EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

doverhog posted:

The implementation of the study is not good. The basic income model used is not the one that would actually be implemented on a larger scale, only unemployed people are picked for participation, and with just 2000 people participating any wider effects basic income would have on the labor market will not appear.

It's useful to see the microeconomic effect on people with no other sources of income. The biggest worry about a GBI is that people receiving it won't try to get jobs or better their prospects so this can test that hypothesis.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 14:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 07:14

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Sure, but when the study model is one that would never be widely implemented it's questionable whether any result will actually reflect reality with a different more realistic implementation of basic income.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 14:55

GABA ghoul: Oct 29, 2011

doverhog posted:

The implementation of the study is not good. The basic income model used is not the one that would actually be implemented on a larger scale, only unemployed people are picked for participation, and with just 2000 people participating any wider effects basic income would have on the labor market will not appear.

The goal of the study is to examine the effects of basic income on individual people, not to study the larger effects on society.

We are still decades or even generations away from fully automated societies. Right now, employment is around 90-95% in most modern countries, so there are just different problems to worry about. Like how to better integrate long term unemployed people and how to reduce bureaucracy.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 14:57

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Nitrousoxide posted:

No. Industrialisation was a slow process and saw plenty of social upheaval.

And just like how you are wrong, the frog and the pot is a myth.

http://www.realclearscience.com/2011/04/25/039frog_in_boiling_water039_is_a_myth_240818.html

Wrong on so many levels.

Next you'll be telling me that it doesn't really rain cats and dogs sometimes.

I didn't say there won't be upheaval, just that the proles will be too disorganized and busy not starving to present any serious threat to the status quo and that it will only grow worse over time and less and less money goes into public education.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 15:08

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

waitwhatno posted:

The goal of the study is to examine the effects of basic income on individual people, not to study the larger effects on society.

We are still decades or even generations away from fully automated societies. Right now, employment is around 90-95% in most modern countries, so there are just different problems to worry about. Like how to better integrate long term unemployed people and how to reduce bureaucracy.

Finland needs to reform its various welfare systems now, not in a few decades.

doverhog fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Aug 26, 2016

# ? Aug 26, 2016 15:21

9-Volt Assault: Jan 27, 2007; Beter twee tetten in de hand dan tien op de vlucht.

Apparently the goal of the basic income study is ''to encourage more unemployed individuals to take up available job offers" and its only 560 euros so you cant live off of it, so it seems it is designed to fail.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 15:32

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

ElNarez posted:

bullshit burkini bylaw update: the Conseil d'Etat struck down the anti-burkini bylaw in Villeneuve-Loubet, setting the precedent for the whole country

https://twitter.com/ismaelhat/status/769160272506388481

Article 3 is interesting. It says it rejects both the arguments of the city and of those who opposed the city's decision. Basically "shut up you squabbling dumbasses, you're all stupid".

# ? Aug 26, 2016 16:01

throw to first DAMN IT: Apr 10, 2007; This whole thread has been raging at the people who don't want Saracen invasion to their homes

Perhaps you too should be more accepting of their cultures

Charlie Mopps posted:

Apparently the goal of the basic income study is ''to encourage more unemployed individuals to take up available job offers" and its only 560 euros so you cant live off of it, so it seems it is designed to fail.

The whole point of the experiment is argument that people are afraid to find new jobs because if they then don't get enough hours or are let go suddenly, they are hosed because they don't get money from work but they have to deal with the bureaucratic machine to get back to unemployment benefits and whatnot.

If they don't have any income, then in addition to the 560e, they can apply for other benefits. It's arguably designed specifically so that they can't live off it alone, just so that they can see more easily if person found employment or not.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 16:03

NihilismNow: Aug 31, 2003

If the world goes UBI or not all depends on if it will be cheaper than hunting the lower classes out of existence with autonomous drones.

Class warfare doesn't work so well when you no longer needs to employ lower/middle class people to control the population but can have them murdered with tools that require only capital to obtain.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 16:03

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

The people who will be in the study are already receiving unemployment benefit around 530 a month. This has to be applied for each month and is reduced, and can even be denied according to byzantine rules, if you work at all. That's what's being replaced by the basic income. The idea is that the unemployed will take short and low paying jobs more readily when they don't have to worry about losing their unemployment for doing so.

Most of the people in this position also receive "housing benefit", which depends on their rent, and probably also "survival benefit", if the 2 other ones don't leave them enough money per month after housing costs are subtracted. These are left outside the scope of the study and will not be effected.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 16:28

Geriatric Pirate: Apr 25, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

Nitrousoxide posted:

It's useful to see the microeconomic effect on people with no other sources of income. The biggest worry about a GBI is that people receiving it won't try to get jobs or better their prospects so this can test that hypothesis.

The problem is that this study only targets the unemployed, who by definition can't leave their jobs, meaning that we don't see any of that effect. And I don't know how it's going to work to address the incentives of people receiving ansiosidonnainen (~income linked unemployment benefits, which is much higher than 560e/m).

Also, the amount is so high that its current implementation would leave Finland with a 15 billion euro deficit.

I agree that in Finland we have a huge problem with unemployment benefits providing weird incentives for people. But a "UBI experiment" that doesn't look at the disincentives it might create for employed people and that's set unrealistically high doesn't really answer many questions.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:06

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

It makes a lot of sense since you let the market sort out how to provide the services the people need using that money rather than mandates from the government that are probably less efficient, slower to react, and require a lot more overhead in bureaucracy.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:08

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Geriatric Pirate posted:

The problem is that this study only targets the unemployed, who by definition can't leave their jobs, meaning that we don't see any of that effect.

Sure it can. You compare them against a control which doesn't receive the benefits and compare employment rates after the experiment.

Geriatric Pirate posted:

And I don't know how it's going to work to address the incentives of people receiving ansiosidonnainen (~income linked unemployment benefits, which is much higher than 560e/m).
Also, the amount is so high that its current implementation would leave Finland with a 15 billion euro deficit.

I thought they are cutting a corresponding amount from these people's other benefits to have it be revenue neutral?

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:14

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Geriatric Pirate posted:

The problem is that this study only targets the unemployed, who by definition can't leave their jobs, meaning that we don't see any of that effect. And I don't know how it's going to work to address the incentives of people receiving ansiosidonnainen (~income linked unemployment benefits, which is much higher than 560e/m).

Also, the amount is so high that its current implementation would leave Finland with a 15 billion euro deficit.

The problem is not that it's too high, the unemployed already receive that and more in benefits. Rather the main reason the study is so far removed from reality is that there is no tax reform to go with it. Any real of implementation of basic income would also affect tax rates so that those with full time well paying jobs get their basic income eaten by tax. It is not intended to give the unemployed more money, nor to give the working middle class more money. Its purpose is to make working irregular hours at low wages more appealing, and to make it easier to run a small business.

Nitrousoxide posted:

I thought they are cutting a corresponding amount from these people's other benefits to have it be revenue neutral?

The study replaces unemployment benefit with the tax free 560 basic income. Other benefits are not affected, and there is no tax reform to go with it.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:20

Geriatric Pirate: Apr 25, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

Nitrousoxide posted:

Sure it can. You compare them against a control which doesn't receive the benefits and compare employment rates after the experiment.

Yes, but if the criticism of UBI is that there are some employed people who will quit their jobs, an experiment looking at a UBI for unemployed people will not capture that.

quote:

I thought they are cutting a corresponding amount from these people's other benefits to have it be revenue neutral?

Well it won't be revenue neutral because it's replacing unemployment benefits with a benefit that will be paid regardless of employment status, but that's a minor point. The 15 billion (estimate by a respected Green party politician here) comes more from "if we gave 560 to everyone instead of our unemployment benefits system and without an increase in taxes, we would have a shortfall of 15 billion." There are several responses to that, such as "we can raise taxes and offset it a bit with UBI," but it's still a distortion of some sort (higher taxes on rich people at the expense of paying low income workers a UBI and lowering their effective tax rate) that's not being examined at all in this experiment.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:23

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Geriatric Pirate posted:

Yes, but if the criticism of UBI is that there are some employed people who will quit their jobs, an experiment looking at a UBI for unemployed people will not capture that.

There are three main concerns.
1: ubi will discourage those without jobs to look for one.
2: ubi will encourage those with jobs to quit theirs
3: ubi will encourage those who are looking for jobs to take ones that aren't economically efficient to take (ie the one with the highest comparative advantage)

This is just testing the first one.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:29

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Nitrousoxide posted:

3: ubi will encourage those who are looking for jobs to take ones that aren't economically efficient to take (ie the one with the highest comparative advantage)

How?

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:44

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Nitrousoxide posted:

There are three main concerns.
1: ubi will discourage those without jobs to look for one.
2: ubi will encourage those with jobs to quit theirs
3: ubi will encourage those who are looking for jobs to take ones that aren't economically efficient to take (ie the one with the highest comparative advantage)

This is just testing the first one.

It's really not. Within the context of the Finnish system it's testing whether it will encourage those without jobs to seek out and accept part time or short term jobs that pay poorly.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 18:47

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

500 EU is enough for many ventures. A vehicle + Insurance costs me bear 400 US a month. So that would allow someone to move up in the working world by providing transportation

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:10

LemonDrizzle: Mar 28, 2012; neoliberal shithead

Vestager smash puny US tech companies! Raaaarrrrrgh! https://www.ft.com/content/ee191ce8-6ba9-11e6-ae5b-a7cc5dd5a28c?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fbrussels%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct

quote:

Brussels is poised to hand down an adverse ruling against Ireland after a three-year inquiry into claims the country granted an illegal tax arrangement to Apple, the world�s biggest tech company.
The long-awaited findings, likely to be released next week, follow an intensive effort by the US to persuade the European Commission to drop the inquiry.
Apple could be on the hook to pay billions of dollars in back taxes to Ireland in light of the finding that tax rulings conferred illegal state aid to Apple by granting it an advantage not made available to other companies.
The commission made no comment on Friday on the timing or substance of its decision.
There is some uncertainty as to whether a precise penalty will be defined in the ruling, JPMorgan, Apple�s investment banker, has said Apple�s potential liability, in a worst-case scenario, could be up to �19bn. In other assessments, however, the liability may come in at around $1bn.
An adverse ruling by competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager would be appealed in the European courts by Ireland and Apple, each of whom have strenuously denied any wrongdoing in the tax arrangement.
Any move to issue negative findings without defining the penalty would also prompt Apple and Irish authorities to campaign to minimise the bill.
The Apple case is the biggest single investigation undertaken by the commission in a clampdown on aggressive tax avoidance in Europe by big global companies.
In previous rulings, Ms Vestager has directed the Netherlands to recover back taxes from Starbucks, and Luxembourg to recover back taxes from Fiat. Both rulings are under court appeal.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:12

Hob_Gadling: Jul 6, 2007; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Grimey Drawer

To fix a couple misunderstandings:

Universal income test in Finland only accepts people who get the basic unemployment benefit of 702 euros. If you're getting ansiosidonnainen, you're not eligible to join the test. Same goes for students, people who are almost retired and other special interest groups.

The current system pays you 702 euros of taxable income as the basic unemployment benefit of last tier. On top of that you can earn up to 300 euros without losing any of that benefit. The proposal replaces that, and that only, with a lump sum of 560 euro which is tax-free and won't be reduced no matter what you earn.

The purpose is to see how much an universal income model would improve the employment status of people In the current system earning one cent on top of that 300 euros costs you 150 euros in lost benefits. This creates a barrier for short-duration employment and freelancing. The aim of the test is not to see what happens in all possible circumstances.

A picture to describe income at different earning levels in old and new model:

Light gray is current situation, brown is the suggested test.

Personally I find the test setup reasonable given the aims and limitations of such a test.

source for graphic, page 9 (Finnish only, sorry): http://stm.fi/documents/1271139/3102139/HE+Perustulo+SU.pdf/4b247202-265a-4e04-8aaf-2c8d1e512859
more links (in English): http://stm.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/sosiaali-ja-terveysministerio-pyytaa-lausuntoja-osittaisen-perustulokokeilun-toteuttamisesta
http://stm.fi/perustulokokeilu?p_p_...anguageId=en_US

Hob_Gadling fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Aug 26, 2016

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:13

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

Hob_Gadling posted:

A picture to describe income at different earning levels in old and new model:

Light gray is current situation, brown is the suggested test.

Personally I find the test setup reasonable given the aims and limitations of such a test.

I'm curious, are you color blind? Those look red and blue to me.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:21

Hob_Gadling: Jul 6, 2007; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS; Grimey Drawer

Nitrousoxide posted:

I'm curious, are you color blind? Those look red and blue to me.

Dunno. Maybe?

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:24

doverhog: May 31, 2013; Defender of democracy and human rights 🇺🇦

Hob_Gadling posted:

The purpose is to see how much an universal income model would improve the employment status of people In the current system earning one cent on top of that 300 euros costs you 150 euros in lost benefits. This creates a barrier for short-duration employment and freelancing. The aim of the test is not to see what happens in all possible circumstances.

It's not the only barrier. Toimeentulotuki is very common among people on ty�markkinatuki and that is still 100% reduced for every � earned.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:33

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Nitrousoxide posted:

I'm curious, are you color blind? Those look red and blue to me.

It's eunry and nepal.

(Computer monitors can vary quite a lot in how they display colors, yours might be much more saturated than Hob_Gadling's.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 19:34

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

They look like very saturated brown and blue to me.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:04

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

YF-23 posted:

They look like very saturated brown and blue to me.

You mean unsaturated, right?

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:08

Antifa Poltergeist: Jun 3, 2004; "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you"

European politics: We cant see color straight.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:12

YF-23: Feb 17, 2011; My god, it's full of cat!

A Buttery Pastry posted:

You mean unsaturated, right?

No, I mean saturated.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:16

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

They are orange-ish khaki and gunmetal grey.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:19

Bourricot: Aug 7, 2016

Cat Mattress posted:

Article 3 is interesting. It says it rejects both the arguments of the city and of those who opposed the city's decision. Basically "shut up you squabbling dumbasses, you're all stupid".

I checked that article L761-1: it's about who has to pay attorney fees to whom; the judge can also decide that no one will get anything (like he did here).
As far as I know, this is only the d�cision en r�f�r� (summary judgment? not sure of the translation). We still have to wait for the jugement au fond (judgment upon the merits?). Which will probably come in a few years, when everybody will have forgotten about this...

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:32

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

blue-gray and dark pink

# ? Aug 26, 2016 20:36

Private Speech: Mar 30, 2011; I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.

light blue and pink-red

# ? Aug 26, 2016 21:18

feller: Jul 5, 2006

Wait the US is against the inquiry into Ireland? That's bizarre as hell, it's in their interest for these arrangements to be shut down.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 22:02

Randler: Jan 3, 2013; ACER ET VEHEMENS BONAVIS

cool and good posted:

Wait the US is against the inquiry into Ireland? That's bizarre as hell, it's in their interest for these arrangements to be shut down.

The United States basically do not tax profits that are generated outside of America. That was a deliberate decision in order to make the expansion of US business to foreign markets cheaper. (Just like the TP tax rulings and Dutch-Irish sandvich constructs were deliberate design decisions by the countries involved in order to lure companies there.) The United States do not want American companies to have to pay those taxes retroactively, because that means more expenses for the American companies. If any taxes have to be paid back, America would prefer to get that money itself either upon repatriation or now.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 22:15

kustomkarkommando: Oct 22, 2012

America have also been accusing the EU of conducting an anti-American witch hunt what with the Apple/Ireland investigation, the McDonalds/Luxembourg investigation, the Google anti-trust charges and the recent Starbucks/Netherlands ruling.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 22:21

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

kustomkarkommando posted:

America have also been accusing the EU of conducting an anti-American witch hunt what with the Apple/Ireland investigation, the McDonalds/Luxembourg investigation, the Google anti-trust charges and the recent Starbucks/Netherlands ruling.

Wait, who in any official capacity has accused the EU of harming AMerican interests? I'm not aware of anything of the sort.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 22:41

Geriatric Pirate: Apr 25, 2008; by Nyc_Tattoo

Hob_Gadling posted:

To fix a couple misunderstandings:

Universal income test in Finland only accepts people who get the basic unemployment benefit of 702 euros. If you're getting ansiosidonnainen, you're not eligible to join the test. Same goes for students, people who are almost retired and other special interest groups.

The current system pays you 702 euros of taxable income as the basic unemployment benefit of last tier. On top of that you can earn up to 300 euros without losing any of that benefit. The proposal replaces that, and that only, with a lump sum of 560 euro which is tax-free and won't be reduced no matter what you earn.

The purpose is to see how much an universal income model would improve the employment status of people In the current system earning one cent on top of that 300 euros costs you 150 euros in lost benefits. This creates a barrier for short-duration employment and freelancing. The aim of the test is not to see what happens in all possible circumstances.

A picture to describe income at different earning levels in old and new model:

Light gray is current situation, brown is the suggested test.

Personally I find the test setup reasonable given the aims and limitations of such a test.

source for graphic, page 9 (Finnish only, sorry): http://stm.fi/documents/1271139/3102139/HE+Perustulo+SU.pdf/4b247202-265a-4e04-8aaf-2c8d1e512859
more links (in English): http://stm.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/sosiaali-ja-terveysministerio-pyytaa-lausuntoja-osittaisen-perustulokokeilun-toteuttamisesta
http://stm.fi/perustulokokeilu?p_p_...anguageId=en_US

Yeah and that's my problem with the system:

It doesn't test the effectiveness of UBI for people who we really want to encourage to return to the workforce sooner (people on ansiosidonnainen, aka generally more skilled workers who receive higher benefits). Yeah fine, it's great to test the employment response for (essentially) the long-term unemployed, but that reduces this to essentially an academic study instead of something with significant policy relevance. Ok, we will know how likely some guys are to take up work that they're otherwise disincentivized from doing. But UBI would by definition need to be applied to all people (or all people in the labor force), in which case knowing whether it decreases effort and its total cost are kind of important.

# ? Aug 26, 2016 23:56

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Geriatric Pirate posted:

Yeah and that's my problem with the system:

It doesn't test the effectiveness of UBI for people who we really want to encourage to return to the workforce sooner (people on ansiosidonnainen, aka generally more skilled workers who receive higher benefits). Yeah fine, it's great to test the employment response for (essentially) the long-term unemployed, but that reduces this to essentially an academic study instead of something with significant policy relevance. Ok, we will know how likely some guys are to take up work that they're otherwise disincentivized from doing. But UBI would by definition need to be applied to all people (or all people in the labor force), in which case knowing whether it decreases effort and its total cost are kind of important.

I don't think there's any country today that could actually support a plan like that, speaking from the point of view of basic economics. An unconditional welfare entitlement for the long term unemployed is probably the best we can hope for realistically - and it's in fact a major victory for labour.

# ? Aug 27, 2016 00:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 07:14

kustomkarkommando: Oct 22, 2012

steinrokkan posted:

Wait, who in any official capacity has accused the EU of harming AMerican interests? I'm not aware of anything of the sort.

The US secretary of the treasury openly accused the EC of disproportionately targeting American firms in a letter to Juncker in February

# ? Aug 27, 2016 00:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > EU Politics: I miss Renaults(don't make fun of me)

«‹›960 »