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

Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 249 posts

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#211

Post by luckylion »

nicbou wrote: post #205
luckylion wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it forces you to look for work Yes, in a theoretic sense. Not practically, it does not run out and you have to be pretty combative and purposefully i-wont-work to be sanctioned. > TV costs 17€ a month per household even if you don't have a TV Which is waived for anyone on social benefits. > Health insurance is pretty far from free It is for anyone on social benefits, paid by taxing those that work.

Again, those social benefits only kick in after you have burned through your life savings, including your retirement savings. If you are on ALG II, you don't have so much left. You are also expected to report to the job center, and act on the help they provide you. It's not just "stop working, get free things". If you are not a citizen, it's also going to ensure your visa doesn't get renewed. The government had to ma…

Yes, as I wrote, you're expected to find a job, but it's not like they'll toss you a broom stick and tell you to start sweeping.

As for savings: true, but less relevant. With a high net wealth you're already free to do whatever you like. 41% of Germans have less than $10.000 in personal wealth, which will be pretty much the so called Schonvermögen (which you do not need to touch to be eligible for Hartz-4; retirement savings are not taken into account for this, and only applied to private retirement savings, while the super majority relies on the public retirement system in Germany).

So yeah, it's not "stop working, get free things", but it's pretty close to it. Close enough that we should see all the huge benefits that are promised by UBI proponents. But we don't.

> If you are not a citizen, it's also going to ensure your visa doesn't get renewed.

That's not accurate. About 2 million non-citizens are receiving Hartz-4 benefits, the trend is pointing upwards, it does not affect their legal status.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#212

Post by blackrock »

yohannparis wrote: post #153
gustavo-fring wrote: post #65

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…

UBI is not meant to be without work on other incomes, it just meant to have a financial safety net without regulations and criteria (below poverty, disabled, location, children, etc.) If you get $1,000/month right now, things would go smoother, and you still have to pay tax on your new higher wage. UBI is not a "never work only consume" solution.

I think UBI would be easier to achieve if the government just paid for housing. And built more apartment homes for everyone.

There is plenty of land and resources for everyone in America. But the oligarchs are super greedy, and force a fake scarcity, in order to have a supply-and-demand problem.

They just printed $4 Trillion USD, so it’s apparently quite easy to print money out of thin air. And then they gave it to their other rich buddies that don’t need the money. It was a pure and disgusting money grab, at the expense of everyone else.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#213

Post by luckylion »

fredsir wrote: post #209
luckylion wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having been taught that one looks down on people not working as a wageslave for this many hours a month, and so on You can also translate this into "please do your share in society and don't rely on other people feeding you just because it's inconvenient to get up and do your part". That's very different from mindless consumerism. Denmark with e.g. luxury taxes on cars is going a very different route from the US.

> You can also translate this into "please do your share in society and don't rely on other people feeding you just because it's inconvenient to get up and do your part". We could all share and show solidarity and meet everyones needs, and not work 40+ hours/week hours a week. We are producing many times more than enough. But the structures are so, that most people work so, so much, while not seeing comparable compen…

Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute.

Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes.

The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing.

So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#214

Post by fredsir »

luckylion wrote: post #213
fredsir wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can also translate this into "please do your share in society and don't rely on other people feeding you just because it's inconvenient to get up and do your part". We could all share and show solidarity and meet everyones needs, and not work 40+ hours/week hours a week. We are producing many times more than enough. But the structures are so, that most people work so, so much, while not seeing comparable compen…

Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does,…

> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute.

How so?

> Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes.

> The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing.

I think that's just you drawing conclusions out of thin air. I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. Why should they? Would you? I wouldn't. Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary.

If there then ends up being people that don't contribute what they should, people in the immediate community would then, on a case-by-case basic, try to solve the problem by talking with the person, and so on. If nothing works, take away the benefits until the person are willing to partake in the community again. Make them understand that you have to contribute to be receive the benefits.

> So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't.

You do know that most people in the whole wide world do actually work, don't you? They already contribute plenty. Why do you think they would contribute less if 1) it meant more of their needs were met, and 2) they had more choice about how to contribute because society wasn't driven by profits that fill of a few peoples pockets, but by meeting everyones needs.

I think most people would contribute, just like most people today actually are contributing. And I actually think even more would be contributing and do it willingly, and we could reach new heights for humanity if contributions wasn't based on forced labour but instead of people feeling as a part of a cooperative community where their needs are valued and their voices are heard.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#215

Post by JoeAltmaier »

irishcoffee wrote: post #119
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because colleges were in the 'money pipe', and could gatekeep. In a free market (which I guess colleges aren't) it would not work that way.

Would you have considered the pre-2007 housing market a part of the free market? Same exact thing happened there. "Free" money given out and the market figured out how to soak it up very quickly.

But with the UBI, the money isn't 'for' anything. Its just more money. It can be spent on donuts, or houses, or college, or hookers and blow. None of those markets has any 'claim' on the money. I doubt anybody will figure out a way to 'soak it up'

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#216

Post by JoeAltmaier »

luckylion wrote: post #98
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, 1950's thinking. Most things are automated now. There's only 13M factory workers left in America vs 20M+ in the 70's, and population has doubled since then. So maybe 20% what there used to be. All that due to automation. And what's left is being automated as fast as humanly possible. After that, we're gonna have a big slug of people out of work, lots of relatively cheap goods, and a few very rich who own most…

> Most things are automated now. There's only 13M factory workers left in America vs 20M+ in the 70's, and population has doubled since then. You're mistaking automation for outsourcing. The factory workers are still around, only they're in China now. Yes, we've automated some things but we're building other stuff now. Much like, yes, we have power tools today, but we're also not only building simple, uninsulated hou…

Categorically wrong. Its being automated now, at a tremendous rate, and has been going on for decades.

Even China is automating. China is the US's #1 market for industrial automation machinery. They're behind us, but gaining fast. They're at about the 25% level now, and increasing.

Try googling around before making spurious, wrong comments please.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#217

Post by fallingfrog »

radu_floricica wrote: post #201
hellotomyrars wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the thing I am advocating for is the system as it existed in communist Romania. I am not. Just as I do not advocate for the current economic system in the way it exists. However I know that our current system's goal isn't to provide for the people, and the failings of our current system are extreme. My biggest point is that I'm not saying everyone should be provided a luxury yacht by…

What history, literally two comments up I was saying how the standards defense is that "it was not _real_ communism, let's try again and this time we'll get it right". groan The goal of the system isn't to provide for people. That's the core fallacy that doomed pretty much any socialist system ever. Systems are shit - all of them. More you rely on one, more fucked you are. What you want is to let people to provide fo…

This bizarre sort of doublethink when it comes to organization is just so baffling. You seem to believe that private institutions can be as big as they want and will always run fine, but public institutions are always shit. Why? You say that people have to be left to take care of themselves- you show me a person who is truly taking care of himself without being a part of some larger organization or community and I’ll show you a naked hermit shivering in the woods. Look, I live in the United States, where we are utterly incapable of building something like high speed rail or dealing in an organized way with a pandemic, and it’s exactly this kind of thinking that got us here. There is no fundamental difference between a public and private organization, except that one is run somewhat democratically and the other is a private fiefdom. And we all have a duty to look out for each other, not just ourselves. That’s how civilization keeps itself going.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#218

Post by luckylion »

fredsir wrote: post #214
luckylion wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does,…

> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. How so? > Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contri…

> I don't believe most people would be doing nothing.

I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today.

> Would you? I wouldn't.

That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard.

I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work.

Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in.

> Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary.

That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#219

Post by fredsir »

luckylion wrote: post #218
fredsir wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. How so? > Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contri…

> I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. I didn't say most , but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today. > Would you? I wouldn't. That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the s…

> I didn't say most, but it's a significant number. We don't have to speculate either, it's reality today.

Indeed, but why is that so? Maybe it's because they don't have much say in any matter, and are forced be exploited, and so on. You cannot declare that because they are not willing to contribute in this current exploitative system we have, that means they also wouldn't want to contribute in any other system.

> That's always the issue with these proposals. It's smart, motivated people that look for tasks if they're idle and are ready to help others, and then they figure "I wouldn't just not work, so that's what everybody would do". It's the same issue engineers have when they design features. "I can type very fast without looking at the keyboard, that's what everybody can", and then it collides with the real world where most people can neither type fast nor type without looking at their keyboard.

No it isn't. It's basic human behaviour. The reason why people "don't do anything but watch tv" is, I'm convinced, because they are beaten down by a society that doesn't care about them. They tend to the tv's and games when they have any free time because they are worked to death the rest of the time.

In a society where that wasn't so, the results would be different too.

Obviously, it's not each case that's so, but probably 99,9% or more, and that's good enough. There will always be bad seeds, but most aren't bad.

> I live in an apartment complex with ~50% social housing. About 30% of residents here are lower class, about 5-10% are what I described. They are quite happy with the accommodations and their allowance, they see no reason to work.

They are a result of society. They weren't born that way, they were taught to be that way by the experiences they had living in this current society.

> Your plans and ideas are made for a world full of people like you. But that's not the world we live in.

No, it's made for humans, contrary to our current society. It's based on the fact, that if you show solidarity, compassion, and try to raise people up, instead of beat them down and exploit them, as is currently the way our society treat people, they tend to do rather well, and are happy to do their part. Obviously, there will be some that won't, but I feel confident that it will be few. It's not a showstopper, the goods in a society based on solidarity instead of greed outweigh the bad in every way.

> That would be reactionary, a large step in the other direction of unconditional basic income, and you'd get kicked out of every UBI debate, probably violently so.

That's because UBI is a retrofitting of basic solidarity in our current system. I'm not talking about retrofitting our current system, I'm talking about building a completely new system. One taking a lot of pointers from the anarcho-syndicalism playbook. Our current system is completely broken, and needs to get replaced, not reformed because reforms can't be used for such drastic changes as are needed.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#220

Post by wonderwonder »

CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #191
wonderwonder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are close to factories that grow food with indoor vertical farming: https://www.plenty.ag/ Any repetitive job can eventually be automated away. The largest impact is going to be fully autonomous self driving cars. That alone has the chance of eliminating 4 million driving jobs, including truckers and cab drivers. This does not factor in the ~3 million people that drive for Uber and lyft. These are not people who a…

I think the other side of this coin is particularly glaring as well. Since we decided to blame those workless people, and punish them if they don’t find work. They _have_ to find work. Which means more competition for consumption, you _have_ to consume their stuff to keep them fed. Which means more senseless competition to produce shit no one actual my need, more ads, more tele marketing, poisonous food, exploiting o…

Absolutely. The current crisis drives your point home. We forcing workers to go to work and expose themselves, if they refuse, they are fired and ineligible for unemployment. They are forced to martyr themselves for the a system designed to efficiently move resources from the bottom to the top. We have somehow convinced people that making other people rich while we toil our lives away is good.

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

― Ronald Wright

Post reply on HN