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

#281

Post by leereeves » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

lusmd wrote: post #152

baronswindle wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U6 unemployment numbers include workers who are employed part time but would prefer to be full time, and U6 is near all time lows.

But labor force participation rates are still very, very low. If you'd like a job but don't have one, you don't get counted in any unemployment stats except the aggregate labor force participation.

Overall (all ages) labor force participation rates are low, but labor force participation among people 25-54 are very high.

All ages LFPR are probably low because the Baby Boomers are retiring and Millenials are still in college.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060

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

#282

Post by harimau777 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:21 PM UTC

savanaly wrote: post #177

Retric wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarcity is beyond just stuff. Land for example is a finite resource.

If we are efficient enough in our use of land, the demand relative to the supply will shrink enough that it's no longer scarce. I suppose lots of people enjoy owning their own land-- large tracts of it in fact, and not sharing it with anyone. That's a little tougher to conceptualize as post-scarcity as there's a limit to making land enjoyment more efficient with advanced technology. But in a world where other resourc…

It seems to me that colonizing other planets would only be a viable solution if we first developed faster than light or at least near light speed travel; and those may or may not be physically possible. Otherwise we would just end up with a scarcity of planets within practical travel distance of each-other.

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

#283

Post by WheelsAtLarge » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

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…

The misunderstanding is that UBI in the first world is some kind of benevolent gift to the unemployed. UBI is the government's and elite's way of making sure people don't revolt against them because they have no way to support themselves.

The big fail is that the proposed way of giving it is the no "strings attached" method. A total waste of resources. If people get so lost, that they can't provide for themselves; how is money going to solve the situation? It can't and it won't. A societal characteristic is that their will always be levels. People that are taken care of are always at the lower level. UBI will only keep people at the lower rungs of society.

If UBI is ever going to be a reality it needs to come with guidance that helps people get out of the hole they are in.

The idea of a future with no jobs is silly. It will only come to be if that's what we make it. A job can be anything. I go out and I see ads for a local Palm reader. A BS job if there was ever any. But yet, it's been a business for at least 20 yrs. Don't tell me that people can't be creative and create jobs but without any force or guidance to help people out of the problem there will never be a solution.

I will go as far as saying that a future with a widespread no strings attached UBI will cause a future with no jobs.

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

#284

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #261

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…

> How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it? UBI actually injects money into the economy. Accompanying UBI would be reducing minimum wage to zero, managing inflation by increasing income taxes in higher brackets, and removing deductibles so that more tax is collected. By reducing minimum wages you encourage people to start up new companies — with no salaries to pay, yo…

> UBI actually injects money into the economy.

Not unless you're printing it; that's the only way to "inject" money.

> Accompanying UBI would be reducing minimum wage to zero

This is not a "standard part" of all UBI proposals. Some agree; some don't.

> managing inflation by increasing income taxes in higher brackets

Any specific numbers on who would pay what? I may not be rich now, but I don't really like the idea of having to pay a bunch of taxes if I do become wealthy some day.

On the managing inflation part, giving more people more money to spend would make money move around more and quite possibly increase inflation. For an example, let's say I own an apartment building and currently rent a unit at $400/mo. If everyone starts getting $800+/mo, I know I can double my rates without anyone complaining too much. I might not do it all at once, but it seems almost inevitable that this will cause a significant amount of inflation by giving a large class of people more to spend.

> reformation of the health care system

That seems like a whole other kettle of fish. We do have one of the most innovative health care systems in the world, and I'd hate to see that stifled. I had some bad stuff I needed treatment for, which I'd rather not detail specifically. I talked to others in countries with government healthcare who had the same problem, and had to travel here to get treatment as it's a rare condition with most of the good treatments on the bleeding edge. A friend of a friend's mother was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer; told to come back later as it wasn't advanced enough to warrant operation.

As someone who's had to rely on treatment not deemed standard by the government, I get twitchy when people mention single-payer etc. Had I been stuck with the treatment prescribed by the gov't, I'd likely be dead.

Lastly, regulating health care prices removes incentives to develop really cool new treatments. They may cost more than your average kidney, but some of the knew cancer biologics are amazing. My parents have friends who have gotten amazing results, though they did have to use a significant chunk of their retirement for said results.

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

#285

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

jeffbax wrote: post #234

mactrey wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it possible to pull this much money out of the American economy without crashing it? The money isn't pulled out, though. It is redistributed to people, many of whom will immediately spend it, and others will invest it in various (hopefully efficient) ways. > Why would a national government do this? The problem of entry and exit. Say one state like Massachusetts implemented a UBI. Then we could expect many pe…

Yup, a negative income tax is a much better policy avenue to deal with this. It's much better to subsidize people doing things of varying degrees of productivity in an otherwise open employment market, than to discourage work entirely. Work is how you learn and often have some kind of basic dignity and meaning, not to mention how you eventually move up to better positions. This is essentially what the Earned Income T…

I would be more inclined to agree with you. Inciting hard work is a much better idea then giving everyone money regardless.

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

#286

Post by Roboprog » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

StephenAmar wrote: post #207

rixrax wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And while doing that, cut the bureaucracy and stigma of having to continuously apply for welfare, food stamps etc. Not that this would offsets the cost of basic income. If we picture a dystopian future where due to the rise of automation, increases in population, lack of education and ability, ~90% of people cannot realistically work in a productive jobs, I think it's a good time to experiment now what and how to kee…

The Expanse (books and TV show) use that idea pretty well

Amos was such a happy child :-)

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

#287

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:44 PM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #145

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…

Never-mind the money, I fear that even if we can implement it and pay for it, there will still be a host of social problems that UBI advocates do not want to grapple with. There's still no answer to questions like "what if it starts to entrench a permanent underclass and make inter-generational wealth worse, as people who stop working bear a generation of people who have never worked, and they bear children, etc". ht…

Yes. The white Irish in Boston are the stock example of this (speaking as someone who has part of my family from there). I have heard story after story from people who really do live and die reliant on this. I would also say that the poor having many children is somewhat of a problem. Not sure how it's fixable, but it doesn't make since for the people who can afford children least to bear the most. Especially since the burden of said children tends to fall to one parent more often in such cases.

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

#288

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #269

cheeseomlit wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main incentive to work is that you need to work to make a living. If the government hands you everything you need without working that is a massive disincentive to work

> The main incentive to work is that you need to work to make a living. No. The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your time. Every experiment with UBI has shown that — given guaranteed support income — people are generally happier (or less stressed) and have a greater incentive to find work because the disincentive of reporting job-searching efforts is removed. In addition, under a UBI…

> The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your time.

Not sure about this. Only short-term experiments have been conducted. Who knows what might happen if we have people who are raised on the idea that a living will come to them no matter what?

I think there's also an assumption that everyone loves what they do. Many of us do, so it's easy to think. However, the people who arguably need support the most often have the worst, least-likeable jobs.

> They won't settle for a low satisfaction, low pay job

Somebody has to do the work. Garbagemen will never be worth $15/hr. Many jobs that aren't will simply end up outsourced.

> Universal Basic Income is there to provide for the basics: food & shelter.

Then why would it be administered to everyone, on a national level, regardless of other factors? Food & shelter cost orders of magnitude more in San Francisco, California then in San Francisco, Texas. Why would it make since to give two hypothetical people, one living in each, the same amount of money to cover the "basics"?

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

#289

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #216

simonsarris wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never-mind the money, I fear that even if we can implement it and pay for it, there will still be a host of social problems that UBI advocates do not want to grapple with. There's still no answer to questions like "what if it starts to entrench a permanent underclass and make inter-generational wealth worse, as people who stop working bear a generation of people who have never worked, and they bear children, etc". ht…

> people who stop working bear a generation of people who have never worked, and they bear children Discourage bearing of children by pushing contraception and providing the poor and unemployed with free internet access, with streaming and online gaming, in order to occupy their time. Birthrates are already going down in the West, and probably a further push can be made here and there so that people are even less int…

Whoa, this is starting to sound kinda disturbing. Serious Brave New World stuff here. Let me guess, the government should encourage and provide freely sterilization? And every woman should wear a Malthusian belt?

This kind of population control is rarely, if ever, a good idea. What happens if a racist decides to push stuff that targets blacks to try to shrink their numbers? You don't know that we won't get some awful person in charge of that.

Be really, really careful what you wish for and what you argue for.

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

#290

Post by mises » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 11:06 PM UTC

_rpd wrote: post #143

mikhailt wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source of these estimates for me to learn? A lot of people kept saying it is very expensive but they did not factor in that UBI replaces all current social welfare programs we have with a single program. When you compare both, it is not that expensive. For an example, Social Security alone is ~5% of current GDP and ~4% for Medicare. [1] > Expressed as a share of GDP, program costs equaled 4.9 percent of…

> UBI replaces all current social welfare programs we have with a single program This is the conservative argument for UBI - liquidate social security and distribute the proceeds; do more good with the same money because we don't have to pay means testing overhead; smaller, less intrusive government as a bonus. The reality though is that every single social security program has been put in place as the result of a to…

> liquidate social security

That's not a just action for the government to take. The original premise of social security was pay in money as you work, get it out when you're old. Though FDR started paying out immediately from the younger generation, so it started a generation in the hole. However, it was supposed to be basically forced federal savings, with some sort of safety net component as well. Not fair to tell those who paid in they'll never get anything out because someone wants it for policy goals.