|
|
|
|
|
|
by reloop
3413 days ago
|
|
|
> Unions in Finland have abandoned part time and low income people and only look after people who have full time jobs (who are members in the unions). A union is a membership organisation that looks after the interest of it's members, I don't see how they could have abandoned people that aren't members. What has happened in other Nordic countries though is that politicians have worked hard to lessen the power of unions by decoupling things like unemployment and introducing other form of employment. Therefor it makes less and less sense to be a member of a union. But that is to a large extent a political question not a choice by the unions. I also think maybe one of the biggest unanswered question with basic income is how you can guarantee it long term. We already know that things like minimum wage, unemployment benefits, student benefits and social insurance don't keep up over time despite the power of the institutions and the unions. Now people are saying that we should put all those things in one basket and hope that the politicians don't screw us over later? |
|
|
Having one basket for everyone is politically easier to defend.
If you look at the Finnish or Nordic welfare model in general, most of the income transfers go to to middle class who also pays for them. Poor people are taken care on the side.
The reality is that people don't care about poor, but if you create system were everyone gets money equally, people don't want to give it up. We already have kind of UBI for children in Finland where government pays certain amount of money every month for families with children, rich and poor. Nobody wants to give it up, because free money (paid by taxes).