UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME 1600.00 PER MONTH

Why did Finland abandon it after the trial?

I think Finland abandoned it because the results were inconclusive. Participants reported better mental health and wellbeing, which, frankly, would be an obvious result of removing stress about money, but they were no more likely to get a job than were the control group.

I'm not sure what the objectives of the trial were in the first place.

There's an analysis of it here:

www.businessinsider.com/finland-basic-income-experiment-reasons-for-failure-2019-12?op=1&r=US&IR=T

But if you google it there are lots of results.

But does it matter if it does not lead to getting a job if there are not going to be any jobs due to AI? I thought this was one part of trying to prepare for the future. The world of work is going to change whether we like it or not. Do we care about what will happen to ordinary people as a result of those changes or not?
If we care we have to think of ways to cope with the changes and this is an experiment which may or not be the answer.
To dismiss this out of hand is burying our heads in the sand and hoping that AI will just go away.

That's another reason why we would need a massive shift in our ways of looking at things, and what we value.

If robots are going to take jobs, work will no longer be the way people contribute to society, so those who choose not to work (and there may be a lot of them) will no longer be non-contributors. There may be other ways in which people can contribute (outside of their own families), but we don't know what they will be yet. I think that humans always want to have differences in status, which is why communism never works. Occupation has, for years, been the basis of that, not always fairly at all.

People make judgements on one another based on the job they do, yet as we saw in lockdown, it is by no means those at 'the top' who contribute most. It has long been time for a rethink about that sort of thing, and as lost jobs will hit people across the 'classes' it won't be as simple as consigning those at the bottom to the scrap heap.

It's impossible to tell what will replace occupation as a marker of 'class', or if we will need 'class' at all - but without non-violent ways of proclaiming status (such as earning power and the ability to own status symbols such as expensive cars), alpha personalities will find other ways to show that they are higher up the pecking order. It's important that we recognise this and build in a means to do it that is beneficial to society. Many people need something to strive for, and in the past that could be achieved with a career. If that goes, and with less of a need for working to live, maybe we can find a way to channel ambition and dominance (in those who have them) in ways that work for the common good. Maybe those who aren't so 'driven' will get respect for different types of contributions. A society that isn't run around money (if that's what we end up with) won't need financial contributions in the way that we've been used to, so those who don't want to work won't be viewed as 'takers' rather than contributors, and other attributes will be more highly valued.

It could be a good way to live, but only if it is managed by good people. Unfortunately, these things tend not to be.

AI really can't take over all possible jobs. As humans, personal interactions are very important. Covid has demonstrated, among other things, that personal contact is important. Nursing care, for example, can't be replaced by robots. There will be jobs left!

It's also really damaging to people not to have a purpose, work provides numerous benefits that arent financial, I dont think not working is good for many people.

Galaxy

It's also really damaging to people not to have a purpose, work provides numerous benefits that arent financial, I dont think not working is good for many people.

That's what I meant by saying that other ways of contributing might be found.

Yes I agree. It feels to me a bit like one of those things that's seen as ok for 'others' but obviously not for those proposing it. They will still be in high paying jobs I am sure.

But speaking of the UC i mentioned- ive now been reduced to £976 a mth including rent- the reason?? As im now getting more UC (because of the GOV'T RAISE- for inflation) they deducted it from the transitional money (£120 p.m) which was intended to make sure i had no less on UC than on ESA- Surely that cant be allowed??I only had what everyone else was raised to by Gov't to allow us to afford the higher cost of living now.Im not earning or working- which is what they informed me the lowering of the transiton money was intended for at the outset.They're changing the rules for it as they go along and they would definitely do the same for any new basic payments.Including pensions.They did it by adding rent on at beginning instead of adding AFTER benefits- yet anyone NOT claiming housing benefit gets to keep their raise!Oh and that includes my rent housing benefit of £499 p.m which ive then to top up with £226 of my own money so im left with MUCH less than Gov't say we need to live on- is'nt that why they hired it? So we could have enough to live on?And if you ask for discretionary extra rent from council either you are refused or they can only pay a part of that and for only up to 6mths!😠

Annierob

The idea is every adult has a basic income. You can still work etc and would be taxed as usual.
There would be no benefit system and no state pensions.
Most people would want more money than a basic income.
No poverty, no children growing up with inadequate food.
Money would be saved by no admin to administer benefits etc.
Most jobs done by A1.
Sounds futuristic but that future is coming soon.
It frees human beings to live as they want to.
I think it’s very interesting.

Me too Annierob. Like many I am sure there will be problems with the introduction of UBI which will need to be looked at, such as how it would affect the disabled. But that's why I think trying it out now is the best thing to do. The fact that A.I. WILL do a lot of the jobs done by people now, is inevitable, so SOMETHING needs to be done; we can't just ignore it.

In the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, many people suffered as a result; we didn't have many social security systems then, and no safety nets.

This A.I. revolution will probably be as large a change as those, and so we need to prepare so that we are ready for it, and that as little suffering as possible can be achieved.

For this we have to change our mindset and be prepared to adjust future ways of making whatever is decided fair. It seems to be that the only way of getting there is by experimenting, starting with low numbers of people in the experiments, and as the system is tweaked as we learn more from human feedback and statistics, the numbers of participants in the trials can be increased without danger to them.

Absolutely, we must not ignore this new and huge change, must not just hope for the best but start now to find ways to make this a positive for people, all people, not just a few.
The more of these experiments the better, even if they appear to be going against our current ways of thinking.

Nannan2

But speaking of the UC i mentioned- ive now been reduced to £976 a mth including rent- the reason?? As im now getting more UC (because of the GOV'T RAISE- for inflation) they deducted it from the transitional money (£120 p.m) which was intended to make sure i had no less on UC than on ESA- Surely that cant be allowed??I only had what everyone else was raised to by Gov't to allow us to afford the higher cost of living now.Im not earning or working- which is what they informed me the lowering of the transiton money was intended for at the outset.They're changing the rules for it as they go along and they would definitely do the same for any new basic payments.Including pensions.They did it by adding rent on at beginning instead of adding AFTER benefits- yet anyone NOT claiming housing benefit gets to keep their raise!Oh and that includes my rent housing benefit of £499 p.m which ive then to top up with £226 of my own money so im left with MUCH less than Gov't say we need to live on- is'nt that why they hired it? So we could have enough to live on?And if you ask for discretionary extra rent from council either you are refused or they can only pay a part of that and for only up to 6mths!😠

My late husband was on income support due to disability, when he was moved to ESA his income was protected but, like you, when there were annual rises he did not get them until his benefit amount had equalised with the lower rates of ESA.

Machines have been taking over the boring repetitive work for many years, yet we still do not have enough workers to fill the vacant posts. we have been relying on migrant labour for many years and continue to do so.

It’s not only unskilled work, Doctors, nurses, teachers and many trades are all in short supply, maybe we have to tailor careers more to what’s needed but I don’t see any shortage of jobs.

I’d like to know why the proposed universal income is twice the current old age pension.

Presumably to stop the need for benefits and all the admin costs of means testing. Plus it would be very unfair to give a 19 year old who lives at home more money to live on than a 69 year old who lives alone. The current thinking is that pensions are to top up whatever arrangements people have made for old age, but this is intended as a universal basic income for everyone over 18.

Having finally sorted out my computer issues I have managed to read GN recently, so hello to all.

I wonder if it would help to have the definition of Basic Income as there seems to be some confusion. This is from BIEN (basicincome.org)

Basic Income is a cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement

There was a report on the Finish trial in 2020 which picked up on a strong move to make those on UBI work. This made it more like our Universal Credit scheme than UBI. It was deemed a failure because it didn't help the labour market - something UBI was never intended to do and cannot do in a country (like ours) that has an aging and sick population and a mismatch between jobs, training and pay.

UBI is not intended to be a panicea. It might be worth thinking about "What problem/s is UBI designed to solve.

Well worth thinking about and exploring the possibilities. But I'm still sceptical about our ability as a nation to make it work. The problem is always that it is more beneficial not to work than to work on low pay. This is the problem universal credit was supposed to address but as yet it hasn't worked.
IMO there would have to be safeguards such as making sure the universal income wasn't a gateway to other benefits such as housing benefit or free school meals and was truly meant to be the only state help that was given. It could be a way of limiting the benefit bill by reducing bureaucracy. It could be a way of helping disabled people work only the hours they were able without further damaging their health. It could be a replacement for the old age pension. But we would still have to ensure there were enough people able and willing to do the jobs AI can't.

GrannyRose15

Well worth thinking about and exploring the possibilities. But I'm still sceptical about our ability as a nation to make it work. The problem is always that it is more beneficial not to work than to work on low pay. This is the problem universal credit was supposed to address but as yet it hasn't worked.
IMO there would have to be safeguards such as making sure the universal income wasn't a gateway to other benefits such as housing benefit or free school meals and was truly meant to be the only state help that was given. It could be a way of limiting the benefit bill by reducing bureaucracy. It could be a way of helping disabled people work only the hours they were able without further damaging their health. It could be a replacement for the old age pension. But we would still have to ensure there were enough people able and willing to do the jobs AI can't.

Basic Income is a cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.

That underline should have run from "without".

Yes, but whatever it’s definition, as has been asked a hundred times- who will do the jobs that pay around this amount, particularly if they are going to be taxed?

If the answer is that wages will have to rise, how will people pay the higher prices that this will cause? In the end, I think everyone will still have to work to break even.

A job that pays around that amount would double their income.

Why not a least try and see what the plus points night be? That would only strengthen your argument if you could then show it wouldn't work.

If you read the thread you would see that I am largely supportive, and have definitely pointed out plus points.

Katie59

That’s nearly £20k a year, so a single person would be able to rent a flat and have over £12k pocket money with no incentive to do anything.
Where do these ideas come from.

And meanwhile, one DGD earns less than that pm and can’t afford to buy/rent a flat, despite working full time.
A basic rent (1 bed flat) she lives would eat most of that.
She, and the people getting the grant would still have to pay rates, fuel and utilities, so there might not be much left from the £12K.

Mollygo

Katie59

That’s nearly £20k a year, so a single person would be able to rent a flat and have over £12k pocket money with no incentive to do anything.
Where do these ideas come from.

And meanwhile, one DGD earns less than that pm and can’t afford to buy/rent a flat, despite working full time.
A basic rent (1 bed flat) she lives would eat most of that.
She, and the people getting the grant would still have to pay rates, fuel and utilities, so there might not be much left from the £12K.

People could move to where housing costs are cheaper though (if they didn't need a job), and get more for their money. Over time this would bring down rent and house prices in expensive areas and in turn allow geographical mobility across the country.

I think this would be a positive outcome, as many people are unable to take jobs or training schemes/internships in London or the SE, because of the difference in prices, yet we are always hearing how someone from that part of the country could buy a whole street in Liverpool from the sale of their small flat.

GrannyRose15

I’d like to know why the proposed universal income is twice the current old age pension.

From what I understand, this amount is just for the trial. If it was actually to be brought in would be for a much lower amount.