Live data from Hacker News

Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

businessforscotland.co.uk

121–130 of 238 posts

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That way lies pain, we have to cross that bridge as we get there which we currently are already on; hence the structural unemployment. Self driving cars are going to cause mass unemployment, we're already getting there.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Basic income is a hot topic because forward thinking people who see what's going on in the world right now already see it. You say lets cross that bridge when we get there; that's the point, we're there, you just aren't looking very hard.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Except that there are strong social incentives for anyone who is capable of getting a paying job and going off welfare to do so Debatable. In the US, many welfare programs are designed to cut off anyone who actually gets a job...even if that job pays less than what you'd get from welfare. This problem gets even bigger as you factor in the fact that multiple welfare programs exist, making it nigh-impossible to preven…

One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?

Someone on benefits who spends all their money on alcohol will find themselves grinding their way through civil debt recovery - their landlord will sue for loss of rent and will evict them from the home; utility companies will sue to recover the debt and will cut off the utilities.

and whether that's BI or benefit makes little difference to that. You get the money and it's up to you what you spend it on, once you've spent it that's it, you don't get another dollop if you make unwise choices.

At least in England someone who becomes homeless through non-payment of rent (even as a result of alcoholism) is declared to have made themselves homeless, and they're not eligible for public housing. They might be able to get emergency accommodation in homeless shelters.

There are some slight complications if children are involved - a parent who causes the children to become homeless through alcoholism is going to find considerable child protection social services involvement in their life, but the presence of children may make emergency bed&breakfast housing available. Those are pretty terrible places. They're often not fit for human habitation, and are over crowded.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#123

I'm cautiously enthusiastic about basic income. I want to believe that it really can change everything, until that nagging doubt of "but human nature just doesn't work that way!" inevitably kills the buzz. The idea behind basic income is to remove day-to-day struggle from people's lives. If only they didn't have to worry where their next rent check is coming from, then potentially a huge groundswell of human capital…

Two big points about BI:

1) You seem to be thinking of idealist communism, where everyone gets the same paycheck no matter what they do. BI is not like that. The idea with BI is that you get a basic income for nothing. It's just that: basic. Not luxurious, not even very good. Enough to live in a crappy little apartment with a roommate maybe. The incentive to do better is simple: do you want to live in a crappy apartment with roommates, or do you want something better? If you want more than the basic, then you need to get a job.

2) For the "not-so-huge wave of accomplishment", you're missing something pretty big: crime. All those lower-class people getting checks from the government may not be accomplishing much, but they're generally not committing crimes, and as a result, our crime rates are at historically low levels despite what the sensational news media would have you believe. Now why aren't they accomplishing more? Probably because most more-capable people aren't on welfare, they're gainfully employed. But you're also missing other stuff: a lot of these people getting government checks DO work, they just do it under-the-table. They do odd jobs: home repair, yard work, etc., and get paid in cash so they don't lose their check. The government may not like this, but it does add to the economy, and it shows that BI is a workable concept: these people frequently DO want to work, but for whatever reason, regular full-time employment escapes them, either because there's not enough full-time work available (and part-time doesn't pay the bills because there's no benefits and the minimum wage is too low, so they stick with welfare and under-the-table work), or because they have some physical or mental problems that keep them from holding down a regular job. Whatever the reason, most people really do want to make more money than the bare minimum, you just don't see it because it's cash-based and not reported to the IRS.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#124
post #79
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work in the case of an unconditional basic income though? If you're not going to have a pre-requisite for native Finnish people to have had a job in order to receive it, can you have a pre-requisite for EU nationals to have a job before they can claim?

The concept you are looking for is that of residency: because you are physically in a country doesn't mean you are a resident of that country. There are rules of residency even within the EU.

I'm not sure, but perhaps it is similar to local voting rights? Do tourists get the right to vote in local elections, or do they have to prove to have lived there for some length of time first?

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#125

Could an economist weigh in on this? Naively, this seems ridiculously expensive to me. If you wanted to eradicate poverty with this policy, say pay everyone 60% of the mean income, that means the gov't will need to raise taxes by some amount X, in order to provide a corresponding 10% of mean earnings to every member of the population. If you do the quick math for a 5% value of X that would mean an increase in taxes o…

Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren...

The economists Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek both argued for a basic income.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#126
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we did not. Again, that welfare program is very different from the basic income described here in many ways. Those differences are crucial to understanding the benefits of a basic income in comparison to the broad welfare program you reference. One such difference being that everyone in a society gets the basic income with no strings attached meaning that there is no perverse incentive not to work. With a basic i…

What is the evidence with regards to the benefit or detriment of the fear of starving?

I can't cite any studies, but I do remember having heard of many studies indicating well motivated employees are more productive and happy employees are more productive. As for whether the fear of starving is 'good motivation' I would say that personally speaking it is definitely not what inspires my best work. Mileage probably varies quite a bit.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! I think you've captured the idea perfectly. It also removes much of the administrative cost of other types of welfare. Cost that's a product of highly complicated rules for who deserves how much welfare.

My point is that basic income should be treated as a welfare program, not as a stimulus package. We are bound to be disappointed in the ROI of basic income if we are looking for it to accelerate social evolution all by itself.

This is a good point. I'd go so far to label it a "social program", because even "welfare program" is a loaded term.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#128
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If BI isn't enough to replace existing welfare systems, then it isn't enough. You can't half-ass something like this.

I'm more speaking to what I believe is the inevitability of some people making bad decisions (like buying a bunch of powerball tickets or betting your money at the racetrack or something.) with the money they receive and then not being able to afford the basics. There would obviously be many people who are benefitted by BI, but my question is more wondering what happens to the percentage of people that end up still n…

I question how a "BI" can be paid for long-term.

Presumably BI is taxed like any other income, but of course that means the amount of tax revenue collected will not balance the amount of money paid to citizens... unless we really raise the rates on "wealthy" people (who's definition may shift if everyone is provided a free "comfortable" standard of living). In which case this "BI" becomes a Robbin Hood tax on the nation's wealthy, job creators, innovators, etc.

Knowing several people personally that would be likely to only exist off of the BI (and not produce anything, or do anything with their free time), I have my doubts about a BI nation-wide leading to a boom in productivity. This may be a selection bias, but it seems to me as time goes on, we have more and more individuals content to not produce, leaving their days to just games and other "fun" activities.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#129
post #5

This is taking the objective of taxes to an extreme: redistribution of resources from the wealthiest to the poorest. From wikipedia: "Governments also use taxes to fund welfare and public services. These services can include education systems, health care systems, pensions for the elderly, unemployment benefits, and public transportation. Energy, water and waste management systems are also common public utilities." .…

All governments, since the most primitive tribal societies, redistribute income. Conservative economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman favor a basic income over more specific welfare programs because it could be implemented with a very lean bureaucratic overhead and minimally distort the economy, e.g., the government is not directly providing services, instead people purchase what they need themselves, and the perverse incentive of means-tested welfare programs to avoid earning too much money are avoided.

Re: Finland’s basic income plan could change everything

#130
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One question I have about BI is if it replaces other forms of social welfare (food stamps, unemployment, etc...), what happens when some percentage of people inevitably make decisions and still cannot afford the basics of what BI should cover? Will a new set of social welfare programs replace the ones that were previously removed?

Also if it replaces the existing complicated system, what happens to the million-odd public sector workers who manage and administer it?

I figure, a BI in the US would be handled through local DMVs (triple acronym combo!) and thus at least some of the officials involved in the old welfare process will be transferred to the DMVs to help keep up. Others will, inevitably, find themselves out of a job; there's a massive, massive number of people in that bureaucracy, far more than we really need even before a BI comes in and makes most of that paperwork obsolete.

The good news is, the money that once went into their paycheck will now be used to fund their Basic Income, and they can find other lines of work.

Post reply on HN