the point where working and making a contribution is enough to motivate capable people like me to go ahead and work.

I don't see that ever happening.  I'm trying to find the words to describe how utterly uninterested I am in trading my time for money once I have enough money to survive.  I don't think you believe how deep seated it is, and I'm not sure you really grasp how widespread it is.

We are the 99% [citation needed].

The idea of basic income, particularly in place of all other programs, has a simplicity that is appealing.  And it certainly has a structural advantage in that.  I have a voyeuristic joy at another country trying it out, these types of experiments are expensive.  I'm hopeful any problems that arise people are able to come up with a solution (like making it illegal to lend money to someone who's only source of income is that basic income, or making it super easy for people to discharge debts like that in bankruptcy).

But if you need my contribution, then it's probably a bad idea.  So before the civilization goes down that road, make sure the robots are ready, because a bunch of us are going to drop out of the workforce.

I think the transition might not be as painful, because at this point I have so much sunk cost built into my credentials I probably would keep going until I could afford the particular lifestyle I've already worked so hard for, but the equivalent of 800 euro a month combined with my current savings would let me instantly FIRE now.  And if it had been on the table from the beginning I never would have even gone to high school, much less finished.

Just sayin'

+1 THIS!!!!

[Killerbrandt]

I'm not opposed to the idea.  The Finland thing is an experiment, and I look forward to the results.  I like the simplicity of it, that appeals to the engineer in me.  The shrinking of the bureaucracy appeals to the libertarian sentiments, but I'm too jaded to think that would happen.  No robot is going to take a government job!  I think if anything would have the results people are hoping for, basic income is as likely as anything.  I'm just cautious whenever there doesn't seem to be a willingness to believe the issue might be intrinsic to who we are.  Do we keep trying new things?  Sure.  But it's possible the solution will always be imperfect and messy.

I'm curious if you ever asked that question of your students ABS.  Asking the question of the people around me, who have debts that $800/mo won't even cover, and who have become accustomed to living off of more, of course that's what they would say.  It's a false positive response though.  They aren't answering from a place where they've considered the full implications.  But it is very tied up in what they have already "earned".  There's a guy I work with right now who could stop working, but he'd be "giving up" his pension if he retires "too early".  As far as my friends?  100% would quit.  All of us.  Talked about it last night, everyone agreed that would be enough.  Now, we'd definitely use the opportunity to create a business and see what we could accomplish, because that'd be fun and now relatively risk free.  So maybe that proves the point.

It's a very different question asking someone who lives off of $1200/mo if they would keep that up, or who manages to make $600/mo part time if they would.  The one guy I know living at such a base level looked extremely uncomfortable when I was talking to him about it, and when pressed admitted that he'd have to figure out how to keep his current income off book to get the maximum benefit.  Excited by the idea of more money, not thrilled that he'd have to become a tax cheat.  I love America!  Upon realizing you'd now have an income tax obligation -> instantly decides to try to avoid paying them.

So maybe it would just liberate the true wage slaves.  But I don't see it as truly beneficial until jobs truly become impossible to find, because of robots.

I think the robots are coming, but I'm not sure it's a problem to fix before they get here.  And they aren't that close for most jobs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P9geWwi9e0

They are scary close though.  I think we're alot closer to piloted remote vehicles making existing jobs safer/easier, so maybe the next generation in 20 or 30 years needs this.

Just to support. I know my wife and I would probably quit our jobs. I asked my friends, who are also professionals and ALL said they would quit a lot sooner and lots said they would have never pursued a higher degree if they got a monthly pay check, they would just do a minwage job to cover the difference and not need to stress so hard at their engineering jobs, lawyer jobs, or financial institute jobs. SO YES! I am starting to think the outlier saying is wrong. There are lot of us out there that would up and quit (Mostly Professionals). 

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I wondered in the book and movie how they still had functioning urinals and such.   Who was still getting up at 7am to replace those worn urinal cakes when the aliens were providing everything?

There's far fewer public restrooms.  Robots don't pee so you don't even have to put a restroom in the places like warehouses and factories.

Janitorial service is on par with delivery service for how soon robots will be doing the lionshare.  I bought my mom a robot vacuum and she's about ready to retire dad from service.  If there was a robot that was as easy to blame for the kitchen being a mess he'd be out of a job entirely, and if there was a robot that could clean up the kitchen I'm not sure they'd still have anything to talk about.

[PKFFW]

Just to support. I know my wife and I would probably quit our jobs. I asked my friends, who are also professionals and ALL said they would quit a lot sooner and lots said they would have never pursued a higher degree if they got a monthly pay check, they would just do a minwage job to cover the difference and not need to stress so hard at their engineering jobs, lawyer jobs, or financial institute jobs. SO YES! I am starting to think the outlier saying is wrong. There are lot of us out there that would up and quit (Mostly Professionals).

There are a couple of problems with these sorts of "I asked all my friends...." surveys.

1:  Many people say one thing but do another.  Lots of people may say they would quit work if only they were given a few bucks a month and go live the simple life.  Far fewer people would actually do it.  Just look at how many of these people could have done their degree, got a junior level position in the field and stayed there making just enough to pay their bills and not having the stress.  Instead, by the sounds of it, they have not done that.  Why?

2:  These people are answering your question with the benefit of hindsight.  They see what they have done over their career and are now making the decision that it wasn't worth it.  They believe had they had the choice "back then" they would have skipped it all and taken the few bucks and lived the simple life.  I respectfully suggest that this is very unlikely to be the case.  "Back then" they had things they wanted to achieve, buy, do etc and they saw their high paying career as the means to that end.  Plenty of less stressful, less hours, less demanding jobs out there.  If these people truly would have been happy surviving on $800pm they could have done so without too much effort.  Sure, more than being paid to do nothing but not much more.

3:  Extrapolating the idea that other, younger people, would in large numbers take the option of never working if given the option of $800pm to do nothing does not account for the fact that these younger people are products of their culture.  They have been trained from birth to be good, hardworking, debt ridden, consumers.  I think very few would, at age 18 or so, see beyond the conditioning that tells them buying things makes them happy, keeping up with the Jones' is everything, more more more is the meaning of life.  They would see $800pm as being enough to survive on the basics but their programming, if nothing else, will compel the majority to go out and find work to fulfill those desires.

So, in closing, I would say that YES the outlier theory is likely to be correct.

[Roland of Gilead]

If everything is provided for you what is the incentive to do anything?

You only, ever, do things for money?

And you think everyone else is this way?

In general yeah, I kind of do.  Examine if you will the mentality on this board.   People strive to retire as early as possible, by living below their means and saving money.   If we took a poll, how many of them do you think would be willing to change bed pans, replace urinal cakes, clean shit from the walls and ceiling of a public restroom, sit on an assembly line for 8 hours placing part A into a bin and part B into a slot?   Once they have enough money to live a simple, comfortable life, they retire and do what they want (it is almost the motto of MMM).    Sure, some charity work here and there, but mostly feel good stuff, not making trips to the downtown bridges and wiping up the vomit from drug addicts sleeping in the cold.

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

[arebelspy]

I disagree.

[Killerbrandt]

If everything is provided for you what is the incentive to do anything?

You only, ever, do things for money?

And you think everyone else is this way?

In general yeah, I kind of do.  Examine if you will the mentality on this board.   People strive to retire as early as possible, by living below their means and saving money.   If we took a poll, how many of them do you think would be willing to change bed pans, replace urinal cakes, clean shit from the walls and ceiling of a public restroom, sit on an assembly line for 8 hours placing part A into a bin and part B into a slot?   Once they have enough money to live a simple, comfortable life, they retire and do what they want (it is almost the motto of MMM).    Sure, some charity work here and there, but mostly feel good stuff, not making trips to the downtown bridges and wiping up the vomit from drug addicts sleeping in the cold.

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

I agree with giving everyone a job plan (unless disabled), better than, lets just throw money at them plan.

[arebelspy]

Assuring that people have a basic minimum standard of living is not "throwing money at them."

[Zaga]

It's too difficult to define "disabled" IMO.  A good friend of ours would be called disabled by almost any measure, paralyzed most of his life from the chest down.  However he worked until he was over 50, and it wasn't a crap job either!  Then people who are physically completely well might have a so-called invisible illness like overwhelming anxiety.  Who's to decide who is disabled and who is required to work. 

Yes, I know those are anecdotes and not stats, but they are enough to introduce doubt. 

In this age, we really should be able to give all people basic dignity.  If a monthly stipend for everyone (or possibly means tested) is a good way to do that, then sure, give it a try.

[arebelspy]

In this age, we really should be able to give all people basic dignity.  If a monthly stipend for everyone (or possibly means tested) is a good way to do that, then sure, give it a try.

+1.

ESPECIALLY once we have robots for the menial cleaning jobs people keep loving to bring up (replace urinal cakes).

[Roland of Gilead]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

I really think people need to do some form of work for money.  It gives them a sense of purpose.   Even disabled people seem to benefit from some form of work that does not overly stress their disability.

I think these jobs would need to be provided by the government, which will cost taxpayers, but the long term benefit would be better than the "hand out checks" strategy.

[arebelspy]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

Yup.

I really think people need to do some form of work for money.  It gives them a sense of purpose.   Even disabled people seem to benefit from some form of work that does not overly stress their disability.

Then let them work.  Who's stopping them?

[Roland of Gilead]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

Yup.

Ok, are you willing to extend that to kids too?   Are you wiling to give parents $1000 a month or whatever and if they blow it all in the first week, are you willing to let the parents and kids starve on the street?

[GuitarStv]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

Yup.

Ok, are you willing to extend that to kids too?   Are you wiling to give parents $1000 a month or whatever and if they blow it all in the first week, are you willing to let the parents and kids starve on the street?

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

[Roland of Gilead]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

[GuitarStv]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

[RunHappy]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

[sixup]

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

Actually there's a lot of research showing that external rewards barely motivate people. Particularly money tends to actually make people dislike the activity even if it was something they might have previously enjoyed doing without the monetary reward.

[GuitarStv]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

My original point was that there's no real way to stop someone who is determined to hurt themselves and their family.  If you provide free breakfast and lunch at school, they can just homeschool their kids to starve them.  See?

[arebelspy]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

Yeah, it's great, we should keep it up.

How is that relevant again?

[Cassie]

To see if it makes financial sense you need to figure out how much we spend on human service programs and what we would spend with a guaranteed income. However, we would be saving a lot of $ on salaries and benefits for the workers. The other problem I see is that is Soc Sec is included this is a problem because it is a major source of income for retirees or disabled people and most get more then $800/month.  I realize it does not have to be that magic # but likely to be less then what they are getting now.  I would not favor giving it to children. I have worked in summer free lunch programs and little kids will come alone towing behind younger siblings and crossing busy streets just to get a cold sandwich and piece of fruit so yes those kids are hungry. 

[Roland of Gilead]

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

Actually there's a lot of research showing that external rewards barely motivate people. Particularly money tends to actually make people dislike the activity even if it was something they might have previously enjoyed doing without the monetary reward.

There is a lot of research that shows people will be unhappy if you just give them something if they see others are getting something better.   The classic case of this is the two monkey test where one is given cucumber and is happy until he sees the other monkey being given a grape.  It is a pretty funny video and the monkey with the cucumber gets so upset he gets violent.

So in the situation where we provide free money, it is expected a similar thing would happen.  Those receiving the money would still be unhappy when they see others with more.

[matchewed]

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

Actually there's a lot of research showing that external rewards barely motivate people. Particularly money tends to actually make people dislike the activity even if it was something they might have previously enjoyed doing without the monetary reward.

There is a lot of research that shows people will be unhappy if you just give them something if they see others are getting something better.   The classic case of this is the two monkey test where one is given cucumber and is happy until he sees the other monkey being given a grape.  It is a pretty funny video and the monkey with the cucumber gets so upset he gets violent.

So in the situation where we provide free money, it is expected a similar thing would happen.  Those receiving the money would still be unhappy when they see others with more.

But in the context of that the other people aren't receiving the grape from the government. They're earning the grape on top of the cucumber being given. If people who only get a cucumber want a grape they can go work for it.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

Yup.

Ok, are you willing to extend that to kids too?   Are you wiling to give parents $1000 a month or whatever and if they blow it all in the first week, are you willing to let the parents and kids starve on the street?

Arguments against giving any help whatsoever.

Given that there will be some form of assistance, the idea with BI is that it is a highly efficient program tailored to provide the maximum possible assistance per dollar spent.  The argument for it is not that it will solve all problems, its that it will solve the solvable ones.

School lunches is an interesting corollary, because in this case we were able to take advantage of infrastructure that already existed (school cafeterias) and just give them money to feed kids that couldn't buy the lunch.  We didn't need a whole bureaucracy to administer it (though I seriously hope someone posts a link to a bureaucracy we created anyway).

School lunches are wildly more successful now than they used to be.  Because now the schools don't make it obvious who is getting the free lunch, so there's no pride that causes parents to not want it for their child.  When I was in school, many of the kids didn't get signed up for the lunch and had to go without because their parents were too ashamed.

BI, given to everyone, isn't something that runs into this problem.  It stops being about who is on the dole and who isn't, and starts being just part of the social fabric.  It's like the fire department or EMS, it's just there, and there's no judgement on those who need it.

[Cassie]

The summer lunch programs are open to any kid that comes. YOu do not need to sign up or qualify.

[Roland of Gilead]

Well, I am reasonably sure basic income would not work in the USA but we can try it.   The danger is it fails utterly but becomes entrenched.  Finland is a much less diverse, much smaller test subject with perhaps a different work ethic (which could change in a generation or two depending on the eventual outcome of this program).

I do not think I would be willing to extend my employment by a number of years just so someone else can get a basic income for their entire life, should they choose not to work.  It does not seem fair for me and I bet they would view it the other way (the lower income given to them is not fair to them).

I am fairly shocked if a large portion of the people on MMM would be willing to go back to work after being FIRE'd just so they can provide a basic level of income to others who choose not to work.    Perhaps I will do a poll and see just how many people would support this plan.

[iris lily]

Well, I am reasonably sure basic income would not work in the USA but we can try it.   The danger is it fails utterly but becomes entrenched.  Finland is a much less diverse, much smaller test subject with perhaps a different work ethic (which could change in a generation or two depending on the eventual outcome of this program).

I do not think I would be willing to extend my employment by a number of years just so someone else can get a basic income for their entire life, should they choose not to work.  It does not seem fair for me and I bet they would view it the other way (the lower income given to them is not fair to them).

I am fairly shocked if a large portion of the people on MMM would be willing to go back to work after being FIRE'd just so they can provide a basic level of income to others who choose not to work.    Perhaps I will do a poll and see just how many people would support this plan.

Why do you think you'd have to go back to work? Sincere question.

We haven't really determined how much each citizen would get in tHis program. You assume it would cost more ? than current social services.

[RunHappy]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

My original point was that there's no real way to stop someone who is determined to hurt themselves and their family.  If you provide free breakfast and lunch at school, they can just homeschool their kids to starve them.  See?

You're talking about something that is probably a very small fraction of a percentage.  Should we not give something to 99.99% of the population because .01% are psychopaths?

[Roland of Gilead]

Why do you think you'd have to go back to work? Sincere question.

We haven't really determined how much each citizen would get in tHis program. You assume it would cost more ? than current social services.

If the program doesn't cost more than current social services, then what has changed?

Will relabeling things be enough?   Instead of welfare checks, section 8 housing, and food stamps, we just allocate the same money as Universal Basic Income and everyone becomes happy?

The way I see this plan described is it provides a basic level of income to everyone even if they don't work.   That requires an enormous amount of resources which cannot even be correctly calculated because you do not know what your future tax base will be.   If everyone decides this basic income is enough to meet their needs and they start pursuing their passion of water color painting, who is going to be the sucker left working to provide the revenue for the program?

It is a very naive plan and likely will only work in certain parts of the world and perhaps only for a few generations.   Feel free to give it a try though.

[RunHappy]

Why do you think you'd have to go back to work? Sincere question.

We haven't really determined how much each citizen would get in tHis program. You assume it would cost more ? than current social services.

If the program doesn't cost more than current social services, then what has changed?

Will relabeling things be enough?   Instead of welfare checks, section 8 housing, and food stamps, we just allocate the same money as Universal Basic Income and everyone becomes happy?

The way I see this plan described is it provides a basic level of income to everyone even if they don't work.   That requires an enormous amount of resources which cannot even be correctly calculated because you do not know what your future tax base will be.   If everyone decides this basic income is enough to meet their needs and they start pursuing their passion of water color painting, who is going to be the sucker left working to provide the revenue for the program?

It is a very naive plan and likely will only work in certain parts of the world and perhaps only for a few generations.   Feel free to give it a try though.

It has "worked" in our country.  Social Security is nothing more than a basic income for retired people.  The only reason it is generally accepted and not lumped in with all the "welfare" complaints is that everyone gets social security once they reach a certain age, regardless of income.  Trump gets the same amount of social security as my dad. 

[iris lily]

How do you assure that the money you hand out will be used for food and shelter?   Do you put everyone in section 8 housing and hand deliver food each day?

If you give everyone $1000 a month and a person spends it all the first week on cigarettes, drugs, big screen tv, or the casino, do you then say, ok, now I feel better that we at least tried and we can let them starve/be outside cold.

Yup.

Ok, are you willing to extend that to kids too?   Are you wiling to give parents $1000 a month or whatever and if they blow it all in the first week, are you willing to let the parents and kids starve on the street?

Arguments against giving any help whatsoever.

Given that there will be some form of assistance, the idea with BI is that it is a highly efficient program tailored to provide the maximum possible assistance per dollar spent.  The argument for it is not that it will solve all problems, its that it will solve the solvable ones.

School lunches is an interesting corollary, because in this case we were able to take advantage of infrastructure that already existed (school cafeterias) and just give them money to feed kids that couldn't buy the lunch.  We didn't need a whole bureaucracy to administer it (though I seriously hope someone posts a link to a bureaucracy we created anyway).

School lunches are wildly more successful now than they used to be.  Because now the schools don't make it obvious who is getting the free lunch, so there's no pride that causes parents to not want it for their child.  When I was in school, many of the kids didn't get signed up for the lunch and had to go without because their parents were too ashamed.

BI, given to everyone, isn't something that runs into this problem.  It stops being about who is on the dole and who isn't, and starts being just part of the social fabric.  It's like the fire department or EMS, it's just there, and there's no judgement on those who need it.

Here's that link, and Of Course there is a whole department of bureaucrats to administer the national school,lunch,program. There are thousands of employees covering that who  are nutritionists, analysts, web designers, accountants, etc.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp

[Zaga]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

My original point was that there's no real way to stop someone who is determined to hurt themselves and their family.  If you provide free breakfast and lunch at school, they can just homeschool their kids to starve them.  See?

Which is why Child and Youth Services exist.  It's not like ALL government programs would go away with a universal income program!

[Roland of Gilead]

It has "worked" in our country.  Social Security is nothing more than a basic income for retired people.  The only reason it is generally accepted and not lumped in with all the "welfare" complaints is that everyone gets social security once they reach a certain age, regardless of income.  Trump gets the same amount of social security as my dad.

Social Security is a forced saving program, not a basic guaranteed universal income.   If you don't gain 40 work credits or marry someone who has, you don't get this income.

Social Security is actually a good example of a reward system for working, not a universal basic income example.

[GuitarStv]

If someone desperately wants to starve themselves and their family, they will.  There's really very little you can do to prevent this with any government program.

Ah, no.  We started the school lunch program in the USA (and some have expanded it to include other meals) because a large number of kids were not getting meals from parents, quite a few of whom WERE being given a stipend and housing from the government.

And the school lunch program has solved child hunger in the US?

It hasn't solved it, no, but it has helped.  Imagine being a 7 year old kid trying to learn to read and write with an empty stomach.  It just doesn't happen.  I personally think every child should get breakfast and lunch at school regardless of age or income.

My original point was that there's no real way to stop someone who is determined to hurt themselves and their family.  If you provide free breakfast and lunch at school, they can just homeschool their kids to starve them.  See?

You're talking about something that is probably a very small fraction of a percentage.  Should we not give something to 99.99% of the population because .01% are psychopaths?

No, my argument was in favour of the UBI.  I brought up the point that if someone is determined not to eat there's little you can do to fix the problem as a way of showing that there's no need to ditch something generally beneficial just because it doesn't work in all scenarios.

[arebelspy]

Humans want to be rewarded for work.  Instead of just giving everyone a stipend, it would be much better to give everyone a job.

Actually there's a lot of research showing that external rewards barely motivate people. Particularly money tends to actually make people dislike the activity even if it was something they might have previously enjoyed doing without the monetary reward.

There is a lot of research that shows people will be unhappy if you just give them something if they see others are getting something better.   The classic case of this is the two monkey test where one is given cucumber and is happy until he sees the other monkey being given a grape.  It is a pretty funny video and the monkey with the cucumber gets so upset he gets violent.

So in the situation where we provide free money, it is expected a similar thing would happen.  Those receiving the money would still be unhappy when they see others with more.

Exactly.  Everyone would receive the money, those with less would be jealous of those working with more, and they'd go to work.

But it would give them a safety net to start businesses, make art, whatever they want.  Take risks and try things.

[GuitarStv]

For people who do want to continue working, UBI would be great as well.  Imagine working at a place where the people there want to be there.  Where if management does something that pisses everyone off you don't have to just grin and bear it . . .

I think general working conditions would significantly benefit from implementation of this.