> For example nordic countries already have UBI in all but name due to all the support the society gives to those in need. We just don't call it UBI because it's split to several parts.
that's basic "social welfare". it's not really universal, it's more for those who qualify. in certain countries you can even opt out of this safety net.
you mentioned "nordic countries", in reality only Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed.
True, most of Europe has some sort of social welfare system. But that system has a massive cost overhead: to determine who qualifies and who doesn't, to support it there's a complete system of lawmaking, administration, monitoring and fraud detection and prosecution (and probably a cottage industry of fraud assistance as well). I have seen some back-of-the-envelope calculations detailing how those costs don't cover the whole cost of UBI, but I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive overview. But regardless of the cost, UBI would results in a smaller government apparatus than the current system.
Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed.
Failed on what measure? The people in the program reported less stress and more happiness.
> but that system has a massive cost overhead: to determine who qualifies and who doesn't, to support it there's a complete system of lawmaking, administration, monitoring and fraud detection and prosecution (and probably a cottage industry of fraud assistance as well). I have seen some back-of-the-envelope calculations detailing how those costs don't cover the whole cost of UBI, but I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive overview.
The back of the numbers estimates make it sufficiently obvious that the claim that these costs are a miniscule fraction of the additional cost of a UBI for UBIers arguing otherwise to have never attempted to produced a comprehensive overview. Assessing whether people are looking for work is relatively expensive in terms of administrator time, for example. But the administration system ensures that only 2% of the working age public actually get that benefit, not 100% of the population (or even the 20-30% of working age people who aren't economically active but aren't actively looking for work either). There's a reason nobody's doing studies to understand whether you could cover [most of] the costs of paying a benefit to 100% of the population by removing some of the admin staff that check the eligibility of the 2% currently receiving it, and it's the same reason perpetual motion machines aren't tested.
Figures are based on UK [pre-UC] JSA claimant figures, but there's nothing particularly unusual about them globally; looks like the non-COVID figures for US unemployment benefit claims are lower and non-participation in the workforce higher. Unemployment benefit is the eligibility tested benefit UBIers universally agree should be entirely replaced with UBI payments [UBI advocates' views on retaining separate, variable disability allowances are more mixed, but there remains same basic logic that only a small fraction of the population currently receives them].
The existence of eligibility criteria ensures that unemployment benefits are, in normal times, paid out to only a small fraction of the population, because only a small proportion of the population is unemployed and looking for work. Eligibility testing admin isn't cheap, but it certainly isn't more expensive just paying everyone.
For comparison purposes, according to it's own stats the entire DWP admin bill is in the region of £6b, including all admin for all types of benefit to all ages of people and a typically overpriced new govt IT project. Even if UBI could get that down to zero which it clearly can't, it wouldn't pay for many people to receive a UBI.
The general idea is that the benefits are worth the cost of paying for it, more so than existing welfare schemes. That might be a subjective test, but it evidently didn't pass because it wasn't renewed.
"that's basic "social welfare". it's not really universal, it's more for those who qualify."
In Finland everybody below certain threshold of financial means qualifies. Addict or criminal, no matter what.
"in certain countries you can even opt out of this safety net."
Of course you can opt out. Enforcing a safety net against an individuals choosing would be against basic human rights.
From economic resourcing point of view it's more or less universal and everyone is included unless they really wish to get away from the system. Drug addict or not, criminal or not. Nobody is forced to take the dole, but from resourcing point of view there is no biological poverty (hunger or lack of housing). Nobody can force you to take this aid. And mental illnesses and addiction always create additional problem no high level scheme can likely address.
So it's not a 100% solution to everyone's woes but close to 90% I would say.
"you mentioned "nordic countries", in reality only Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed."
You are looking this from a too narrow perspective. What I meant was that the social welfare system in Finalnd (my home country and other nordics) effectively already encompasses a UBI scheme. A defacto UBI scheme, in Finland for example, should replace most of existing social welfare schemes except for medical treatment and child allowances.
The basic thesis is this: the society already uses quite a lot of tax funds for social welfare schemes, some of which are administratively complex and expensive. People can have housing and food. Yet they mostly choose to work when they can.
So the typical counterpoints to UBI - it's too expensive and would make people lazy - don't really apply.
The only thing missing in the Finnish model left is to merge the various wellfare schemes into one UBI scheme.
The experiment you commment was not really. It was "the current social system plus some UBI cash". And I would claim it was a success. People said they felt better. This is a tremendous thing! Mental illness problems are becoming a huge issue. Making peope feel better actually helps to combat this, and may even support people enough that they can heal and be able to work again.
Healing from long depression can take years. The UBI experiment was far too short to actively track these individuals.
To "qualify" you basically have to come in to the office and claim that you have problems paying your bills or finding a job. So in all practical meanings, it is exactly like UBI, there is no reason to think that if the name itself would change, there would be any difference in the outcome.
The whole point of UBI is that you get income (the "I" in UBI) wether you have other sources of income (aka a job) of not (the "U" for Universal in UBI).
The social welfare in nordic countries is mostly not income (housing, free healthcare, ...) and is certainly not universal (you lose access to it once you have a job, or you have to pay for it through taxes, and some of the fees are waived for people with low income).
I rally love the social welfare of Sweden et al. but calling that "basically UBI" is missing the point.
that's basic "social welfare". it's not really universal, it's more for those who qualify. in certain countries you can even opt out of this safety net.
you mentioned "nordic countries", in reality only Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed.