Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

271–280 of 413 posts

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

#271
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why a Land Value Tax is the clearly logical way to fund a UBI-- by collecting land rents in this fashion, you remove the ability for landlords to effectively confiscate the UBI.

Alas same effect, the TAX by owners will be passed onto renters with rents going up. Now if excess of housing that will eventually catch up and if a shortage then this will only exacerbate the divide. So much that can go wrong and equally right, hence they are testing this. Though a small test will be isolated from all global country impact and bias towards a false positive due to small impact. If that is projected t…

Rents go down when demand goes down. I've lived in the bay area through two booms and busts now and rent was higher in 2000 than it was in 2003, and higher in 2007 than it was in 2009.

When you project a local experiment to an entire country, don't forget that a concept similar to UBI known as "communism" has been tried before in the USSR, China, Cuba, and a few other countries, with limited success and many downsides.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?

I'm positive that this answer won't be appetizing if you belong to the dyed in the wool, coastal progressive contingent, heavily represented here on HN. Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep u…

[deleted]

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

#273
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.

You have to be jobless to enter the program, but then you can work as much as you like.

"It will give them benefits automatically, absent bureaucratic hassle and minus penalties for amassing extra income."

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

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a society produces so much value that everyone can be provided with a basic income that is greater than cost of living, why is that a bad thing?

I'm positive that this answer won't be appetizing if you belong to the dyed in the wool, coastal progressive contingent, heavily represented here on HN. Given the recent political developments (not just here in the U.S. but across the world including Europe), it is high time we speak frankly and not say things couched in vain pleasantries, suited to people who'd rather not hear or say anything disagreeable, to keep u…

>In other words people are mostly fine with any entitlements to the poor & disadvantaged as long as it doesn't threaten their way of life or become a competitive element to the comforts & privileges they are accustomed to.

Threats to people's "way of life" is the central idea to your post, which I think is a great springboard for specifically cultural issues that surround UBI. At the very least, cultural inertia is a real barrier to this kind of policy, even if we grant it status of being strictly better economics. The article also fixates on the "people will become lazy"-thinking as a culturally entrenched barrier, but I think your post has other real barriers that are harder to bring to discussion.

>people don't want a handout-receiver...suddenly being able to afford the same niceties of life that they see themselves slaving at their 9-to-5s for.

The "basic income" part of UBI suggests that "niceties of life" are not paid for. How austere that definition - whether it includes your examples of daycare, economy flights, and popular restaurants - is up in the air.

>universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is )

I'm also deeply suspicious of how "universal" we really mean; just consider how the article's "experiment" really samples only from the "best case" of entrepreneurial, well-educated professionals (w/ families).

As for your post, an assumption is that universality w/r/t income is the only meaningful way of looking at it. For example, single and family households have very different "basic needs." Following from the "per-need" basis, reasonably, shouldn't UBI handouts be larger with more dependents? This seems to get to part of your worries, given the examples of daycare, etc. Being young and single, my assumption is that UBI is relative to single living expenses, but the article makes a point about people raising families. I doubt it's economically feasible to pay up-to family household needs for everyone - taxes and social benefits make that distinction. Are there still cultural worries w/r/t UBI that scales on dependents? What does that do to incentives and cultural perception on raising families? Maybe UBI will eliminate income-class related cultural issues that plague us this century, but it'll shift those cultural lines over other lifestyle-related boundaries (i.e. single v. married v. family)?

>People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts ( which already happen in disguised means and forms, but more on that later [1] ) but not enough - from their wages & other sources of income - to be living a comfortable life will...

This is awkwardly phrased and hard to parse to me. Being excluded from UBI after some amount of income contradicts your later ideas. Also, "work" that pays that low is assumed to be at the margin where either automation eliminates it, or it's so undesirable (flipping patties) you're free to fall back on UBI living to find other undesirable work you like. That's also assuming you really don't have skills, which leads me to ask: do we consider some level of skill-acquisition a basic need and thereby include "education" costs in UBI?

>e) their friends cannot afford to socialize as frequently as they once did ( or worse, have moved to a different part of the country simply because it is no longer affordable to remain ) due to the same wage pressures

I don't know what friends you have, but society as it feels like to me already poses career-advancement choices against staying close to friends, especially those that don't work in the same field. Once you reach some level of career success, the need to maintain it naturally constrains your mobility w/r/t friendship (diversity) in some ways. Having a UBI-line only makes the "some level of career success" explicit when you make more than that line and like the lifestyle. On the other hand, wouldn't UBI let friends be patient about finding work that keeps them together? You and I may argue about the value of our friends, but certainly there are very meaningful friendships out there on the status of "threats to lifestyle" that you insist. But now we've come to a turn: originally, the article claims UBI will incentivize working over "patiently waiting," but w/r/t friendship we have a different case to consider.

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

#276

What's to stop UBI from "cancelling itself out" due to inflationary effects? Prior to UBI, the lowest possible income is zero. After UBI, the lowest income is X. The poorest people in the nation will have an income of X, so X becomes the new relative zero, the new baseline. Prices of everything (food, housing, whatever) will reset relative to X. So uni will become worthless shortly after it's introduced.... but only…

Sure, that's correct if everyone pays the same amount of tax. But that's not true.

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

#277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't most countries already have welfare systems that keep the lowest possible income at X already? UBI is just supposed to simplify those systems by replacing them with a single non-means-tested system.

It's my suspicion that the means-testing, or other hurdles, prevent the benefit from being universal, thereby preventing the inflationary effect. Incidentally, I'm not declaring a belief in either means-tested benefits nor UBI, just exploring the territory.

Yeah, the effect of a windfall on everyone who already had their basic needs covered would cause one-time inflation, but at least it shouldn't be an inflation treadmill of "people get UBI, prices raised to meet that UBI, raise UBI again, prices rise again" any worse than we have already with welfare.

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

#278
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas same effect, the TAX by owners will be passed onto renters with rents going up. Now if excess of housing that will eventually catch up and if a shortage then this will only exacerbate the divide. So much that can go wrong and equally right, hence they are testing this. Though a small test will be isolated from all global country impact and bias towards a false positive due to small impact. If that is projected t…

Rents go down when demand goes down. I've lived in the bay area through two booms and busts now and rent was higher in 2000 than it was in 2003, and higher in 2007 than it was in 2009. When you project a local experiment to an entire country, don't forget that a concept similar to UBI known as "communism" has been tried before in the USSR, China, Cuba, and a few other countries, with limited success and many downside…

Yes rents can go down if demand drops, but if you scale over a period longer the trend is always upwards. So short term drops and spikes will happen due to population shifts. When demand low, building new places stops until it catches up again.

But excellent comparison with communism and indeed that is comparable upon many levels. Though more niche in this aspect it still falls within that stable of thought. As an aside the only example most people aware of in which communism style approach works would be the Star trek universe. Which only add's fuel to the old saying "money is the root of all evil".

Certainly be interesting how this pans out and I'm mindful that if this was a whole country taking part that the true effect would take a few decades to get a true picture of the impact. With many aspects coming into play and let us not forget economic migration and with Finland part of the EU Schengen project then that aspect might be more impacting than envisioned. After all look at Spain and the UK free access to health care and how that is impacted by free movement, certainly not inconsequential.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not American, but do Dems really have no issue with illegal immigration? That seems like a slightly skewed perspective. To answer your real point. You can never have full employment. There are always going to be people that can't have a job, whether that's due to health, lack of job availability, or a number of other issues. What do you do with these people? They have to eat or die. The current system design is t…

> do Dems really have no issue with illegal immigration >How many people have been deported under Obama? >President Barack Obama has often been referred to by immigration groups as the "Deporter in Chief." >Between 2009 and 2015 his administration has removed more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, which doesn’t include the number of people who "self-deported" or were turned away and/or returned to t…

High deportation figures are misleading http://fw.to/k0n8PiS

> Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

>Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported.

>Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

Just putting this out there.

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

#280
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.

how pissed would everyone be if one of these people became a millionaire through working on some business while using Finland's cash handout to finance it.

even though the taxes from that is exactly what would make the whole program absolutely free - and is the basic point behind a UBI. It really is "free" for the country.

A proper test of UBI has to make it available to everyone.

Post reply on HN