|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Zurich15366 Posts
|
Didn't Switzerland reject something like this recently?
|
|
|
Interesting stuff. No apparent selection problems if they're doing it randomly (unless the chosen can opt out, but even then a potential selection problem would hinge on some of them being better off under the old system, which it doesn't seem to be so).
|
I have to work with People on social wealthare on a daily Basis.
Many that "drop down" to social welfare weren't actually earning too less to live, they just can't handle Money and go in debt, until said debt crushes them.
For these People a "baseline income" will do absolutely nothing, in fact it probably will be way worse.
|
On September 28 2016 20:29 Velr wrote:
I have to work with People on social wealthare on a daily Basis.
Many that "drop down" to social welfare weren't actually earning too less to live, they just can't handle Money and go in debt, until said debt crushes them.
For these People a "baseline income" will do absolutely nothing, in fact it probably will be way worse.
Do you have any hard evidence on how many recipients are like this or are we supposed to craft policy based on feelings?
|
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients?
|
Zurich15366 Posts
The main point of the Finnish trial is exactly to gain learnings on the effect of UBI on recepients of conventional welfare, because so far, we just don't know if or how it will work.
I for one am very excited to see the results a few years down the line.
|
Why should renaming the money influence the recipients?
|
On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients?
As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures".
This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job.
|
On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job.
Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond.
In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top.
It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense.
|
On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense.
But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this.
|
On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this.
How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes?
|
On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes?
Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly?
or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed?
|
On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed?
The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point.
|
On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point.
nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible?
|
On September 28 2016 21:21 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible?
If my post doesn't address your point, then no, you are not comprehensible because you've repeatedly taken issue with a fundamental tenet of the UBI.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On September 28 2016 21:21 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 21:19 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:16 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:13 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 21:12 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 21:01 zatic wrote:On September 28 2016 20:55 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2016 20:49 Hryul wrote:On September 28 2016 20:39 Ghostcom wrote:
Dumb question, but aren't they getting the same amount of money, just renamed? Or what does "existing benefits" include?
EDIT: what I mean is: how is renaming the money going to improve their poverty? I get the reduction in bureaucracy, but I'm missing how this should help the recipients? As far as I understand it, most systems give you the money only in exchange for your willingness to search for jobs. This includes writing applications and participating in "qualification measures". This on the other hand just gives everyone the money without any pressure to search for a job. Yep, most unemployment welfare in the US requires that a recipient be actively seeking work; I'd bet it's similar across the pond. In addition, once you find work you would not be eligible for welfare anymore. UBI on the other hand is paid out no matter what. Any income from work will be on top. It really has nothing to do with welfare in the traditional sense. But then this experiment is pointless, isn't it? I assume salary will be adjusted for UBI (one way or the other, think inflation) once all get it. 2k participants don't seem to have enough impact for this. How is the experiment pointless if the point is to get a feel for the kinds of behavior that a UBI promotes? Because atleast one point that would influence people's behaviour, namely the additional compensation they would receive for working, is not adjusted accordingly? or are these 2k people randomly selected from the unemployed? The entire point of the UBI, so long as it's divorced from Milton Friedman-esque nonsense, is to provide individuals with the baseline resources needed to pursue their own employment goals without the stricture of necessity. That recipients could receive additional income from employment while also receiving UBI doesn't conflict with that in any way. The employment decisions will likely be a data-gathering focal point. nice technobabble, but that doesn't address the point i am trying to make. am i not comprehensible?
You are not, at least not to me.
Have you read the article I linked above? It's really unecessary to explain what UBI is when it's all in there.
|
I wish EU can somehow affect on local polititians, cause they're also corrupted as previous pro-russian
currency influence, prices much higher, salaries remains the same, taxes higher, our president meanwhile build around 10 new candy shops in my city and russian military forces not far away from eastern borders
don't get me wrong, I love my country but I hate ppl ruling it to ashes 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
