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.
Finland tried a small UBI experiment that failed.
Failed on what measure? The people in the program reported less stress and more happiness.
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.
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.
And what failed there?
That the people who got UBI did improved on their general quality of life?
Because that is the general idea of UBI and that worked.
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.
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.
I disagree strongly that the cost for UBI would be untenable in the general context.
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. And there is political opposition of course based on the strawman that UBI "would make people lazy". Maybe in some "other" cultures it would (I have no idea where, though), but not in the nordics. So no those in need are forced to go humbly from government desk to the next.
"It’s fine to like UBI .. but acting as though either of them would have a significant positive economic impact is completely unsupported by either theory or evidence"
Disagree again. Poverty reduces peoples life outcomes. Having a scheme that reduces generational poverty will improve educational results, thus increasing life time wages, thus increasing consumption and taxes.
" there’s certainly no reason to link them as part of a single policy."
Strongly agreed! UBI and carbon tax should have nothing to do with each other.
(Sorry, I cropped a bit your comment.)