I hate this idea. Why I dislike it because of the control it puts into the hands of the provider, yet I am a supporter of it. the reason is, if the continued job loss continues to the level expected, it seems that some version of it in the future is going to be required, at least as a stop gap measure.
There are many benefits to it and I thought I would have a look at some of those here and maybe get some input. This is not going to go in depth too far as there are many aspects of this and I think it requires several posts looking at a more granular level. This is just a few basic ideas I see thus far.
My experience
Firstly, I have already got a type of basic income in the past. When I started my business, I was granted a small start up amount monthly for six months. It was 600 euros. This was very important for me and to get it, I had to develop and present my business concept to a government authority for approval. Without this, it is unlikely I would have been able to start my business as even so a small amount, it gave me the safety net for a few months to get up and running.
This ended after 6 months but by that time, I could stand on my own two feet, shakily. In my view for some, this type of safety net would support them to jump and give them the motivation to try and without the approval process, the bar is even lower.
20 percent time
The 600 euros is an important factor in my opinion. The average salary in Finland is about 3200 per month so 600 is about one fifth of the amount, one day of work. This should help unemployment issues. The current unemployment rate is around 9 percent. There are some percentage of people, perhaps older that wouldn't mind winding their week back a little but, their lifestyle does not allow it without having to downgrade or eat into savings.
With a 600 grant, they may take one day off per week without changing lifestyle. For every four that do this, it is a four day job created for an unemployed person to earn the same income. Currently, that same unemployed person is taking around 1000 euros plus administration costs.
But in Finland, if they were laid off, they have 400 days at 60 percent of their salary paid so if earning the average, of 3000, the government are covering around 2000 plus admin. However, many jobs have been lost in high paid tech and paper industries so that 400 days can be between 3000 and 4000 per month. With that kind of support, why take an average job working 160 hours a month for the same?
Re-learn, risk-free
The next part of the 20 percent time off from work is skills training opportunity. Those that want to reeducate or retrain themselves currently have very little options to do so without putting large stress on their families financially and from a time perspective. An educational institution could reorder their courses (and change them to be more useful) so that for example, Friday is for the 'retrainers' and Monday to Thursday the normal student. This takes away many of the barriers to skill development and can shift a workforce to better suit the coming requirements that they were not originally trained for historically.
Across classes
Some people think that a UBI would be unfair as the rich do not need the support at all. This is true but. Imagine the lowest income earners, the unemployed. If they currently get 1000 euros per month, what does their lifestyle and savings plan look like? If they can get the equivalent (rent assistance etc) but can work without being penalised, How many will? I would suggest quite a few would manage a shift or two for an extra few hundred euros a month. But, if that person works every Friday, that 4 days per month is about 600 extra, a significant change in income. Even if they lose some added support, they are still better off by 200 per month.
But, If we look at the low income (2000 euros), what does their pension plan look like, how much extra do they have to put away? They continue working plus the 600 and let's say they use 400 in upgrading lifestyle to ease discomfort and 200 into a pension fund. In later years, this would be a massive relief off the government in pension payments etc. They can keep paying the 600 and the citizens own pension fund supports the rest.
Obviously then, when we look at the middle income of 3000, they will go to 3600 and they are likely already putting a little away already. Now though, they can put a significant amount more away, let's say 400. In thirty years, that is a massive difference and the extra 200 they may choose to play a little with maybe a gym membership or taking the family to dinner once a month.
For the rich, (5000 per month and up) the 600 may not have a significant change in their lifestyle at all and they are also likely to be putting a large amount away already. This means that the 600 is money they can afford to use and lose. Is this wasteful? Hardly. They are likely to use it to pad their investments further or perhaps even, if they choose, they may get together and create investment funds (kind of like minnowsupport) to help those below. I don't think that would be common but potentially quite lucrative for all.
Consumptive growth
The reason is that at each step, consumption is also going up which may mean that the big boy players get much richer. but I don't think it need be so. With a guaranteed 600 per month, I personally would not be bound to buy my dining table from a mass produced conglomerate, I could use a local (more expensive), supplier.
And they will pop-up all over the place. With a 600 euro monthly cushion, hobby micro businesses will be able to start up and try their hand at following their passion field, even if only on a Friday. Also with the added income, the options for a whole range of hobby activities can take place.
Right now, a gym membership is about 70 per month which means for most, cost gets taken out as an excuse. Dance lesson are about the same so for those that are holding back due to cost, do not need to. It also allows a struggling couple to maybe get a babysitter occasionally and go out to dinner together or a family to better provide quality food for their children. The long-term ramifications of having a healthier population is massive.
Hobbies for children (at least in Finland) are very expensive and as a result, many children miss out on playing soccer or hockey, music and dance lessons. Superfluous maybe, but enriching in the long-term.
Local support
With all of the pressures on restaurants, hobby activities and skill trainers as the influx of people raises, inevitably, new jobs are created. Many micro businesses and part-time positions open in areas that one can actually use their skillset to bring in income. The 'Friday-off' engineer may decide to teach guitar to kids that day instead of going to school. That means the 3000 he gets may be supplemented further by providing a service to the community.
This is a risk-free action for them because of the basic income and even though it may never be a career, it may provide an enriching experience personally. The boring 9-5 job does not seem so bad when it is 4 days a week and the fifth day is being 'paid' to use one's skills to help a child grow.
Government saving?
Now, this all has a massive cost for a government and in the short term, they would have to wear it but, in time, it will start to return as the money gets injected in more locally. Jobs get created, hobbyists start earning, children develop skill range and unemployed have a way into employment. Plus, since it is universal, almost all of the massive cost of administration is removed.
A Utopian potential, perhaps.
This is just a very brief, somewhat Utopian view of a Universal Basic Income but, if implemented and used well, it could completely change the way in which a society works and in my opinion (used well) would localise and energise a lot of the population and give them the space to find and follow their passions to some extent. This space may not have been available to them previously as the pressure to earn was paramount.
For the currently poor, this would be a godsend to ease immediate pressures from their lives and allow them the room to move and grow. Perhaps, after years of feeling trapped in their position, they would see a light at the end of the tunnel that helps them get on their feet. The middle income classes would be able to spread themselves more, the higher income play more.
And, if someone tries something and it doesn't work, they can be ensured that next month they can recover and try something else. It could be the most massive trial and error, free market experiment ever undertaken.
There are many more aspects to this and there are plenty of negative also but, with the current and expected future societal climate, something needs to change. Tweaking the old dials is no longer going to cut it.
I wonder how the blockchain could support it. I am positive there are massive opportunities to be had and with 600 euros a month extra, many supporters.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
