Skip to main content

Week 12 [16.01-22.01] Finland experiments with universal basic income scheme

By Jarek_Ziem


Fot.1 http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/Finland-money-624756.jpg

Finland's experimental scheme to provide its citizens with a basic income, regardless of employment, launched earlier this week.
The two-year pilot scheme will provide 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens, aged between 25 and 58, with a monthly basic income of 560 euros ($581.48) that will replace their other social benefits.
These citizens will continue to receive the basic income even if they find work.
Kela, the organization which runs Finland's social security systems and is running the pilot scheme, hopes the basic income experiment will boost employment, because the current system can potentially discourage the unemployed to find work as their earnings reduce the benefits they may receive.
"For someone receiving a basic income, there are no repercussions if they work a few days or a couple of weeks," said Marjukka Turunen, head of Kela's Legal Affairs Unit, in a press release.
"Incidental earnings do not reduce the basic income, so working and self-employment are worthwhile no matter what."

Fot2. http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2015/11/25/103197090-GettyImages-142014996.530x298.jpg?v=1448466031

Basic income would fix this, he says: “It would activate many more unemployed people.”
This is a part of the debate that often gets missed. Monthly checks for everyone may look like socialism, but proponents advance it to invigorate capitalism.
From Italy to India, companies that would like to leave behind unprofitable enterprises in favor of fresh pursuits hold back because of the expense and reputational damage of firing people. Basic income could be the tool that makes restructuring palatable.
With basic income in place, companies might be more inclined to take a risk on hiring more aggressively — adding vigor to the local economy — knowing they have the freedom to be ruthless in cutting loose those workers who prove disappointing.

FRIEDRICH HAYEK: I have no objection against a flat minimum security to everybody who cannot earn enough in the market.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: There is a great deal that the society can and must do if the Negro is to gain the economic security that he needs. Now, one of the answers, it seems to me, is a guaranteed annual income, a guaranteed minimum income, for all people and for all families of our country.

RICHARD NIXON: What I am proposing is that the Federal Government build a foundation under the income of every American family with dependent children that cannot care for itself — and wherever in America that family may live.

What do you think about basic income?
Would you be happy to receive basic income?
What could be disadvantages of basic income in Poland?

Resurces:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/business/economy/universal-basic-income-finland.html?_r=0
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/03/finland-experiments-universal-basic-income.html
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mincome/



Comments

Unknown said…
I don't know, sounds like another socialist idea that could backfire. Giving people money for doing nothing will always backfire, causing many of them to be fine with what they are getting. Granted this bonus doesn't go away when you get the job - but how can they sustain such a thing? And I thought 500+ is heavy on budget.
18 January 2017 at 13:49
Ihor Ahnianikov said…
I think that it's a terrible idea, at least for now. Also this experiment can't be trusted because people will know that basic income is temporary and will not act like it is a real thing.

Money help us to measure the utility of everything. If everyone gets the basic income then everyone will start doing what they want - and of course Finnish government thinks that people will become painters, engineers, scientists instead of living from paycheck to paycheck while hating the current job. I think that people will start playing video games and laying on the couch 24/7 since basic income will cover food and rent expenses.

Money represent cruel motivation: "If you want to eat and pay for rent do something that society needs now", but I can't imagine a better solution, only if all hated jobs are taken by robots - but in this case basic income will not be necessary at all.
19 January 2017 at 23:53
Jarek_Ziem said…
Your point of view is like mine. I agree with you, but we must still remember human motivation Theory X and Y, created by Douglas McGregor. Probably 60-70% will lay down in front of their televisions because they hate their job or are lazy in nature. But we have think about the rest 30%, the people who are in need or seeking for a perfect job to fulfill themselves professionally.
20 January 2017 at 13:06
Michał Pycek said…
I agree with the opinion that it is not a good idea, because it does not motivate the people. When people start receving something for nothing, they become more lazy, less productive, less goal oriented and interested in long-term future. It can happen due to the safety the feel and basic needs the get fulfilled, so some of them think it is enough for them and they do not look for any change of their lifestyle.
22 January 2017 at 12:02
Unknown said…
I don’t think that’s a good idea. In normal country you are rewarded for your job. In my opinion giving people money for nothing is the worst what can happen. People become lazy, they start thinking “I've received the money that's due me”. People should have some motivation.
22 January 2017 at 14:05
Unknown said…
Through this project the more people don't go to work because what if they will still get money. The state should help when someone is working, but unfortunately doesn't give advice for example payments.
22 January 2017 at 14:29
Krzysztof Maciaszek said…
I don’t really know what to think about this idea, it sounds kinda good but I’m afraid that it may backfire in lowering the GDP of Finland.
Besides the money given to people doesn’t come from thin air, the government takes it from people in taxes and gives them it back again.
I don’t really see how would it work, but I might be wrong :)
22 January 2017 at 14:59
Piotr Basiński said…
I'm not sure this idea is good or bad. Free money for people could make some of them more secure and happier so why not. It could be interesting to privide simillar system in our country. We would see how things go.
22 January 2017 at 16:48
Unknown said…
I think that it is good idea to try such thing, but it won't work for now. I am quite sure that at some point most of our jobs will be taken by robots and AI, and then we will need such social system. I think its good idea, because they do not provide income for everyone, but for those who don't have work, as i presume. I cannot wait to see what will be happening in Finland in few months.
22 January 2017 at 19:32
Marcin Suska s10707 said…
Maybe instead give free money for everyone they should stop take as much money peapole with hard working. In a lot of country is progresive tax - for me that is penalty for work. Do you work harder? Government takes more money from you. universal basic income only harm a lot of peapole with they will have to pay more taxes on it.
22 January 2017 at 19:58
Unknown said…
I guess people in Finnish government do know what they do. If they can afford it - why not. Citizens know that they are protected, even if they have problems with their job they wouldn't rob the shops. They have a possibility to survive. This is the high level if the country is inventing such a system. I am so impressed by Scandinavian way of living, I am just glad for those happy people, who live their in safety and much less stressed.
I don't think that it will stop them from finding the job, cause 500 euro it's not so much money in Finland.
22 January 2017 at 22:08
Unknown said…
It's an amazing idea. I think it's always good when the government gives us money because they have a lot of them. However some people may spend this money in a wrong way, for example on alcohol or drugs.
22 January 2017 at 22:13
Unknown said…
I totally agree. That finish idea sounds really interesting, I'm curious whether it would succeed.
22 January 2017 at 22:41
Wojtek Kania said…
In my opinion this is very bad decision. I think there are many people who knows Janusz Korwin-Mikke and his point of view. I totally agree with JKM. Goverment of Finland should lower taxes. When goverment give you for example 100 USD, they must take from citizen 120 USD, because they need to pay a official who gave you these 100 USD.
22 January 2017 at 23:12
Adam Nowak said…
That's BS. People don't usually consider money as virtual, and that's bad. Do you really think that society will be wealthier when you give them a bunch of money? There is a phenomenom in economy called "inflation". If you give everyone 1000$, then you give them nothing. More money in pocket means that there will be a higher demand on products on market, but the quantity of them (products) are constant. It will then raise the price of various goods, because sellers can do that to raise their profit, and they can do that because consumers are willing to pay more, because they are "wealthier". Then what happen? You have 1000$ more, but in fact you can buy less, even before receiving money! The real source of wealth is work, both mental and physical. Giving free money wouldn't solve nothing.
22 January 2017 at 23:27
Unknown said…
It is hard for me to comment on that because I do not have bid knowladge in such cases and do not know well Finnish reality. This experiment is interesting in its own way, and I'm curious to see how it end up, however, I'm not a fan of the generous support for the unemployed and of course I'm not talking about people with physical or mental disability, but only about those who do not want to work, and without any problem they could. Too big benefits helps to increase the laziness in a society.
22 January 2017 at 23:40
KamilG said…
I'm not supporter of socialism which helps citizens at all costs. In every society are people who don't care about working, they prefer earning money easily, exactly by taking governmental benefits. I think that the government should help only those citizens who really need it and can do it in another way than giving them money directly to their hands. Most of people are lazy - it's due to our nature and that's why they should be motivated by giving them proposition of jobs, trainings etc.
23 January 2017 at 00:06
kondrat said…
Maybe it can work in Finland, but in Poland it wouldn't. Polish people are too lazy to use such money in proper way. Pathological society would fell deeper in their troubles if money was given to them for free, without any return in favor.
23 January 2017 at 01:27
Bartosz Łyżwa said…
I have no enough knowledge to speak about this but as a colleague above - I don't think it could work in Poland because we are so lazy. There is a simple example in our country. I mean 500+, it's great about people that haven't money to educate but many times that money is spent for "new" cars from Germany :D
23 January 2017 at 21:33
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 11 [03-09.06.2019] The problem with ecological cars emission in UK

By
The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust.   The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog.   What is smog?   Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds often come fr
32 comments
Read more

Week 12 (12.01-18.01.15) Are you an early bird or a night owl ?

By
Owls are nocturnal creatures. They’re wide awake at night and they sleep during the day. If this sounds like bliss to you, then, like about 20 percent of the population who find themselves most active at around 9 pm, you may fall into the same category as our feathered friend. Night owls often have difficulty waking up in the morning, and like to be up late at night.  Studies of animal behaviour indicate that being a night owl may actually be built into some people’s genes. This would explain why those late-to-bed, late-to-rise people find it so difficult to change their behaviour. The trouble for night owls is that they just have to be at places such as work and school far too early. This is when the alarm clock becomes the night owl’s most important survival tool. Experts say that one way for a night owl to beat their dependence on their alarm clocks is to sleep with the curtains open. The Theory is that if they do so, the morning sunlight will awaken them gently and naturally.
59 comments
Read more

Week 4 [06-12.11.2017] This is what happens when you reply to spam email.

By
James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s  way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?
43 comments
Read more