Live data from Hacker News

Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

theguardian.com

71–80 of 249 posts

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't we already know how that works? Folks on a pension; folks in a state that provides stipends (e.g. Alaska); folks who are independently wealthy. Their behavior has been studied repeatedly, I imagine. In fact I'm confused why this keeps being 'tried' like its some new idea.

We needed it. Truth is, we didn't know a bunch of important things before this study. In particular, we didn't know if people were going to work more or less. Quite a lot of people were hoping for "more" (or at least better), me included. It was a long shot, but if it turned out to be true it would have been a game changer. Turns out it's not.

And that was not obvious from studies of pensioners etc?

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#72
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We needed it. Truth is, we didn't know a bunch of important things before this study. In particular, we didn't know if people were going to work more or less. Quite a lot of people were hoping for "more" (or at least better), me included. It was a long shot, but if it turned out to be true it would have been a game changer. Turns out it's not.

why were you hoping that people would work more?

Because current unemployment support works on the idea that people must be scared by poverty into getting a new job, and so being unemployed is ultimately a state society tries to punish you out off.

If simply giving people money left them more successful at getting a new job, there would really not be any point in all the CV theatre a jobseeker routinely needs to perform.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#73
post #51

Last year, I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting). I knew a life without work would be amazing, but I never expected it to be this great. I had much more time and energy to enjoy life. There was never a rush to do anything. I woke up when I wasn't tired. I could read in bed for an hour if it felt right. Sometimes I'd just walk 3-5 kilome…

Some people may not agree with me but I've always felt that there's an interesting take on our history:

Throughout most of civilization, most types of progress has been the result of the intellectual work of an elite. Most progress in science, art, and pretty much anything comes from a "noble" or some kind of free man either doing it themselves, or directly financing someone who did.

Most people today probably wouldn't buy into the reasons for this class society that were given at the time, and I think most people would probably (hopefully) agree that the progress made by these people can't simply have been due to genetic superiority or divine privilege. I would say it's more likely a combination of cultural capital (smart parents and friends) combined with just regular capital that gave you the benefit of not having to worry about surviving from one year to the next.

So if we accept that most of the work that has pushed humanity forward was made by the "nobility" of the age, whether that's lords from medieval times or obscenely rich venture capitalists of today, then what is the most logical way to structure a society if you want further humanity?

Here, the notion of "human nature" comes in. Some state with certainty that this innate nature will stop certain people from achieving success, because they're simply lazy, or dumb, or whatever else. Some people just want to sit around and drink beer and will never do anything else. Sure, that might be true to a larger or smaller extent, those people will always exist, but if we're talking about broad strokes, general humanity, what is the most beneficial policy?

For me, it has always seemed pretty obvious that you don't want the largest amount of people to work for the largest amount of time possible. Quite the opposite, you want to make sure that all goods and services are being provided, but only enough so that the primary goal can be achieved: to give people as much stress-free spare time as possible without breaking the economy.

If the "nobility" is what furthers human progress, why aren't we trying to create more nobility? And I'm not talking about material wealth and castles, I'm talking about the privilege of being able to just sit around for weeks, months on end and just think about what interests you. Why is it that water spins in a certain way, how do you make an automated temperature/watering system, what's the deal with combustion engines?

I can already hear some people screaming about human nature again, and yes, you are correct: some people will never be interested in this stuff. They'll use their free time for something that benefits no-one in any way. But as sure as you can be those people will exist, there will also be people who could have been the next Newton, the next Kierkegaard, slaving away in a warehouse somewhere, dead in the gate before the race even started.

I really, really hope for a future for humanity where free time isn't seen as a luxury for the few, but a requirement to grow as a human being. I hope to see societies and economies that prioritize something else than short term economical gain and meaningless widgets that get thrown in a pile after years or even months.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#74
I tried to explain in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922

...why a UBI at the US federal level takes away freedom to try better ideas to do good at other levels, is morally wrong, is harmful, and that we can do much more good with persuasion, fundraising, letting states handle it (or smaller scopes), etc etc.

(With down-votes, a thoughtful comment is appreciated; thanks.)

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#75
post #51

Last year, I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting). I knew a life without work would be amazing, but I never expected it to be this great. I had much more time and energy to enjoy life. There was never a rush to do anything. I woke up when I wasn't tired. I could read in bed for an hour if it felt right. Sometimes I'd just walk 3-5 kilome…

You didn't have UBI, you had a well-paying job. The main UBI proposals for the US target $1k per month and that target means a budget of about 3 trillion per year and does not take into account health insurance. I don't know about you, but living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible. Either you get roommates or you are going to end up in the cheapest most out of the way apart…

You make good points, but you may be missing why OP's comment is getting the upvotes it's getting, or at least why I'd wager it is: he describes the kind of contentment that most of us can't even imagine possessing without winning the lottery, and he described having that contentment with surprisingly (to him/her) modest means. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is why I upvoted it. Hell, I can think of at least two times in my life where I've been scolded about being unproductive or ambition-less for even mentioning the possibility of living such a life (without being a millionaire).

Solely with respect to this person's comment, what we call such an arrangement matters a lot less than the high quality of the life he/she describes.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only about $1600 a year in a state with high living expenses. I don't see how that will tell you much about a full-on UBI program.

Used to be higher. Lots of historical data.

No, it didn't. It peaked at $1900 for 2000, which if we take into account inflation is about $3000, which is still a 1/4th of the $12000 most proposals put forward. There'sno point in exaggerating these things, is tehre?

1982 $1,000.00 1983 $386.15 1984 $331.29 1985 $404.00 1986 $556.26 1987 $708.19 1988 $826.93 1989 $873.16 1990 $952.63 1991 $931.34 1992 $915.84 1993 $949.46 1994 $983.90 1995 $990.30 1996 $1,130.68 1997 $1,296.54 1998 $1,540.88 1999 $1,769.84 2000 $1,963.86 2001 $1,850.28 2002 $1,540.76 2003 $1,107.56 2004 $919.84 2005 $845.76 2006 $1,106.96 2007 $1,654.00 2008 $2,069.00 2009 $1,305.00 2010 $1,281.00 2011 $1,174.00 2012 $878.00 2013 $900.00 2014 $1,884.00 2015 $2,072.00 2016 $1,022.00 2017 $1,100.00 2018 $1,600.00 2019 $1,606.00

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't have UBI, you had a well-paying job. The main UBI proposals for the US target $1k per month and that target means a budget of about 3 trillion per year and does not take into account health insurance. I don't know about you, but living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible. Either you get roommates or you are going to end up in the cheapest most out of the way apart…

You make good points, but you may be missing why OP's comment is getting the upvotes it's getting, or at least why I'd wager it is: he describes the kind of contentment that most of us can't even imagine possessing without winning the lottery, and he described having that contentment with surprisingly (to him/her) modest means. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is why I upvoted it. Hell, I can think of at least…

He's not giving us the full story. Did he have health insurance (seems like he's in Germany, so yeah)? I made under $30k this past year and did not have health insurance. I promise you that I'd rather have that than try to live off $1k a month. If it sounds so great to you, I challenge you to live off that amount and see if it is as grand as he describes. I'm guessing he's making more than $1k.

There are a lot of menial part time jobs you can get if you want to live as he describes. It's not fun.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#78
I don’t get the goal of trying to get more people to “work”. I would think increasing wellbeing should be the goal. It’s the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of hours worked.

I’m sure the hunter-gatherers were upset the farmers weren’t motivated to hunt and gather too.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#80
Interesting exercise in spin here. The German state media tagesschau.de [1] phrases it like this:

> Finns take stock soberly

> More security, fewer depressions: the Finnish UBI experiment benefited the participants. Alas, the results show: the desired effect for the work market cannot be shown.

For me, the German title reads very much like "this doesn't work" while the article mentions that the results regarding the market cannot be distinguished from other interfering changes to the social welfare system that were made in the meantime.

Which funnily reminds me of the top comment in the current ad-tech thread [2]: "The hard part is convincing the [people in charge] to stop messing with stuff long enough that you can actually measure the results."

[1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-10... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492

Post reply on HN