Universal income leads to greater employment

[DeYaKen]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

 

[FescueFan]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

LOL...99.9999% tax rate!!! Everyone is a slave to the state....lefty paradise!!

Tear your ass's kids, go get that FREE LUNCH!! LOL

 

[TarnishedPenny]

From the link:

Between November 2017 and October 2018, people on basic income worked an average of 78 days, which was six days more than those on unemployment benefits.

As dates aren't given in that, let's assume that the study was between 1 November 2017 and 31 October 2018. That's 365 days, one full year. I'm not aware of Finnish labour laws, but let's assume they work the common five-day work week, so there are 260 potential work days in that period. Cut an arbitrary 10 for public holidays like Christmas - 250. Give them three weeks' vacation and it's 235. All very round numbers and a lot of assumptions, to be sure.

Acknowledging those assumptions, let's nevertheless, for the purposes of discussion, use that 235 as the number of days the average Finn works each year.

Without commenting on whether or not a guaranteed income is a good thing, it would appear that the author was comparing apples to oranges. Somebody getting that benefit may have worked six more days than somebody getting unemployment benefits, but they worked 157 days less than the average working Finn.

In terms of improving employment, it can only be said to be an improvement when compared to those people already essentially being paid not to work.

No doubt mental health improved and that's good.

 

[rockcasbah]

I wonder what a guaranteed income would do for immigration to the USA.

Any "new americans" here? I wonder what they think.

 

[FescueFan]

I wonder what a guaranteed income would do for immigration to the USA.

Any "new americans" here? I wonder what they think.

Especially if "progressives" get around to abolishing US Customs/DHS.....opening up the borders like they so desperately want.

 

[DeYaKen]

Especially if "progressives" get around to abolishing US Customs/DHS.....opening up the borders like they so desperately want.

Surely, they can't get in. I saw mr Trump on television telling us that he has BUILT the wall. You don't have to worry about immigrants any longer.

 

[FescueFan]

Surely, they can't get in. I saw mr Trump on television telling us that he has BUILT the wall. You don't have to worry about immigrants any longer.

I'm not worried about immigrants.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that if the left could, they would make "free everything for everyone!!!" and abolish DHS, opening the borders.....because they're fucking insane.

 

[DeYaKen]

LOL...99.9999% tax rate!!! Everyone is a slave to the state....lefty paradise!!

Tear your ass's kids, go get that FREE LUNCH!! LOL

Not true.

top marginal personal income and social security tax rate – 58.4% – kicks in when people start earning 1.9 times the average wage

https://www.americanexperiment.org/...-country-because-its-taxes-everybody-heavily/

 

[icanhelp1]

Surely, they can't get in. I saw mr Trump on television telling us that he has BUILT the wall. You don't have to worry about immigrants any longer.

Part of the wall is built. That project will come to a quick conclusion if the progressive socialist take the White House. We will end up with more half measures which equates to another waste of money to pile on additional spending on reparations and a free government paycheck for all. 27 trillion in debt is not nearly enough debt for progressives.

 

[Conager]

You can't even begin to argue the most simple of cconomic concepts with such nitwits as the original poster here.

The one thing that every economist of every school agrees on is that if something cannot continue in perpetuity, it will not.

The idea that you can gather money from the populace, run that through a bureaucracy, pass it back out, nd have the net result be a more prosperous society is preposterous on its face.

A handful of days worked by some of the least productive members of your society versus completely unproductive members of society says nothing at all about the obviously corrosive effects of such a program of perverse incentives.were it to be scaled up at all economic levels of a society.

You could pass out bundles of cash in various crime-ridden neighborhoods and crime would come to a screeching halt for a week or two until they got done spending the cash and then it would occur to them that they could have the cash and the proceeds of crime.

There's never in and to the nonsense that academics can dream up to justify their existence.

 

[Rightguide]

Every one is employed by the government but production of stuff for sale suffers.

 

[DeYaKen]

Part of the wall is built. That project will come to a quick conclusion if the progressive socialist take the White House. We will end up with more half measures which equates to another waste of money to pile on additional spending on reparations and a free government paycheck for all. 27 trillion in debt is not nearly enough debt for progressives.

No That can't be true The president said "we built the wall" he didn't say we built 30 miles of wall and replace 270 miles of defective wall. He said "We Built the Wall." You are surely not telling me that the President Lied?

 

[Conager]

No That can't be true The president said "we built the wall" he didn't say we built 30 miles of wall and replace 270 miles of defective wall. He said "We Built the Wall." You are surely not telling me that the President Lied?

Shut the fuck up.

It was not a "defective wall." It was a non-existent wall as walls are defined anywhere in the world. It consisted of occasional posts designed to prevent vehicles from crossing the desert at high speed. Wouldn't even slow a parade of illegals. Was never designed to impede foot traffic.

Is there anything you actually "ken," Ken?

Your problem is that you're descended from what was left after the best and brightest removed themselves a couple of centuries ago.

 

[Ziggins]

UI instead of many agencies distributing various bits of aid could save some money, but the bureaucrats would lose their jobs. I don't recall Yang making the money saving point in debates. That could have been his route to staying in longer, or the DNC pushing him out sooner to protect their bureaucratic base.

 

[DeYaKen]

You can't even begin to argue the most simple of cconomic concepts with such nitwits as the original poster here.

The one thing that every economist of every school agrees on is that if something cannot continue in perpetuity, it will not.

The idea that you can gather money from the populace, run that through a bureaucracy, pass it back out, nd have the net result be a more prosperous society is preposterous on its face.

A handful of days worked by some of the least productive members of your society versus completely unproductive members of society says nothing at all about the obviously corrosive effects of such a program of perverse incentives.were it to be scaled up at all economic levels of a society.

You could pass out bundles of cash in various crime-ridden neighborhoods and crime would come to a screeching halt for a week or two until they got done spending the cash and then it would occur to them that they could have the cash and the proceeds of crime.

There's never in and to the nonsense that academics can dream up to justify their existence.

You can say that but this two year experiment seems to indicate that you are wrong. The probable reason that employment is increasing is that there is no downside to working. You don't have to make a significant amount of money before you are earning more than you get in benefits/welfare. More people working means more tax receipts which then pays for the income provision.

Because it is given to everyone you don't have to spend money on means tests and verification of need so it works out cheaper than than the benefit/welfare system based on need.

If you want to look at crime you should look at your own states. Those with the highest equality of income are also those with the lowest crime rates, not just for a short period but year on year.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

Don't take my word for it. take a look at the link and download the powerpoint. You'll find everything there including their sources of information.

 

[LLCox]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

I think Finland's people have a lot more class than Americans. Too many Americans already have no work ethic. Making them work for their bacon has always been a good idea.

 

[Conager]

You can say that but this two year experiment seems to indicate that you are wrong. The probable reason that employment is increasing is that there is no downside to working. You don't have to make a significant amount of money before you are earning more than you get in benefits/welfare. More people working means more tax receipts which then pays for the income provision.

Because it is given to everyone you don't have to spend money on means tests and verification of need so it works out cheaper than than the benefit/welfare system based on need.

If you want to look at crime you should look at your own states. Those with the highest equality of income are also those with the lowest crime rates, not just for a short period but year on year.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level

Don't take my word for it. take a look at the link and download the powerpoint. You'll find everything there including their sources of information.

It still takes money to collect money and it takes money to hand out money. There is no getting around that. Your anecdotal "evidence" that this "works" is that taking money from the productive (which is the only place any government can draw from) and giving it away magically produces better results than letting that capital remain in productive hands. Again, giving money to marginally productive people so they will be incrementally more productive, but not in excess of what you spent to magically make them more productive is stupid.

You can argue that it's a wonderful thing to give handouts to the downtrodden for charitable reasons but you cannot create a net increase in your GDP by paying bureaucrats to collect money and then pay some other bureaucrats yo give it away. Nothing about any if this produces a good or a service.

Every bit as dumb as modern monetary theiry.

 

[Ziggins]

Too many Americans already have no work ethic. Making them work for their bacon has always been a good idea.

We have too much corporate power and regulation designed for corporations, but that is starting to change. Self-employment is becoming the primary route to adequate income and job satisfaction.

 

[Conager]

UI instead of many agencies distributing various bits of aid could save some money, but the bureaucrats would lose their jobs. I don't recall Yang making the money saving point in debates. That could have been his route to staying in longer, or the DNC pushing him out sooner to protect their bureaucratic base.

That is the only valid argument for universal income. If you argue the Wii already have a welfare State and we have far to many redundant agencies in Buick rats steering the money around it would be much more efficient she just give everybody a lump sum and let them figure out what they're needs are and how best to use the largesse that government bestows using borrowed money.

Better would be to eliminate all government confiscation-for-charity programs and put charity back where it belongs, in the hands of the charitable. Quit borrowing money to give it away and let sound money reward your citizens with protection of savings, price stabilization, and a reduced or eliminated national burden for all of the record-keeping that goes along with all of the above.

Borrowing to start or expand some sort of enterprise is far cheaper when capital is not competing with the government for interest and having to account for the anticipated deflation of currency that is mislabeled as "inflation" (which is not an actual thing.)

 

[Conager]

We have too much corporate power and regulation designed for corporations, but that is starting to change. Self-employment is becoming the primary route to adequate income and job satisfaction.

Always has been. Small business is where the wealth and employment is. Big, monolithic multi-national corporations are anomalies.

 

[DeYaKen]

Shut the fuck up.

It was not a "defective wall." It was a non-existent wall as walls are defined anywhere in the world. It consisted of occasional posts designed to prevent vehicles from crossing the desert at high speed. Wouldn't even slow a parade of illegals. Was never designed to impede foot traffic.

Is there anything you actually "ken," Ken?

Your problem is that you're descended from what was left after the best and brightest removed themselves a couple of centuries ago.

Ooh aren't we touchy, You seem to be accepting that the President lied. The wall isn't built, like he told his party congress. It's not me that doesnay ken. I ken that built means finished, all 2000+ miles of it.
Only 30 miles of new wall means that it is started not finished. He could have said we are building the wall but he didn't. He said it was built so he lied. All the name calling you can muster will not change that.

 

[FescueFan]

I think Finland's people have a lot more class than Americans. Too many Americans already have no work ethic. Making them work for their bacon has always been a good idea.

Yes, everyone work for their own shit, that's the USA, that's freedom.

And it should stay that way.

 

[LLCox]

Trumps Wall... as usual

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/max_650x650/public/2020-01/trump%20wall%20.jpg?itok=QKvYw_lp

 

[SissySalina]

Nice, but it still is dealing with the unemployed. How many employed people went unemployed during that time. You can always microscope a thing and make it look good but when you look at the whole thing overall it is not so good.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I know many of you guys don't like science and real results so here is a study you can deny

Finlands experiment with Guaranteed Universal Income does not discourage people from working. In fact the opposite is true. The experiment has resulted in More Fins working not less and improved well being.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

I do so love my science when it leads with "seems to be..."




Subjective valuation is where its at.