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

131–140 of 205 posts

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

#131

Post by croon »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #48
kvczor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not necessarily. I view the advertising industry as a net loss to society, yet the amount of revenue is immense and the salaries of the people working there are equally large.

Yes, the idea of exposing potential consumers and informing them of what your product is in principle fine, but that idea was perverted long before any of us were born. Now it's about spending money on selling products that aren't selling themselves, because it's cheaper than making a better product. As always, exceptions exist.

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

#132

Post by notahacker »

Sir_Substance wrote: post #62
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 l…

> 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.

The experiment had an appropriately-matched Finnish control group on standard unemployment benefits. The UBI group received four fifths of those benefits plus an extra unconditional EUR560 per month and were according to the preliminary results about 4% less likely to report themselves as stressed

Obviously the caveats about the experiment being short term apply, but that's not a significant result, that's a disappointing result.

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

#133

Post by b_tterc_p »

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…

You’re basically saying that because it has ethical value it can’t make people lazy. That’s irrelevant. UBI might make people lazy. In fact, it would be pretty shocking if it didn’t make some % of the population choose to do nothing for their entire lives but stay at home and play video games.

People like to point out that techies would feel more comfortable building start ups, and that’s probably true. But for people with low skills and low opportunity costs to doing nothing (of which there are many more people), I don’t see a reason why they would work relatively shitty jobs for low income. Who is going to work minimum wage to be a janitor to get basically no substantial benefit. Maybe you think people deserve better wages then- but then uh oh, it’s even harder to justify not doing things in China wherever possible.

UBI benefits society when it’s given to a person with a high ability to to positively impact society (let’s say skilled workers and parents). And that’s before considering any effect on prices or whatever.

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

#134

Post by 0-_-0 »

kingkawn wrote: post #104
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 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.”

I believe the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" approach has already been tried many times over the world in the 20th century and failed every single time. As E. O. Wilson (a world leading expert in studying ants) said about communism/socialism: “Great Idea. Wrong Species.”

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

#135

Post by tremon »

chrisseaton wrote: post #51
tekkk wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the articled alleged but yes, certainly it could be a reason. I can't recall was the extra income on top of the already existing one but certainly getting free extra money must feel better than without. The conclusion that the article made, that the simplification of the process and reduction of the extra bureaucracy makes you more content, doesn't seem highly implausible either. I certainly would enj…

> That's not what the articled alleged It's literally the headline of the article.

which part of the headline says "more money"?

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

#136

Post by keymone »

mises wrote: post #74
keymone wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a difference between "non-economically viable" and "not useful". i have no problems with people losing interest in doing stuff that current market values because current market values turning people into zombies that occasionally are happy to go murder each other. art, volunteering, social programs and plenty other activities are way more useful for civilization as a whole than almost any random job on the ma…

> they don't need to do unimportant stuff just to put bread on a table I think at first they will, but I think over time they will realize they don't have to do anything at all. People work because they want something, or at least I always have.

> People work because they want something

nope. there is a deep psychological need to feel productive and useful to society in all but very few sociopathic humans.

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

#137

Post by ams6110 »

mises wrote: post #74
keymone wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a difference between "non-economically viable" and "not useful". i have no problems with people losing interest in doing stuff that current market values because current market values turning people into zombies that occasionally are happy to go murder each other. art, volunteering, social programs and plenty other activities are way more useful for civilization as a whole than almost any random job on the ma…

> they don't need to do unimportant stuff just to put bread on a table I think at first they will, but I think over time they will realize they don't have to do anything at all. People work because they want something, or at least I always have.

Yes that is how human nature evolved. Competition for scarce resources so you and your offspring can survive. This extends to supporting society to the extent it helps your personal survival.

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

#138

Post by b_tterc_p »

fxj wrote: post #118
raaaaraaaa122 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But that is what automation is all about. The productivity of a single worker went through the roof in the last century. There is not enough work for all the people who want to.

Wealth created through automation isn’t captured by the enhanced worker.

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

#139

Post by leetcrew »

lr4444lr wrote: post #86
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

After taxes on the 100K plus the costs of commuting and childcare, that difference might not even be so stark.

depends what kind of UBI we are considering. if you get $10k each for you, your wife (assuming you are married), and each child, you might be somewhere close to breaking even after taxes and the expenses you mentioned. if only you and your wife get the $10k, you're looking at a pretty tight budget.

imo, only the latter setup is reasonable. I'm all for giving individuals the freedom to float around for a while figuring out what the want to do, or even subsist for their whole lives if they don't "click" with any work that's valuable to the market. but I don't think it's fair to make the taxpayers support however many children you decide to have.

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

#140

Post by kvczor »

spaceribs wrote: post #53
kvczor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My skills are now very bounded to building interfaces for consumption, not critical thought. In fact, the choices I make for developing interfaces usually revolve around the user being some level of drunk. My senior thesis was a receipt printer that wireshark'd instant messenger messages on our school's unsecured wifi and dumped those messages into a pile.

...so you are not critically thinking about your work in the context of how useful it is to the end user? That's a bad UI work, I'd say.

As for your senior thesis - Developer's job is to create software that makes lives easier. It was your decision to use your skills to harm people by exploiting their privacy. Or it could be seen as something good - you discovered a way to exploit people and if you informed whoever was running this app you helped a good amount of people in your school.

Post reply on HN