Finland will hand out cash to 2000 jobless people to test universal basic income • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by aninhumer » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

reddytowns wrote: post #156

briandear wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain to me why my tax dollars should pay for other people again? I am not sure I understand why my labor must pay for others against my wishes. If I want to donate to charity, I will. Taxes should be used to pay for shared resources (roads, police, military,) but paying other people's living expenses? No thanks. America has poor and unemployed, yet Democrats seem to have no problem with illegal immigration which r…

Exactly. And there is nothing stopping a group of people right now from forming up and, enforced by contract, giving basic income to all members by taxing those that make money. If it were such a great idea for a country, it would have already occurred at a smaller level.

>there is nothing stopping a group of people right now from ... giving basic income to all members

Nothing except the humongous coordination problem involved in doing so. These are exactly the kind of problems that government exists to solve.

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

#182

Post by jganetsk » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:33 PM UTC

I agree with basic income, but most analyses of it are backwards.

For most of history, governments addressed unemployment by starting wars. By shipping off to war, the unemployed temporarily get a job. They either come back dead or ready to take a new job in an economy revitalized by the stimulus of government war spending.

John Maynard Keynes noticed this pattern, especially during the Great Depression and WW2, and made a brilliant suggestion: continue with these government interventions, but keep the government spending and drop the war part. We call it "Keynesian economics", but really, what Keynes invented was capitalist peace. And guess what, since then, no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. [1]

We need a Keynesian boost today, not because of technological progress, but rather the contrary: the rapid technological progress of the 20th century that brought tremendous economic prosperity to humanity has finally come to a grinding halt. Let's stop denying this. The stream of lifechanging breakthrough inventions of the 20th century, from A (antibiotics) to Z (zippers), have ended. As a result, we now suffer from secular stagnation, something Keynes understood very well back then, and Larry Summers understands in the present. [2]

It's especially absurd to claim that automation is the cause of this. Automation has already upended society: it was called the Industrial Revolution and happened 200 years ago. The upheaval caused then to human lives and employment was far more dramatic than anything happening today.

And basic income is simply the most fair way to apply Keynesian policy. It is more fair to split the money up and distribute it equally to every individual than it is for the government to buy things on their behalf. Highly distributed spending will also avoid creating market distortions and liquidity traps. [3] And the resulting economic boost will lead to increased tax revenues and, who knows, maybe more jobs -- this time not subject to labor market distortions caused by people being desperate for work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree [2] http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagna... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap

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

#183

Post by ilaksh » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:34 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #19

If its only going to jobless people, not UBI. This is not a meaningless distinction -- one of the features of UBI is that it is universal . If this just goes to unemployed people we cannot see the change in behavior with people who are earning close to their reservation wage. Do they stop working? This is streamlined rebranded welfare. Not a paradigm shift.

Exactly. Its bad because it is reported as a UBI test but is pretty much the opposite because it does not change the one thing UBI changes which is that you continue to receive the money even when you get a job.

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

#184

Post by malcolmgreaves » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

lacampbell wrote: post #153

mrleinad wrote: post #149

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'…

I agree with you in principle. But I am extremely dubious of using the state to accomplish this. I would rather see a cultural shift where we all agree we don't need state coercion to get us to help one another. Anything the state does IMO will be inefficient and involve pay offs to a few select chosen corporations. Do we need force to do this? Do we need cronyism? Do we need corruption?

Well, there needs to be an actor that has enough influence and power to actually make it all work. UBI isn't going to work if it's ultimately a volunteer based system. We already have lots of voluntary donations ($ and time) in our present day.

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

#185

Post by aninhumer » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:40 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #179

dmurray wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People working X hours a week are guaranteed to be spending those X hours producing something useful to society, or at least to their employer. People not working are not. Sure, some people who are not employed may be raising children or volunteering or doing something else beneficial to society,and encouraging them to work instead would be society's loss. But if we trust in the market economy, those people don't exi…

Not all people working are benefitting society. Many are actively leeching from it.

Perhaps, but if so that should be solved directly, by creating laws limiting the leeching behaviour, not by generally disincentivising work.

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

#186

Post by reddytowns » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:41 PM UTC

aninhumer wrote: post #181

reddytowns wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And there is nothing stopping a group of people right now from forming up and, enforced by contract, giving basic income to all members by taxing those that make money. If it were such a great idea for a country, it would have already occurred at a smaller level.

>there is nothing stopping a group of people right now from ... giving basic income to all members Nothing except the humongous coordination problem involved in doing so. These are exactly the kind of problems that government exists to solve.

What coordination problems? Just form a kickstarter. Get all applicants who want to sign up and support each other to sign a 5 year contract, done.

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

#187

Post by slavik81 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:41 PM UTC

anotherarray wrote: post #168

ScottBurson wrote: post #5

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

If there are conditions, it's not universal. The distinguishing feature of universal basic income in comparison to traditional welfare was that it doesn't have the disincentives to work caused by means testing. If you add means testing back in, you've defeated the purpose.

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

#188

Post by kahrkunne » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:47 PM UTC

I hate being "that guy" but am I the only one who expects this particular brand of communism to not be any better than previous attempts?

Somebody's going to have to pay for this...

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

#189

Post by jnordwick » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:49 PM UTC

jnicholasp wrote: post #131

briandear wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. The deadweight lose from taxation results in less economic benefit than not taxing and redistributing the money. Keynesian economics doesn't work. Assuming the administrative cost of taxation is non-zero, that cost means that $500 given to someone cost someone else >$500. So we spend $500 + deadweight loss to 'gain' $500 in economic gain. So the benefit of giving that money must provide a gain greater than…

The 'deadweight' administrative cost is itself an economic benefit - it's money paid to some administrator, who will thus have extra money and will be able to return it to the market in turn. It just means that the $500 of benefits isn't actually $500, and doesn't just go the end recipient: it's actually $550 (or whatever) and goes to the end recipient as well as the administrators and other intermediaries who delive…

Under your interpretation there is no possible way taxation, waste, or even fraud is ever a losing proposition. You fall into one of those holes Keynes said you could dig and fill up to help the economy.

Unfortunately taxation itself reduces the incentive to produce and distorts the economy, and the Broken Window Fallacy is still a fallacy.

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

#190

Post by throwaway729 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 11:53 PM UTC

sonthonax wrote: post #178

velodrome wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax Negative income tax (more emphasis) + basic income (less emphasis) would be a better system. A negative income tax would encourage people to work. Basic income by itself may just remove some barriers to working but may not result in a change (basic income > costs).

Negative income tax would be a blatant subsidisation of labour, which has it's own issues. In another sense, it's just welfare, but a highly regressive one. More income would go to those who are poor but in work, and less to those for what ever reason (like disability) unable to work. If you were to further lower the costs of labour, you risk stymieing actual economic growth which comes from improvements in efficienc…

> For instance, why use a machine when you can just hire more people?

Politics could become a reason -- the people who are being replaced by machines become a powerful force, have a strong work-based ethic (different from "work ethic"), and care more about their well-being than the overall efficiency of the economy.