Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 413 posts

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

#201

Post by [deleted] »

thwarted wrote: post #140
kLeeIsDead wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People born into wealth aren't guaranteed that. After all, it's their parents' money, not theirs.

While this is true, it is the closest thing that already exists to a basic income, so it should be the first place to go for material to study before/while setting up a more controlled experiment (assuming a highly controlled, completely reproducible experiment actually can be set up in social/economic sciences). Even in a UBI setup, it's the government's/public's money, not the recipient's, right up until the point…

[deleted]

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

#202

Post by edblarney »

unfamiliar wrote: post #58
edblarney wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't they just ease/remove the limitations on the current program?

Because that would cost a shitload of money and might not work. Hence a trial run.

They could simply do this (i.e. welfare without limits on working) on a small scale as a 'test' which would be considerably less expensive than BUI test on a limited scale.

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

#203

Post by CopOnTheRun »

SCAQTony wrote: post #142

Finland's population is 5.439 million, It may work for 2000 people but will it be workable and scale up to 10-million, 50-million or 100-million people? I believe the "square cube law comes into play. Square cube law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

Why would the square cube law come into play here? I don't understand how it's related to this context.

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

#204

Post by tn13 »

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…

> Jobless people generally cannot earn additional income while collecting unemployment benefits or they risk losing that assistance.

This is modern day slavery. There is nothing universal about this. It if was universal income than you must get that money irrespective of what choices you make in life. Just because you are getting money from government, government puts up a chain around your neck and says you cant work.

In USA such people might turn to underground economy such as drug peddling.

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

#205

Post by edblarney »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #46
edblarney wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These programs depend at very least on the 'savings' government will incur by not having 'massive bureaucracies' to manage the program. The problem is - Government Unions are the most powerful in every state, and they will never, ever allow any significant layoff of personnel. So you get a 'new program' without the most important stated benefit. The reality of government, is that it is systematically inefficient beca…

As Basic Income is being introduced, unions will be slowly sunsetted. They may still be useful to oversee work quality and workers' rights, but movement to BI means at-will employment and that's not something they'll get to haggle with. The idea of BI is that you won't be able to live off it in Montreal. It might be sufficient to live off in some small remote town, but not in megapolis. They'll have to still wait tab…

Government unions are the most powerful organizations in the world, they will not 'sunsetted'. They have been growing in numbers, dollars and power for a 100 years, it's not going to stop now.

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

#206

Post by gohrt »

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…

How is subsidization of labor worse than subsidization of non-labor?

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

sqrt wrote: post #55
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…

I'm interested in hearing why it's a bad thing to disincentivize working more. Is it so bad for someone to not be working should they have enough money to live on? (I'm not sure if the benefits in this specific case are enough to live on, but I guess I'm thinking about the general principle.)

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by geon »

kr7 wrote: post #6

Another limited duration trial (two years). What's the point? It's not going to measure the real effect. People will know it is going to run out and behave differently than if it was permanent.

An what can you accomplish in 2 years anyway? Not enough time to start a business or even study.

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

#209

Post by agumonkey »

kLeeIsDead wrote: post #200
agumonkey wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A test is a test is a test.

And, in my opinion, the test would be useless if it had a time limit attached to it.

I think we could get some insights even with a broken test. But it has to be made by open minded scientists other wise people will interpret it as final truth.

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

#210

Post by tn13 »

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…

> 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.

Isn't that a desirable outcome ? Shouldn't the able bodied person who is working obviously earn more ? Giving people incentive to work not only helps them rise up but also prevents their exploitation in case they try going to underground economy.

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

If people are more efficient business will use people over machines. I don't think machines are be default always a good choice. What matters is the efficiency.

Free market capitalists who otherwise like machines and automation criticize the minimum wage laws for the same reason. Minimum wage laws force business to invest more in automation by outlawing hiring of people who could compete with machines over cost.

Post reply on HN