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

151–160 of 205 posts

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

#151

Post by b_tterc_p »

sk0g wrote: post #44
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…

I don't necessarily agree with this. > most just watch TV and wait to die This may be true of older people who feel they may have already lived a full life, and it might be too late to start anything new. What about people who reach financial safety very early, and can afford to experiment and experience a lot more? There's still perks to a job. It's Universal Basic Income, aka (IMO), basic compassion. You shouldn't…

The question you need to ask is what % of the workforce considers their potential extra wealth (for most people, small) worth working for. The more people who choose not to work, the more expensive labor is. The more expensive labor is, the higher prices are, the less effective your basic income is, the more your wealth inequality increases, the more jobs move to China, the more the economy shrinks.

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

#152

Post by spaceribs »

kvczor wrote: post #140
spaceribs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I think you're misunderstanding both my role as a UI developer and as an artist...

It takes critical time and energy to reduce the complexity of a products' features to something a layperson can use, and a layperson is usually barely paying attention.

As to your second point, I wasn't a developer, I was an artist, attempting to ask real questions about privacy and spark real discussions and possibly getting myself in trouble to start a conversation.

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

#153

Post by b_tterc_p »

Jedi72 wrote: post #43
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…

A huge amount of effort in society is wasted in pointless competition simply because people need income. Imagine 2 farmers selling melons, each with 50% market share. One discovers if she hires a social media marketer she can get to 70% market share. The other farmer now must respond by hiring their own marketing people. These two marketers are both very happy to be employed, but overall we would have been better jus…

Most people aren’t marketers. The most common jobs are waiters, cashiers, retails, food prep, etc.

We need those people to do those jobs. Why would they?

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

#154

Post by mfra »

To add some anecdata to the void: I have been receiving a form of basic income (veteran's disability compensation) for the past 8 years. It's an amazing "privilege" that has allowed me to live fearlessly, take risks, and has kept me afloat through rough times.

I have, in no particular order:

- Dropped everything and moved to a different state with no job lined up (multiple times)

- Taken a big pay cut to spend a few years working in the non-profit sector

- Co-founded my own non-profit (it failed)

- Joined a friend's company to help rebuild/scale it (it was acquired)

- Pursued different goals in different schools (currently working toward an MS in CS)

As someone who has lived in poverty most of their life, knowing that my basic necessities can be paid for no-matter my circumstances is a game changer. I would not have done most of the above without knowing that I could scrape by irregardless of it working out. My path would be far more linear and safer.

I feel free. To be clear, I threw out the American Citizen Instruction Booklet (do well in high school -> go to college -> get a job) at age 17 for the military anyway. But more broadly I feel that I don't have to participate in the rat race out of necessity. I have the freedom to experiment with my life and to try whatever I want to without (much) worry. I don't look forward to the contraction of my free monthly deposit. It will come at some point.

That said, my economic participation has been inconsistent. Those 22 year olds incentivized by the structure of our society to get into a safe and high-paying job ASAP and to stay there for the next 40 years will probably contribute quantitatively more $ into the system than I will.

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

#155

Post by swebs »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #142
swebs wrote: post #126

This article just looks like a copy paste job of Kela's official press release https://www.kela.fi/web/en/news-archive/-/asset_publisher/lN... Overall, the experiment failed to prove its main hypothesis that UBI would incentivize the unemployed to find employment. Those who received additional benefits failed to achieve higher employment than the control group. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/1002…

That's true. But on the other hand it seems that for the same cost people got happier, while not affecting employment levels. So it also shows that placing conditions on unemployment support creates wasted effort and extra suffering.

>for the same cost

It's a higher cost since you're now also paying the employed.

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

#156

Post by carlmr »

raaaaraaaa122 wrote: post #2

Basic income means that people who are willing to work will pay probably higher taxes. I believe that will be easier for some people who do not earn much to just stay home with basic income. Then less people will be economically active (who will do low wage jobs ?) and taxes will need to go higher etc... It's economical spiral of death for whole nation.

Like you, I'm not convinced this wouldn't turn into a spiral of lazyness. I would add though, that if this is implemented properly you should always be getting more money with work than without. So even if the taxes rise there should always be an incentive to work.

Currently in Germany for example there are a lot of people on long-term unemployment that have enough children and low demand for their skills that if they worked they would earn less. This in principle is one of the advantages of UBI. That if everybody gets it, you don't have to take it away as soon as somebody earns money. So everything you earn, will be beneficial to you.

Of course if UBI is set too high it might not be attractive to work for only a little more, but right now you have people that would earn less if they worked.

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

#157

Post by chrisseaton »

jpindar wrote: post #123
chrisseaton wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if they want to do them, they will have to work. I thought that was the argument _against_ UBI?

UBI would be a VERY LOW income. Not enough for nice restaurants and ski trips. I'm perplexed by the number of people who think that UBI means giving everyone so much money that they would never do anything to get more.

I think it's a matter of ongoing debate.

Some people think UBI should be enough for emergency rations only, similar to food stamps now. Some people think it should be enough for a very-low-income but working person's expenses now. Some people think it should be enough for a few basic treats as well.

For example, the Living Wage Foundation uses the Rowntree Foundation's Minimum Income Standard to set their 'living wage', which does include luxuries such as eating in restaurants and even an annual holiday (I struggle to afford that!), so what they think is 'minimum' clearly isn't literally just enough to just 'live' on.

People have the same attitude towards what UBI should be.

Would you set UBI to below what Rowntree thinks is the 'minimum to live on'?

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

#158

Post by ams6110 »

fxj wrote: post #141
b_tterc_p wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

The security that you have medical care, food and housing tomorrow takes away a lot of psychological pressure and your mind can think about other things. But nevertheless I also think about the ethical implications of letting people die because they cannot afford the medical care they need. A society that just thinks only about profitability of a person is in itself unjust and inhumane.

If you look at communities where large portions of the population have their basic medical care, food, and housing all provided or paid for by the government, you don't see hotbeds of creative and entrepreneurial activity. You see cesspools of drugs and crime.

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

#160

Post by deadbunny »

dragosbulugean wrote: post #78

no government will be able to give people basic needs except at the cost of other people. I believe this will eventually happen, but through technology, not through these 'Robin Hood' type politicians. if you look thoughout history it wasn't any societal rules or enforcements that advanced us, but application of scientifical discoveries to build products that help make human life easier

> I believe this will eventually happen, but through technology

People have been saying that since the industrial revolution. Yet here we are with millions employed doing bullshit jobs that don't need to exist.

Post reply on HN