Live data from Hacker News

Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

nytimes.com

161–170 of 413 posts

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#161

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs. I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

So, you're saying that giving people the basic needs for living creates more jobs?

There, you just solved the problem. Put money into creating this structure and it'll sustain itself.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#162

This is not UBI (universal basic income), this is re-branded welfare.

Not exactly. While it's initially only being offered to unemployed people, it will have reduced bureaucracy and won't be withdrawn if people start earning.

It's by no means a perfect test of UBI, but "re-branded welfare" isn't really fair either.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#163

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs. I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

Worth noting that less than 100 people on Earth have the net worth of half of Earth's population; half of the world's population is 3.5 billion people.

Notable source: https://theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-bill...

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#164

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

Everybody has a different idea of a risk/reward ratio he wants in his life. Some people just want stability with basic needs met, and have no ambition for more; you would actually find a lot of them in modern russians who want Soviet Union back. But other people are quite OK with a risk of being sick and homeless as long as they keep their freedom to make their own destiny. And the notion that they have to pay a lot of money to some organization just to pay for other people's mistakes is completely alien to them.

I'm not trying to convince you that their worldview is better. But if you're talking about state-wide things, you have to take those people in consideration, too.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#165

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

Because giving people money is a better way of doing the same thing while matching people's preferences. For instance, food: Handing people a government decided food basket will not optimize for what people want to eat, or know how to prepare. Give them enough money to feed themselves, and we spend the same amount and we have happier people and less distortions. Same thing with shelter: Money means that we let people…

I couldn't agree more with your point. Mine was just basic needs should be covered for everyone. How? That's up to debate, but giving people money increases demand for goods, which activates the economy, so I'm all in for this program.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#166

Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work…

[deleted]

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#167

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

The problem with your thinking is that it ignores that it takes "work" to get people those basic necessities you refer to. So there absolutely is a danger in disincentivizing people to work, if people contribute nothing, but consume even these basic needs. I'm not against basic income, but there absolutely is risk to society.

The incentive system you mention only exists under the assumption that everyone needs to work. My understanding is that with the productivity gains of the digital age, those that are working are able to produce enough to cover those that are not working. We have an abundance of wealth, more than enough to ensure everyone's most basic needs are taken care of. It's just at odds with a capitalist economy.

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#168

Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance. Worst. Idea. Ever. I know -- it's a common feature of income support systems, including here in the US. I don't know whether UBI is going to prove workable or not. But even if it doesn't, if we could just redesign the systems we do have so they never give recipients a disincentive to work…

Isn't that the whole point of the experiment?

You need to understand how people react to the idea of "not doing anything and still get paid".

Do they give up? Do they get depressed? Do they create things? Does entrepreneurship increase? Violence rate?... These are all interesting questions

Re: Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income

#169

Why don't we just cover everyone's basic needs and be done with it? This is a pointless discussion. Just give everyone enough food, shelter, and free access to medicine. It'll create a society where we don't stress over losing a job because we don't know how we're going to get our food tomorrow. The reason that some people think this "disincentiveces" people to work is that they'd have to pay higher wages and wouldn'…

Let's back to basics. How do we cover the needs of one person? Better, how do we cover only the need for food? You need to produce rice, beans and meat. How do you produce all that? A lot of ways ... but you need to produce. And that word alone is the problem here.

The moment someone stops producing, he is a burden. He must be carried on by someones else production. The government does not produce anything. The moment he starts handing over cash to people who do not produce, he is transferring the production of someone who works hard to someone who does not.

You want to help those people? Pay them to study, get some skills. Pay then to clean the streets or the public bathrooms.

But for God sake, do not pay them to do nothing. It's unfair with the rest of those who actually work really hard for this handed cash.

Post reply on HN