Finland to End Giving Free Money to the Jobless

[WuWei]

@Konssurvative1

It just forces me to say more than I want to say…LOL

Yep…

[Auto129]

Robots are like illegals that don’t need to eat, sleep, or be paid. Do you think illegals cause job shortages or create more jobs?

[Cratic3947]

Robots are machines not humans. So, my industrial rev analogy still holds. Did better machines cause job loses or create more jobs and higher standards of living in the long run?

[Auto129]

They function the same way in the economy. An illegal picks fruit cheaper than an American and a robot is just cheaper still.

I agree with you, they both make the country more wealthy and create jobs.

[Janet_Miller]

Per your linked article, the majority of Finns are uncomfortable with the idea of that guaranteed income without those receiving it at least looking for another job, or taking advantage of job training. Scroll down to the end, and guaranteed income is redundant, as Finns have offered to them by the state health care and university tuition to retrain for something.

It appears in the middle that those in the Silicon Valley see such a scheme as encouraging employers to make use of technology like robotics, as humans wouldn’t be necessary at all and wouldn’t want to work if they had an unconditional guaranteed income. So no, IMO the Finns would be serving the majority well, both those gainfully employed and un or underemployed, if guaranteed income no strings attached was abolished.

[Janet_Miller]

They don’t. But those operating and maintaining and repairing them do. They don’t function like Rosie the robotic housekeeper in The Jetsons.

[Cratic3947]

The initial cost for a robot is not cheaper. And building robots makes jobs. You don’t build illegals. You exploit them.

[zantax]

@Cratic3947

The initial cost for a robot is not cheaper. And building robots makes jobs. You don’t build illegals. You exploit them.

Bingo, there is already a machine that will harvest just about any crop, but they still use illegals instead. As for what robots will do to the job market, I expect it will kill off mostly factory type jobs, so for instance, you’ll be able to buy a cheap sofa made by robots, or spend more for a handcrafted one made by humans. Humans will shift from factory work to artisans. And instead of compensating for any jobs lost to robots with “free” government money, if there is a net loss, why not just reduce the work week instead?

[zantax]

@Janet_Miller

They don’t. But those operating and maintaining and repairing them do. They don’t function like Rosie the robotic housekeeper in The Jetsons.

That will change, with the pace of advancement it won’t be long before there will also be robotic operators and repairmen.

[NJBob]

@Cratic3947

Jobs will not be lost to automation overall. They said the same thing about the industrial revolution,but more jobs will be created. Jobs will be better in fact. People will be wealthier, if we don’t give govt all the power because of our fear of the future.

And if you think the future is full of job shortages, why do you want open borders?

Robotics and AI are not the same as the Industrial Revolution. Ultimately human operators will not be necessary.

There isn’t a job that a robot can’t do better than a human.

And what makes you think I want open borders?

[NJBob]

@Cratic3947

The initial cost for a robot is not cheaper. And building robots makes jobs. You don’t build illegals. You exploit them.

Eventually robots will build robots and they will become cheaper.

[NJBob]

@Janet_Miller

Per your linked article, the majority of Finns are uncomfortable with the idea of that guaranteed income without those receiving it at least looking for another job, or taking advantage of job training. Scroll down to the end, and guaranteed income is redundant, as Finns have offered to them by the state health care and university tuition to retrain for something.

It appears in the middle that those in the Silicon Valley see such a scheme as encouraging employers to make use of technology like robotics, as humans wouldn’t be necessary at all and wouldn’t want to work if they had an unconditional guaranteed income. So no, IMO the Finns would be serving the majority well, both those gainfully employed and un or underemployed, if guaranteed income no strings attached was abolished.

I read the entire article and I agree that this isn’t a good idea, at least not yet.

But what about in the future? When human jobs are few and far between, what then?

[zantax]

@NJBob

@Janet_Miller

Per your linked article, the majority of Finns are uncomfortable with the idea of that guaranteed income without those receiving it at least looking for another job, or taking advantage of job training. Scroll down to the end, and guaranteed income is redundant, as Finns have offered to them by the state health care and university tuition to retrain for something.

It appears in the middle that those in the Silicon Valley see such a scheme as encouraging employers to make use of technology like robotics, as humans wouldn’t be necessary at all and wouldn’t want to work if they had an unconditional guaranteed income. So no, IMO the Finns would be serving the majority well, both those gainfully employed and un or underemployed, if guaranteed income no strings attached was abolished.

I read the entire article and I agree that this isn’t a good idea, at least not yet.

But what about in the future? When human jobs are few and far between, what then?

Maybe we will have to provide a basic income but it will only need to be a fraction of what it would have to be now. And like I said we could stave that off for a while by reducing the work week. Require overtime for anything over 30 hours, then twenty etc. By the time we need to do it, it might be peanuts to pay people enough to live comfortably.

[NJBob]

@zantax

@NJBob

@Janet_Miller

Per your linked article, the majority of Finns are uncomfortable with the idea of that guaranteed income without those receiving it at least looking for another job, or taking advantage of job training. Scroll down to the end, and guaranteed income is redundant, as Finns have offered to them by the state health care and university tuition to retrain for something.

It appears in the middle that those in the Silicon Valley see such a scheme as encouraging employers to make use of technology like robotics, as humans wouldn’t be necessary at all and wouldn’t want to work if they had an unconditional guaranteed income. So no, IMO the Finns would be serving the majority well, both those gainfully employed and un or underemployed, if guaranteed income no strings attached was abolished.

I read the entire article and I agree that this isn’t a good idea, at least not yet.

But what about in the future? When human jobs are few and far between, what then?

Maybe we will have to provide a basic income but it will only need to be a fraction of what it would have to be now. And like I said we could stave that off for a while by reducing the work week. Require overtime for anything over 30 hours, then twenty etc. By the time we need to do it, it might be peanuts to pay people enough to live comfortably.

In a fully automated (robot/AI) economy productivity could be nearly unlimited. People may be able to pursue anything they like or nothing at all and still live very comfortably.

[CanadianJudo]

They are not ending anything did you read the article? they are going to expand existing programs as because its easier then starting a new one to replace them.

[Samson_Corwell]

I’ve found an article here that calls this Times story out. Here are some excerpts:

The piece is titled “Finland Has Second Thoughts About Giving Free Money to Jobless People” and argues that the regular end of Finland’s 2-year basic income experiment indicates some kind of shift in Finnish sentiment about providing income benefits to jobless people. But no such shift has occurred at any level, not in the government and not in the public.

…what’s bizarre about the piece is that it contradicts itself on this point.

As for the basic income experiment itself, it is worth emphasizing again that it is ending exactly when the government said it was going to end when they launched it. The government is not going to do more experiments, but it never said it was going to do more experiments. As Antti Jauhiainen, Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen, and I wrote when the proposal was launched, Finland’s UBI experiment was never set up to be much more than a publicly stunt (Jauhiainen and Mäkinen specifically said as much in a later piece in the New York Times).

[NJBob]

@CanadianJudo

They are not ending anything did you read the article? they are going to expand existing programs as because its easier then starting a new one to replace them.

You must have missed the part where it says they are going to end the no strings attached money give away at the end of the year. And they are not starting new replacement programs, they already have a number of redundant programs.

[CanadianJudo]

@NJBob

You must have missed the part where it says they are going to end the no strings attached money give away at the end of the year. And they are not starting new replacement programs, they already have a number of redundant programs.

so they are going to keep basic welfare, disability, social security etc, pretty much all the program that people who would used basic income would be approved for.

[NJBob]

@CanadianJudo

@NJBob

You must have missed the part where it says they are going to end the no strings attached money give away at the end of the year. And they are not starting new replacement programs, they already have a number of redundant programs.

so they are going to keep basic welfare, disability, social security etc, pretty much all the program that people who would used basic income would be approved for.

The no strings attached money was not meant to pay for basic costs but was provided as disposable income, or so it seems. The findings of the experimental program will be interesting.

[CanadianJudo]

@NJBob

The no strings attached money was not meant to pay for basic costs but was provided as disposable income, or so it seems. The findings of the experimental program will be interesting.

all those programs provide disposable income already hence why they are keeping them and not moving people onto a new program.

clearly you have no idea what social services are like in Finland.