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

101–110 of 205 posts

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

#101

Post by NedIsakoff »

BartBoch wrote: post #66
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.

That's one of my points I always make when people mention UBI experiments. The other one is the amount is too low. I have never been to Finland, but can someone there comment on this: can you live on 560 euros a month without some other income or assistance?

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

#102

Post by glitchc »

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.

Let’s not rail on someone simply because they provided a counter-example to disprove the original assertion that everyone on UBI would do something productive with their time.

Given that he is strictly providing a personal anecdote on what he would do with the money and extra time, the responses suggest that some people are quite judgemental about how other people spend their own money.

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

#103

Post by perfunctory »

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.

> Massive taxation increases the risk of doing business

I encourage you to make a list of countries ordered by taxation level, and another one ordered by the risk of doing business. And then compare the two.

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

#104

Post by kingkawn »

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.

The gift of ubi is society saying, “we are here to help you without compelling you to contribute in any specific way. But if you don’t contribute in some way, we may lose the ability to help people. here and now is your chance to choose for yourself how to keep the world afloat and vibrant. You have our support. We are looking forward to seeing how you choose to support the world in turn.”

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

#105

Post by logicchains »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #70
zip1234 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If an AGI was smarter than a human, why would it want to work for free? Personally I think it's unlikely to be possible to create something more capable of abstract reasoning than humans yet somehow constrained to be completely subservient to us. And if it is possible, all it takes is one mistake to produce a robot slave revolution.

I'd expect supercapable AGI to command higher wages than less-capable humans, so they wouldn't be pushing out service jobs.

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

#106

Post by marcosdumay »

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, I don't remember ever reading the comments about any UI article here without people claiming that people receiving it will get depressed and desperate.

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

#107

Post by fxj »

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…

Talking about scify stories: From the evolutionary point of view it is very bad for a super-organism like a whole country to let parts of its body starve or get sick. Do ants have to pay for food or housing?

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

#108

Post by lr4444lr »

keymone wrote: post #27
chrisseaton wrote: post #8

What person wouldn't be happier and more secure with more money?

the argument goes that if people get free money they lose motivation to work and spend all their time on a sofa killing time, which isn't healthy physiologically and mentally. it's quite idiotic argument, but i've personally met people who discard the whole idea of UBI based on it alone.

You have villages all over the world where unemployment is high. They're poor and insecure, but aren't starving to death. What does the record show? Do they want jobs or handouts? Are they creating mini renaissances of the arts and sophisticated political communes, or getting high, staying shiftless, and forming gangs?

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

#109

Post by zip1234 »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #70
zip1234 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps human cognition will be enhanced by machines? This would open up a lot of new opportunities. I know there are companies working on doing exactly this.

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

#110

Post by SiempreViernes »

raaaaraaaa122 wrote: post #81
fxj wrote: post #65

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 confide…

Of course if there is MAGICALLY enough 'resources' all citizens could enjoy basic income.

There are enough resources overall, but they aren't redistributed as a basic income for historical and political reasons.
Post reply on HN