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.
And considering they spend about half the amount the U.S. does on healthcare their system is likely just fine.
How does spending less money on their healthcare make it better?
As for your claim that people "pretend to be expects on other countries"...Fine, I will just use my own country as an example instead. Iceland also has universial healthcare, and our system is also not working very well. Doctors recently went on strike crippling the healthcare system because their wages were bad, since the state could not really afford to pay them well. Some time ago I read about news that talked about how some of the walls in the city hospital were rotting because there wasn't enough money to maintain them. I also remember reading news about how during the doctors strike some people just died because they did not get treatment. All of this happened in my own country, even though we have the glorious universal healthcare that lefties claim is all the rage. And of course, whenever you point out these shortcomings to them, their defense is the same as it always is whenever a government service isn't working as intended: Just give it more money and it will be fine.
Actually, many conservatives and right-wing politicians in Finland are in favor of the basic income.
First, as we have the Nordic model in welfare, we have a lot of different subsidies covering most fields of life. The basic income would remove all these except housing subsidies. Practically 90% of the welfare bureaucracy would go into the garbage bin.
Secondly, our unemployment subsidies system is based on the 60's work environment. Practically, either you work 40 hours a week, or are unemployed. Though there's some leeway, in most cases the current system prevents you from accepting part-time jobs, as you will lose all subisidies. So short without going into details: it's currently more benficial to sit home 5 days a week than work 2 days a week, as you will lose all subsidies even working part-time.
Also, many believe that having the basic income would encourage people to take risks and become entrepreneurs, as they have at least the basic income to fall back on if things are rough at some point.
Those who are now freelancers, bus janitors, newspaper dealers, part time receptionists and so on, would get a huge boost in purchasing power, stimulating restaurants and commerce. In turn, these could hire more people part-time, exactly those who are now sitting home 5 days a week.
The Greens, who are mostly driving this idea, are suggesting a €560 basic income. So if your rent is 450 (€113 if you get rent subsidies), you're left with €447. Just a little more of €100 a week. That's really not much to live on, and I'm certain not many want to do that. You barely have money for food.
And, Mr Sipilä is in favor of trying this. One of the places suggested are Salo, a muncipality 54k strong. So we are not rushing into this idea but to start a pilot project. One or a few small muncipalities would try this out for two years, and a lot of data and budgets would be collected. Then we would see if the basic income would work at all, does it stimulate the economy, does it lower unemployment and could we afford it. If you're not even prepared to try radical ideas, nothing ever changes.
This report is promotional piece, not an objective analysis.
It says millenials are more caring, politically engaged and community minded that previous generations -- more informed, better educated, and with a higher IQ.
Those claims are nothing but hot air.
Baby boomers were much more politically engaged in their youth than the millenials are today.
They were also better informed, given that they didn't get their "news" from unfunny comedians like Colbert, Maher and Jon Stewart.
Community minded and idealistic? The boomers created revolutions -- the hippies, participation in civil rights freedom rides, turning the country against the Vietnam War, rock and roll; they literally changed the face of America and made it much more liberal.
They faced down unsympathetic parents and teachers, cops who were much more aggressive than they are today, and they faced a military draft.
Millenials -- what have they done by comparison?
What have they faced by comparison? A bad economy? The economy sucked when boomers came of age in late seventies -- double digit unemployment, interest rates and inflation.
Idealism? How many millenials compared to boomers joined the Peace Corps?
Millenials are better educated? I don't think so.
The ones I talk to know little about history, politics, art, music, literature and philosophy. They don't read good books.
Some know technical fields well, but that's about it.
Higher IQ?
How do you measure a generation's IQ?
Where do they give IQ tests to all young people nowadays?
This claim is pure puffery.
More optimistic? All young people with little experience are more optimistic than older people. That has always been true.
Quote:
They will also be looking at the inefficiencies of Obamacare; they will fix what the baby boom generation, screwed up.
It was the millenials who screwed up by swinging the election to Obama.
Without them, there would be no Obamacare for them to fix.
It wasn't the baby boomers who screwed up on that score, but the millenials.
When I talk to them, they are in total denial that there are any problems with Obamacare.
Quote:
... And they are (technically) wired and have resources the baby boom generation has yet to understand.
Why is anyone impressed by this anymore?
The Obamacare exchanges are some of the worst websites ever created.
And still not fixed, at least here in California.
Oregon had to scrap its exchange.
And then there's all the identity theft and hacking going on.
It seems every other day we hear about another major hacking.
Quote:
They are not heavy laborers
They should do some heavy labor and get some of that work ethic that employers claim they don't have.
Employers also say their etiquette and personal interactions leave a lot to be desired. So much for them being trained to work in groups.
Quote:
Their intellect will not be the same as the generations past, nor should it be. It is called, evolution.
Before you evolve, you have to master the basics.
When you don't know basic facts, and your mind is filled with liberal and left-wing propaganda, you are hardly in a position to lead.
Actually, many conservatives and right-wing politicians in Finland are in favor of the basic income.
First, as we have the Nordic model in welfare, we have a lot of different subsidies covering most fields of life. The basic income would remove all these except housing subsidies. Practically 90% of the welfare bureaucracy would go into the garbage bin.
Secondly, our unemployment subsidies system is based on the 60's work environment. Practically, either you work 40 hours a week, or are unemployed. Though there's some leeway, in most cases the current system prevents you from accepting part-time jobs, as you will lose all subisidies. So short without going into details: it's currently more benficial to sit home 5 days a week than work 2 days a week, as you will lose all subsidies even working part-time.
Also, many believe that having the basic income would encourage people to take risks and become entrepreneurs, as they have at least the basic income to fall back on if things are rough at some point.
Those who are now freelancers, bus janitors, newspaper dealers, part time receptionists and so on, would get a huge boost in purchasing power, stimulating restaurants and commerce. In turn, these could hire more people part-time, exactly those who are now sitting home 5 days a week.
The Greens, who are mostly driving this idea, are suggesting a €560 basic income. So if your rent is 450 (€113 if you get rent subsidies), you're left with €447. Just a little more of €100 a week. That's really not much to live on, and I'm certain not many want to do that. You barely have money for food.
And, Mr Sipilä is in favor of trying this. One of the places suggested are Salo, a muncipality 54k strong. So we are not rushing into this idea but to start a pilot project. One or a few small muncipalities would try this out for two years, and a lot of data and budgets would be collected. Then we would see if the basic income would work at all, does it stimulate the economy, does it lower unemployment and could we afford it. If you're not even prepared to try radical ideas, nothing ever changes.
Now that we have the details, it sounds better.
It's something that might work in Finland -- I doubt it would in the U.S.
It's something that might work in Finland -- I doubt it would in the U.S.
It won't work anywhere. An economy built around the idea that most people should just take part time jobs and then chill at home on high government benefits can't sustain itself in the long term. These countries are robbing future generations of their future.
It won't work anywhere. An economy built around the idea that most people should just take part time jobs and then chill at home on high government benefits can't sustain itself in the long term. These countries are robbing future generations of their future.
You simply can't comprehend an economy that requires less manpower, while increasing productivity. Why do you our economy has increased productivity with stagnate wages and decreasing benefits?
You simply can't comprehend an economy that requires less manpower, while increasing productivity.
This process has been happening since the industrial revolution. This still hasn't stopped people from getting jobs elsewhere. What is the economic benefit of making a person for 4 hours instead of 8? More jobs? That's not the same as increasing productivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Why do you our economy has increased productivity with stagnate wages and decreasing benefits?
Could corporate profits be more fairly split? Sure. Does this mean the state should just hand out free money to everyone? No.
This process has been happening since the industrial revolution. This still hasn't stopped people from getting jobs elsewhere. What is the economic benefit of making a person for 4 hours instead of 8? More jobs? That's not the same as increasing productivity.
When have we ever had sophisticated AI that makes human thought and knowledge look puny by comparison?
When has the world ever been so globalizad? While there maybe a common theme that one can point to the past but what's occurring now has no equal.
Quote:
Could corporate profits be more fairly split? Sure. Does this mean the state should just hand out free money to everyone? No.
It's simply the progression of welfare. You could force the private sector to share more of the money instead of welfare but that's been a very hard sell.
It's simply the progression of welfare. You could force the private sector to share more of the money instead of welfare but that's been a very hard sell.
That's because the left's method of trying to do it is to just demand higher wages, which just leads to inflation. Find other ways to do it.
Or I can just give the info for the loot to be wired to my bank account.
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.
