Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They concluded that the 2,000 jobless people getting the $634 unconditional every month were happier, felt better about their future, and thought that they were more confident in achieving social change.
However, there was no gain to their employment.
Another fault with this test and the test in Canada is it wasn't to scale. People from all over have their tax money pay a tiny percentage of people an income...a quality experiment would have universal basic income come from within the same group getting it.
They concluded that the 2,000 jobless people getting the $634 unconditional every month were happier, felt better about their future, and thought that they were more confident in achieving social change.
However, there was no gain to their employment.
Another fault with this test and the test in Canada is it wasn't to scale. People from all over have their tax money pay a tiny percentage of people an income...a quality experiment would have universal basic income come from within the same group getting it.
Free people like free people stuff, they don't generally have the drive to go out and put on overalls and work hard for their free stuff.
Free people like free people stuff, they don't generally have the drive to go out and put on overalls and work hard for their free stuff.
Now, if it would only start raining "free stuff" on a regular basis, well life would be great. Now, all you libturds, take a deep breath, and hold it........ hold it.........(5 hours later), okay now exhale and breath normally.
They concluded that the 2,000 jobless people getting the $634 unconditional every month were happier, felt better about their future, and thought that they were more confident in achieving social change.
However, there was no gain to their employment.
Another fault with this test and the test in Canada is it wasn't to scale. People from all over have their tax money pay a tiny percentage of people an income...a quality experiment would have universal basic income come from within the same group getting it.
People really need to examine why those people were jobless to begin with. Were they temporarily laid off or chronically unemployed? And if chronically unemployed - do they have drug habits, are they simply lazy, do they have disabilities, do they have a criminal record, what are their language skills, what are their education levels, etc?
Not everyone chronically unemployed is lazy, and not everyone chronically unemployed is unemployed due to their fault. Let's be brutally honest - some people are just not smart (dumb actually), and it's hard for them to find a way to be useful to someone else for money.
We should never disregard these people, usually born that way, and should make sure they have the basic means of like (roof, food, health, and even some luxuries).
People really need to examine why those people were jobless to begin with. Were they temporarily laid off or chronically unemployed? And if chronically unemployed - do they have drug habits, are they simply lazy, do they have disabilities, do they have a criminal record, what are their language skills, what are their education levels, etc?
Not everyone chronically unemployed is lazy, and not everyone chronically unemployed is unemployed due to their fault. Let's be brutally honest - some people are just not smart (dumb actually), and it's hard for them to find a way to be useful to someone else for money.
We should never disregard these people, usually born that way, and should make sure they have the basic means of like (roof, food, health, and even some luxuries).
Yup.
Also, keep in mind that Finland has a more comprehensive social safety net already.
They concluded that the 2,000 jobless people getting the $634 unconditional every month were happier, felt better about their future, and thought that they were more confident in achieving social change.
However, there was no gain to their employment.
Another fault with this test and the test in Canada is it wasn't to scale. People from all over have their tax money pay a tiny percentage of people an income...a quality experiment would have universal basic income come from within the same group getting it.
Oh so, the experiment didn't produce a result conducive to the socialist agenda, so it is faulty?
Weird how getting free money makes people happier but provides no incentive to look for work. Who could've guessed this?
People really need to examine why those people were jobless to begin with. Were they temporarily laid off or chronically unemployed? And if chronically unemployed - do they have drug habits, are they simply lazy, do they have disabilities, do they have a criminal record, what are their language skills, what are their education levels, etc?
Not everyone chronically unemployed is lazy, and not everyone chronically unemployed is unemployed due to their fault. Let's be brutally honest - some people are just not smart (dumb actually), and it's hard for them to find a way to be useful to someone else for money.
We should never disregard these people, usually born that way, and should make sure they have the basic means of like (roof, food, health, and even some luxuries).
From what I see, all the places that have tried these UBI experiments, going back to Canada in the 70's, have done so, with the thought of seeing if it would work and the premise you state here (helping the permanent underclass) has been part of it from what I can see. A big part of every one of these experiments has also been, will this change the behaviour of said underclass to any degree in a positive way?
However there has been a major flaw in this. The recipients have all known for the most part this "free" money was temporary from the beginning.
They concluded that the 2,000 jobless people getting the $634 unconditional every month were happier, felt better about their future, and thought that they were more confident in achieving social change.
However, there was no gain to their employment.
Another fault with this test and the test in Canada is it wasn't to scale. People from all over have their tax money pay a tiny percentage of people an income...a quality experiment would have universal basic income come from within the same group getting it.
Quote:
Researchers studied whether the no-strings-attached income could better incentivise jobless people to find work than traditional unemployment benefits, which may be docked as soon as the recipient starts earning money...
...But a hoped-for stiumulus to levels of employment has not yet materialised, the project's researchers said.
"The recipients of a basic income were no better or worse than the control group at finding employment in the open labour market", Ohto Kanninen, research coordinator at the Labour Institute for Economic Research, said in a statement.
Well, I am just shocked that it didn't work. (Not really.) Of course people are happier when someone hands them $600 a month with no strings attached. I'd be happy, too.
But they could have saved their taxpayers a whole lot of money if they would have just listened when someone said, "It's not going to make them go look for work."
People really need to examine why those people were jobless to begin with. Were they temporarily laid off or chronically unemployed? And if chronically unemployed - do they have drug habits, are they simply lazy, do they have disabilities, do they have a criminal record, what are their language skills, what are their education levels, etc?
Not everyone chronically unemployed is lazy, and not everyone chronically unemployed is unemployed due to their fault. Let's be brutally honest - some people are just not smart (dumb actually), and it's hard for them to find a way to be useful to someone else for money.
We should never disregard these people, usually born that way, and should make sure they have the basic means of like (roof, food, health, and even some luxuries).
I believe that people that want to work can find work as long as they live in an area that needs employees.
I also believe that there are many people that would rather sit around doing nothing all day while others pick up their tab.
I think a problem in America is that people think they are worth more than what someone is willing to pay them so that minimum wage job is not worth their time.
I have seen handicapped people working. I know a woman that takes care of mentally challenged young adults. They can't live on their own but they do have jobs. I also know people that are so ingrained and dependent on Gov. welfare that they would need a really good paying job to give up the free money they get. Where is the incentive to better yourself?
Given any society there will always be those that work hard and smart and those that don't work and are stupid. What can you do?
So, it looks like at least one person did use it to get a job. However, there's still a problem. Read on:
Quote:
Kauhanen used the money ― and the time freed by no longer having to apply to multiple agencies for welfare benefits ― to take a telemarketing job. Pay was low, but topped up with the basic income, it dramatically changed her quality of life. It helped her finally sort out finances, after years of scouring grocery stores for the cheapest bread, milk and cheese. “I could go to a restaurant and have a normal dinner without thinking that, OK, I am going to have to eat noodles for the rest of the month,” she said.
The end of the scheme was a shock, she said, for everyone who participated in the trial. “We all are in big trouble now to be honest, because what would happen to you if your income decreased by €600?”
She’s still working at her job, but is already running up debt and desperately searching for better-paying work.
I love how they act like filling out applications for benefits is a full time job.
So she did just enough with the low paying job and the hand out, for 2 years, and never tried to find an even better job until the money ran out. Now she's complaining again.
Getting the telemarketing job with the hand out - okay at first (if I were being nice, which I don't feel like being when it comes to taking money out of the wallets of other people...but whatever). Okay, she was now working at least a little. But she had 2 years to find better employment. She had 2 years to improve her life. Yet what did she do? Keep the telemarketing job, take the hand out, and go out to restaurants with the money that was handed to her instead of investing it in her future, working hard to find another job, without the stress of worrying about bills. Essentially, she threw her opportunity away - and now she wants to cry about it.
'What would you do if your income decreased by $600?' Well, what could you have done with that opportunity, Kauhanen that would have prevented a decrease and given you an increase all on your own, not relying on someone else to give it to you?
If the government can give it to you, the government can take it away. Find a way to do it on your own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
