Uugh, last line obviously meant to read "unemployable is still unemployable..."

There's been some commentary that the individuals included in this study were all "long term unemployed," and that it to some extent means those individuals don't necessarily have any "marketable" skills that could lead to employment. Another consequence of being long term unemployed is that a long gap in your CV typically is an enormous minus when applying for a job (in Finland), although not officially of course, but certainly in practice.

I can't vouch for the truthiness of all individuals included in the study being long long term unemployed, but I will join in regarding the conclusion: If you've been long time unemployed, you're going to have a very hard time getting employed again, regardless of the form of welfare you're receiving. Therefore, if this study included only (or mostly) long term unemployed individuals, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the difference between UBI or normal Finnish welfare (with incentive traps) w/r/t workforce participation.

.

Additionally a word on the "incentive traps". It's the word that is used and properly translated, but IMHO it's a bit of a misnomer b/c "incentive" somehow, to me at least, carries somewhat positive associations. As in, incentive to get an improved state. But, welfare being welfare, I think it's fair to say that, in spite of the public image somehow being that being on welfare provides a great standard of living (b/c "hey, free money!"), it just stands to reason that it's not going to be that great really. You're going to get enough to eat and have a roof over your head and perhaps some new clothing now and then. But since you're living from hand to mouth, any disruption in the welfare is going to wreck you. And that's the trap, as I've understood it (disclaimer: I haven't read the laws myself and IANAL anyway, but this is my layman understanding of things).

So say you're getting stable welfare N each month, which is enough to let you get by, but not letting you save up any money. If you get a part-time job -- and let's put a pin in that, we'll get back to it -- that nets you, say 50% x N, then you have to report this right away and your welfare is reduced accordingly. So now you get 50% x N in welfare and 50% x N in wages and you're no better off now than previously, but hey, at least you have a work and can put that in your CV. You're now a productive member of society, but you're still living from hand to mouth. So... next you lose your job, b/c it was just a temp job. Now you have to re-apply for 100% welfare, and because of bureaucracy, you're not going to get that restored right away; it will take weeks, or maybe worst-case months, during which you only get the 50% welfare. Or -- and I'm not sure exactly how it works -- it might even be that you're not even getting the 50% welfare while this gets sorted out. Either way, since you're living from hand to mouth, that means you don't have enough money during that period to compensate for your lost job. So, worst case you're starving and can't pay your rent.

And that's the trap. Even if you want to work, you need to get a job that gives you more than N each month so that you can survive the months after the eventual loss of your job, if/when that happens. Perhaps "significantly" than N, b/c obviously a job also incurs its own costs; you can't show up to work in tattered clothes, for instance, or you might have to get a car that wasn't an option while on welfare. And you might not get a job with that kind of wages, if you've been unemployed for a long time. Especially if you don't have any special and/or marketable skills.

And I think it's a bit misleading to call this situation an incentive trap, as if being on 100% x N welfare is better for the individual in question. But it is more secure, since e.g. the 50%-50% scenario means that sudden re-unemployment can wreck you. Which in turn means, as long as you're only offered jobs with wages that aren't enough to compensate for the risk of job loss, you financially risk a lot if you accept them. And a lot on menial labor is also low-wages.

Finally, let's go back to the part-time work I mentioned. As I've understood it, a job can have a contract with no assurance of any working hours. So for instance, if there's a blip in customers on Saturday, maybe they'll call you in to do cashier work. Or maybe they'll call in someone else. Or maybe there is no blip. I have no idea how our welfare bureaucracy handles such cases, but I imagine that not very gracefully.

UBI does away with all that.

But unemployable is still employable, regardless of whether you get welfare or UBI.

Err, no, because you get a replacement phone?

Er, is this a serious post? You do realize that the link leads to a thumbnail, don't you?

Remove the -thumb part of the URL, and you get something more readable. Still a pretty lousy scan, but perfectly legible.

First, YES, life is gray--but there are SHADES of gray, not just one dull gray where everything is acceptable. Some of those shades are so close to either black or white that there really is no practical difference. To blurt out "but it is gray, and gray means OK" shows an inability to understand degrees.

Second, if something seems wrong in one situation and right in another, perhaps that is because it IS wrong in one situation and right in another? If I consider it wrong to imprison an innocent person but right to imprison a mass murderer, it only shows that I have an understanding of circumstance, not that imprisoning people is a gray area.

Temple of Elemental Evil. You can probably get it as some sort of budget release, or as part of some collection. "(Atari) Action Triple Pack," which also includes Demon Stone and Magic Battlegrounds, might be a cheap alternative. Admittedly, I haven't played the Neverwinter Nights games, but ToEE is very close to the paper and pen experience. The game carters to your general party alignment and has different endings depending on that, as well as on how well you do.

Having said that, ToEE is one of the "most flawed PoS games" I've ever played. The game itself trudges along without crashing most of the time, but the game world logic falters regularly. Example 1 (spoiler): Later in the game you will need a sledgehammer, among other things. You can complete the game without it, but not perfectly. The sledgehammer is found in two places in the entire game I think, and at the time you find yourself needing it, it may no longer be available (discarded). Joy! Example 2: You can create magic items, but are restricted to whatever masterwork weapons you find. There is no way to commission a particular weapon type, in spite of there being several weaponsmiths around. Example 3: Certain feats are very limited. I picked "Craft Wonderous Items" for my wizard, only to learn that there is exactly one such item in the game that he can craft, and furthermore his alignment prevented him from making that item! Joy! Example 4: You can't use a higher level spell slot for a lower level spell, which is especially annoying with the sorcerer.

ToEE has potential for a great paper and pen replacement, but has so many flaws that it cripples the experience. I understand there is a modding community that has worked out the flaws and bugs and added spells and abilities and raised the level cap and so on. If you choose to try it out (and I think it is worth it), do by all means apply the mods first (they are incompatible with existing save games). This and this are probably good ways to get started.

In general, you may like game or dislike it (it's based on a very old module), but this is probably the closest to "paper and pen" you will get in a computer game, and IMO worth a look because of that alone. You may actually come out with a greater understanding of the 3.5 rules than you had before.