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

Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 205 posts

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#61

Post by SolaceQuantum »

Talyen42 wrote: post #35
spaceribs wrote: post #11

Is it a legitimate argument that smart hardworking people who are considered economically valuable will be swayed to non-economically valuable interests within this system? As a former fine arts student that became a UI developer mostly for the monetary stability, I do feel like if I had the ability to fully invest myself creating art without constantly struggling with relevancy and rent, I would have been far more q…

As an employed person making 100k, if given UBI I would quit and not do anything productive-to-society for most of the rest of my life. So yes, that is a legitimate argument. The counter-argument is that the benefit coming from more people pursuing entrepreneurial/risk-taking/passion-driven endeavors will OUTWEIGH the lazy fucks like me.

I'm assuming you'd also downgrade your lifestyle from a 100k/yr to the median individual income or less? (Not being snarky, genuinely curious as to your thought process regarding quitting 100k/yr income because you can survive off 25-30k/yr or something)

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#62

Post by Sir_Substance »

shireboy wrote: post #19

I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? The result that the employment level was consistent is mildly interesting, though I’d expect the numbers could be different with a longer or larger test. But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?”

>I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it?

It's kind of significant, yeah. As a general rule, people on income support in Australia and the UK tend to be harassed, stressed and moderately unhappy people despite the free money.

There's a lot of evidence from looking at lottery winners and people with significant disabilities that suggests that people have some base level of happiness they trend towards.

Happy fun people who have catastrophic accidents and end up paraplegics are really unhappy for about 6 months and then start rolling with it and end up being happy fun people who make light of their situation and enjoy life despite the wheelchair.

Debbie downers who win the lottery are super-happy for about 6 months and then become rich unhappy people.

A persistent long term increase in net happiness is a notable result. Maybe not earth-shattering, but certainly not necessarily to be expected either.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#63

Post by qntty »

kvczor wrote: post #25
spaceribs wrote: post #11

Is it a legitimate argument that smart hardworking people who are considered economically valuable will be swayed to non-economically valuable interests within this system? As a former fine arts student that became a UI developer mostly for the monetary stability, I do feel like if I had the ability to fully invest myself creating art without constantly struggling with relevancy and rent, I would have been far more q…

Doesn't the fact that you earn more by doing UI work prove that you are far more useful to society than by making art?

Would society be better off if Linux kernel developers stuck to doing things that paid?

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#64

Post by spamizbad »

mises wrote: post #31

If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. At least, I don't think they will over the long term. It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die. This is hard for many of us to realize, because we spend much of our free time tinkering with and leaning technologies. I hear a lot of people saying that society is bound to provide all the needs of a…

Is basic income having “everything”? If that’s the case, why isn’t there more downward pressure on wages? Because if $635 is all it takes, we are drastically overpaying everyone!

A (very) modest ammount of health, housing, and food security is more like a foundation for an individual, rather than the entirety of their existence.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#65

Post by fxj »

A big problem about the basic income is that it is perceived as money that you get for nothing and so people don't have to work and therefore they are lazy.

Let me give you an analogy: Imagine that breathing air would cost money and you would have to work in order to breathe. Unless you don't work you would die. Would then a basic income be something that makes you lazy or would it be something that gives you confidence in surviving the next day?

The same is true for the "basic income" that is used by its recipients for food, medical care, clothing and shelter. So how in the world can we deny the basic needs to most of the population in our civilization and call these people lazy?

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#66

Post by BartBoch »

shireboy wrote: post #19

I’m sorry, but “getting free money makes people happy” isn’t exactly a shocking result is it? The result that the employment level was consistent is mildly interesting, though I’d expect the numbers could be different with a longer or larger test. But the real question imo is “does this scale without destroying the country’s finances?”

Well, this test is invalid for one more reason - recipients knew that the experiment has "end date." This means that the employment rates would not be affected since people could not treat the benefits as a permanent thing and plan accordingly. If you would take 1,000 people and give the lifetime benefits, I would assume this would change things a bit.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#67

Post by winter_blue »

m52go wrote: post #7

Why can't UBI be attempted on a local scale first? We have state and local governments for a reason. Something as risky and expensive as UBI, if it is going to be implemented, should be implemented gradually with proper testing, feedback, and adaptation.

Most countries grant freedom of movement to its citizens (within its borders), and there's a significant risk of unemployed/underemployed people intentionally moving into the state seeking a better social safety net.

In the U.S., this already happened in Alaska with the Alaska Permanent Fund. All residents of Alaska receive annually a portion of the proceeds from Alaska's oil revenue. Alaska tried to prevent internal migrants from receiving this by having the dividend be dependent on a person's years of residency in Alaska , but this was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zobel v. Williams[2]. Now, anyone who has lived a whole year in Alaska is eligible to receive the dividend.

As such, a social safety net as generous as UBI will likely not be workable in the United States. Other states' unemployed residents would likely swarm the state with UBI. (Unless of course, if the Supreme Courts decides to reverse its decision in Zobel v. Williams.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Permanen...

[2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/55/

"Under the plan, each adult resident receives one dividend unit for each year of residency subsequent to 1959, the first year of Alaska's statehood. Appellants, residents of Alaska since 1978, brought an action in an Alaska state court challenging the statutory dividend distribution plan as violative of, inter alia, their right to equal protection guarantees. ... the dividend statute creates fixed, permanent distinctions between an ever-increasing number of classes of concededly bona fide residents based on how long they have lived in the State."

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#68

Post by swiley »

chrisco255 wrote: post #57
Talyen42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employed person making 100k, if given UBI I would quit and not do anything productive-to-society for most of the rest of my life. So yes, that is a legitimate argument. The counter-argument is that the benefit coming from more people pursuing entrepreneurial/risk-taking/passion-driven endeavors will OUTWEIGH the lazy fucks like me.

You can't have a UBI without massive taxation. Massive taxation increases the risk of doing business. The higher the risks, the less entrepreneurship a country will see.

The argument is that there’s less personal risk sine a failed business won’t result in the founders becoming homeless.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#69

Post by SolaceQuantum »

mises wrote: post #54
Talyen42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employed person making 100k, if given UBI I would quit and not do anything productive-to-society for most of the rest of my life. So yes, that is a legitimate argument. The counter-argument is that the benefit coming from more people pursuing entrepreneurial/risk-taking/passion-driven endeavors will OUTWEIGH the lazy fucks like me.

The problem is whole I'd like to think they would, I think people will gradually get lazier as they get used to it. Most people do the minimum required now; what makes everyone think they will keep that same level of productivity arbitrarily when it's not the minimum liveable?

I'd suggest looking at retirement- one of the important facets of retirement is the encouragement to continue contributing to society once retired because it is always necessary to be productive in some way or form for the human condition as we understand it. It is psychologically damaging to not be constantly doing stuff that is at least mildly fulfilling in some way. If a sizeable portion or even a majority of people recieved UBI we would quickly learn as a population what's always been advised to our elderly.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#70

Post by montenegrohugo »

zip1234 wrote: post #37
criley2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you realize that automation is eating the jobs that these people used to do, and realize that the service economy can't fit even a fraction of these displaced workers, you have a scenario where we can produce goods for sale in mass with minimal labor but now less people have money to buy things. Creating a death spiral because consumers buying things is the fuel which makes the entire economy run and grow, so wh…

Everyone has thought that automation would eliminate the jobs for a hundred years. In a way it has come true as some jobs that existed before no longer exist, but so far other jobs have been created to take their place. Nobody really knows when or if that will stop.

Humans have always had a cognitive advantage over machines in the past. This will not necessarily be true in the future.

What advantage do we will then have? The only possible advantage I can see is that raising a human for 20 years + housing + food + other expenses and then employing him would be cheaper than replicating another AGI, but I cannot imagine this to be true.

Post reply on HN