Business Insider: Finland is killing its experiment with basic income
Sounds like they ran out of money, which seems to be the fundamental issue with the UBI concept. I expect that Stockton (which already ran out of money) will follow suit at some point.
So what is your debate? Could you have linked to an article not behind an Ad wall? Here’s one:
An experiment is coming to an end. what’s the debate? No it isn’t/Yes it is?
There’s nothing about UBI that makes it inherently unfinanceable; that’s silly. If you fail to finance it because you haven’t set up an appropriate tax structure to fund it, that’s a problem with your specific implementation.
Finland doesn’t have an appropriate tax structure?
Well, if your point is that it didn’t work in Finland, I’ll make the point that a pilot basic income program was started last summer in Ontario. The idea is to evaluate its results in selected communities over a period of three years, and then potentially go province-wide. So far it looks promising.
No it is more likely they decided they weren’t going to implement it no matter what the results were.
The experiment was 2,000 individuals at $690/month. That is not an expensive program, when you consider the median wage is 3000 Euros=$3700/month
Hey, the Stockton bankruptcy had nothing to do with UBI. It was partly the housing crash, partly unfunded retiree medical benefit promises, and partly badly timed or optimistic bonds. (Actually, I assume that’s a typo.)
Is there an alternative? We are likely looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades and UBI is the only real solution.
It’ll require massive tax hikes, about 25% of GDP will need to be devoted to progressive taxes on the owners of the robots to fund UBI.
If the program was in fact aborted due to insufficient funding, then that implies there wasn’t sufficient funding. I’m not sure why this is complicated.
You appear to be pushing the idea that UBI is unaffordable no matter how much money you have available, which is not, in my opinion, a supportable or rational position.
Yep! Liberals b dumb. Why bother trying to make the world a better place for everybody? Let’s all just give up.
I know people have said this, but I’m not sure where they got the idea. Where did you get the idea? And how confident are you that we’re “looking at mass unemployment in the next few decades”? You said “likely”. Does that mean >50% chance?
Yes, you’re right. But can you appreciate the irony of the largest city in US history to ever file bankruptcy now pursuing an experiment where they give out free money? The jokes practically write themselves.
Not quite, but I have yet to see anyone give details of a national program that sounds workable and politically-feasible.
Well, there’s a hell of a difference between “workable” and “politically feasable” - particularly depending upon which set of politicians you’re talking about. 
It’s worked okay for Alaska, with some caveats, hasn’t it? Of course the main difference there is that it is not nearly much money (looks like peak with no inflation adjustment was $3269 in 2008) and applies to every resident after some limitations. And that the have that sweet oil revenue. So it might work in Norway better than Finland, although they’re sitting on their fund for the time being.
Wow, Stockton. Last place I’d expect.
Owning a robot or not is irrelevant.
I think he’s postulating that everybody’ll be unemployed because robots will have taken all our jobs, and thus the robot owners will have all the income and money. And that this will come to pass in the next few decades.
As a UBI-loving liberal, I’m…not sure this is how things’ll play out.
The idea comes from the fact that machines are going to start being able to do most of what a human can do.
Historically advances in technology have created new (and more) jobs. But I do not believe that will happen this time. New jobs are created because there are still things that humans cannot do better than a machine. But that will change soon and there will be fewer and fewer jobs that a human being can do better than a machine.
So even if the new wave of automation this century creates tens of millions of new jobs, most of those jobs will be done far better by cheap robots than by a human being. So there is no incentive to hire humans, hence mass unemployment.
It is only a matter of time since the skillset of humans doesn’t really improve while the skillset of machines does.
If you have a bipedal robot that has better cognitive skills than any human who ever lived, better manual flexibility and dexterity, can work 24/7 and only costs $1000, why would you hire a human being to do anything?
If it can’t get passed into law, it’s not really “workable” is it?
Sure it is. It’s workable if it could work if it was implemented. The mere fact that something doesn’t get implemented doesn’t mean it’s unworkable.
In any case, I think I’m dragging this into definition-driven digression territory, so I’ll just step back to the notion that, no, if the Finland experiment was in fact aborted due to fund issues, that is not proof positive of the preconceived notion that UBI is unworkable due to the laws of physics.