Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#271

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #218

icebraining wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying people in exchange for work is called a job, not UBI.

Kinda except you get to pick any "job" you want, work any amount of hours you want but still know you will get paid exactly the same amount. People might be happier reading to seniors 10 hours a week but not for minimum wage.

So how do you determine want amount of community service is necessary? Does picking up one piece of trash off the sidewalk count as community service?

As soon as you tie the payment to a certain type of task, you have to enforce a standard of time/quality.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#272

Post by manicdee » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

msluyter wrote: post #82

mises wrote: post #48

I still see some big issues with universal basic income, and would appreciate one of its supporters responding to some of them: Cost. $3.8 trillion by many estimates. That's nearly 20% of America's GDP. How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it? Scope. I am of the opinion that one of the beauties of federalism is that policies can be tested first at the state level bef…

To your list of issues I'd add extraction by rentiers. My (perhaps naive) understanding is that rents tend to rise to a market equilibrium. Infuse the the aggregate market in an area with X dollars, and rents will rise to consume X. I'd be curious to hear counterarguments to that point.

Yes, the rents in popular areas will rise. Since people have a basic income to support them regardless where they are living, they can move to areas with lower rent (thus increasing the rent — and net rental income — of the area they move to).

At present, most unemployment benefits systems require the recipient to stay where they are, or move to places with better employment opportunities. This places a large burden on the recipient since they might already be in a high rent area and are not allowed to move to somewhere they can afford to live.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#273

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

throwaway427 wrote: post #256

ThomPete wrote: post #76

It's a general misunderstanding that Basic Income is some sort of job program, it's not. It's a job replacement program for a society where there aren't enough jobs for everyone because technology have taken over most. Basic Income should provide fundamental living cost support in a society that has no jobs so there is no "but" in there. Edit: Keep in mind we already have Basic Income it's just conditional. UBI is di…

How does one contend with inflation when money is free? Is the idea that goods are produced so cheaply that the basic living costs are stable?

In my mind, yes! We would implement basic income to offset the number of jobs lost to automation. Because robots don't need to be paid, the cost of goods would decrease in a more-or-less proportional amount to the number of jobs lost.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#274

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #180

stcredzero wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? So, anyone who wants to have a job must emulate the habits of some of the most impressive people in history? Wow. Isn't that how a lot of human progress works? The scientific viewpoint was once a pastime of educated elites. Now the world model derived from it is very much mainstream. (Though it isn't 100% universal) Reading, writing, and arithmetic were once elite and esoteric specialist skills, now they…

Viewpoints and skills are teachable, although that can take a lot of effort. But habits ? depending on what habits are we talking about, some are highly related to personality, to willpower, to interpersonal skills,etc and those are really hard to change, or maybe impossible, for some. And if aim so high in changing human beings, is this the best we can do ? to create better money making machines ? And what will that…

is this the best we can do? to create better money making machines?

Of course not. The best AI we could possibly create wouldn't be a paperclip optimizer. Presumably, there could be another AI who would realize and say, Let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.

And what will that do to our old values - stuff like kindness, family values, creativity for it's own sake?

Actually, that's also along the lines of not being a paperclip optimizer. Some people are way too obsessed with sex. There will always be others who will realize that's a bit imbalanced, and decide not to be like that. There will always be people who ask, "Is that all? Is there nothing more?" That, or we'll die out sooner than we should. In other words, if the human mind is really that bounded and limited, some problem of our own making is going to kill us off.

Or is being an Elon Musk copy will just become a requirement for working as a barista ?

Didn't being a [famous hacker here] clone become a requirement for working as a programmer in the Bay Area? Aren't there towns where all of the baristas have scripts they're working on?

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#275

Post by manicdee » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:04 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #84

gyaniv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The did. and the result showed that their employment chances were 'no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.' What they didn't do (although some wanted them to), is also check the system on already employed people and checked if that changed their likelihood of staying in a bad job/finding a better job or anything like that. Because that's the real idea behind basic income. n…

Increasingly I feel like all my philosophical problems with UBI are irrelevant in the face of the fact that apparently UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. If we can't afford that, we even moreso can't afford simply leaping to full scale. (And one thing these trial do seem to show is that giving it out, and then removing it, is at least modestly disruptive.)

The Finland trial replaced existing unemployment insurance with a no-conditions payment of about the same value. No extra expense, in fact it would have been cheaper to administer since there was no compliance paperwork to process and police.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#276

Post by Wowfunhappy » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #238

michaelchisari wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If humanity lived at the density of Paris (21,438/km^2), we could all live in an area half the size of Texas (695,663 km^2). So if we're talking about material post-scarcity, land is more than plentiful.

If humanity lived at the density of Wyoming (5.97/mi^2), we would have to get rid of 50% of the U.S. population or 98% of the world population, because only 147M people could fit on the habitable land on earth. So yes, it is and it isn't. The question is how many people want to live in Wyoming-level densities vs. Paris-level densities, given the elimination of any cost constraints.

> The question is how many people want to live in Wyoming-level densities vs. Paris-level densities.

Do they get a choice? I want to live in Disneyland, but there's sadly a distinct lack of real estate available.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#277

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:09 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #84

gyaniv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The did. and the result showed that their employment chances were 'no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.' What they didn't do (although some wanted them to), is also check the system on already employed people and checked if that changed their likelihood of staying in a bad job/finding a better job or anything like that. Because that's the real idea behind basic income. n…

Increasingly I feel like all my philosophical problems with UBI are irrelevant in the face of the fact that apparently UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial. If we can't afford that, we even moreso can't afford simply leaping to full scale. (And one thing these trial do seem to show is that giving it out, and then removing it, is at least modestly disruptive.)

> UBI is too expensive to even do a proper small-scale trial.

UBI isn't too expensive to do small-scale trial, it's entire theory of operation (and the key criticisms raised, like the inflation-spiral one) is too dependent on universality and coordination with other policy changes to do a meaningful small-scale trial, as you can neither validate the claimed benefits nor refute the claimed drawbacks that way.

You can do a gradual ramp of benefits trial, but not a limited sample of population in an otherwise open environment with pre-existing policies generally applicable.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#278

Post by manicdee » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #43

sakisv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the prevailing ideology dictates that if you're not working you are worthless and you should not feel happy.

It's a tough sell you gotta admit it. That money came from someone making an effort (even if it was in form of large [reluctant]corporate taxes). Also slacking (I am half a slacker on the way to ~zero) is toxic on the long run. I always thought of universal income as way to allow me to grow without a burden. Learning, helping, producing (whether art, tools, ...). It's supposed to help strengthen the social tissue.

In a nation that has its own fiat currency, the money does not come from someone making an effort. It is printed, invented. Taxes only control inflation.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#279

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

bryondowd wrote: post #212

munk-a wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land will always be scarce because it isn't quantity of land (though that too can be a separate issue) but quantity coupled with positioning of land. Most people could afford to purchase four acres of land in Alaska or VT's north east kingdom, but four acres along central park is quite expensive because, due to the location of the site relative to all the services of NYC and the access to greenery, it is rather exclu…

Presumably, if you have unlimited resources, you can create most, if not all, of what makes that land in NYC valuable. You could create enough city districts to meet demand. There's lots of factors that go into the value of land. Available amenities, jobs, being near other people, quality of schools and other resources, transportation, etc. But those all seem to boil down to scarce resources being pooled in one area.…

I think that the problem is that the time when technology causes dramatic unemployment is likely to happen long before the time when technology can provide unlimited resources. So the question is: what do we do in-between?

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#280

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

elindbe2 wrote: post #260

dragonwriter wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I do a few hours work for this guy without losing my unemployment? UBI doesn't really make sense as a replacement for unemployment insurance, unless benefits are really high. If you replace UI with a poverty-support-level UBI, it makes unemployment a lot worse for anyone but the lowest-paid workers. UBI might reduce the perceived need for public funding of additional unemployment benefits in extended downturns…

UBI doesn't really make sense as a replacement to almost any traditional welfare programs for the simple reason that by limiting the money to only those who qualify for it, you can give more. Yet unfortunately UBI is often presented as an alternative that would supplant traditional welfare.

> UBI doesn't really make sense as a replacement to almost any traditional welfare programs for the simple reason that by limiting the money to only those who qualify for it, you can give more.

For means-tested programs, you can replace means-testing with unconditional benefits and appropriate progressive tax rate changes, and acheive exactly the same effects (modulo differences in definitions of income, but is there really a big benefit there?) while eliminating duplicate bureaucracy. Most UBI proponents don't prefer as rapid of a claw-back (which sometimes exceeds 100% in some ranges) as the aggregate of existing means-tested welfare programs, and would instead claw-back at a slower rate but extend the claw-back higher up the income distribution so that the drag is on the rich rather than the lower middle class, to improve upward mobility compared to existing means-tested welfare, but if you wanted to optimize only for bureaucratic efficiency without moving the claw-back higher up the income distribution and keeping it below a 100% marginal rate to eliminate perverse incentives, you could do that with UBI and tax changes, too, and still have a (smaller) net win.