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

Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

demoshelsinki.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 182 posts

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#11

Post by diekdnk »

ornornor wrote: post #6
diekdnk wrote: post #2

The experiment was terribly flawed in that it only addressed the unemployed, and it didn't affect the existing unemployment system for them, making incentives perverse for all taking part. The UBI was offered tax-free on top. It represents nothing like real life UBI and needs to be redesigned as a test.

Why can’t we ever design one such experiment right? It’s as if we were giving ammunition to those opposed to it by conducting trials that have flaws! Would it really be so hard to run a proper test that follows all the best practices and isn’t biased/flawed so that we could once and for all point at it and say “we can conclusively say UBI is/isn’t viable based on this experiment”? I mean if a country goes all the way…

The test was conducted by a popular right wing party "Kokoomus", which is heavily opposed to the system. This might affect the design of the test

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#12

Post by diekdnk »

chii wrote: post #10
rikumattila wrote: post #8

true it was not a test of "universal basic income" as such as it targeted only part of the population. Some results are, however, relevant when assessing them from the world of (post-pandemic) 2020: the participants of the experiment reported 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy.

but did UBI encourage more productivity from those participants? Is it more than the cost of such a program? I want to know if UBI is a net benefit or not.

Since the target audience was rhe unemployed, changing up their type of income isn't going to give them a job, so prpductivity is difficult to measure.

The entire point of UBI is to secure everyones basic human needs, not get them a job (unlike unemployment benefits).

If we were to test UBI also on employed people, and observed their behavior, we might avtually gain useful insight into mechanica with UBI. Perhaps we will see more 6-hour workdays with more people employed?

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#13

Post by Ma8ee »

chii wrote: post #10
rikumattila wrote: post #8

true it was not a test of "universal basic income" as such as it targeted only part of the population. Some results are, however, relevant when assessing them from the world of (post-pandemic) 2020: the participants of the experiment reported 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy.

but did UBI encourage more productivity from those participants? Is it more than the cost of such a program? I want to know if UBI is a net benefit or not.

It was not a huge difference. They were not less productive, but the measured increase in worked hours was something like 6% if I don't remember wrong. They could take short gigs without losing unemployment benefits for the time and have to deal with the hassle with going off and on the benefits for just a few days of workt. But too small and limited study to really say anything about it.

The important gain would be to give people breathingroom to actually find a job most relevant to their education and skills instead of just jumping on the first available opening to be able to pay the rent. Or even spending some time improving your skills.

In the US I think just introducing universal healthcare would accomplish part of the same thing.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#14

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

chii wrote: post #10
rikumattila wrote: post #8

true it was not a test of "universal basic income" as such as it targeted only part of the population. Some results are, however, relevant when assessing them from the world of (post-pandemic) 2020: the participants of the experiment reported 1) less economic troubles and financial stress; 2) Higher confidence in future possibilities; 3) More self-determination and autonomy.

but did UBI encourage more productivity from those participants? Is it more than the cost of such a program? I want to know if UBI is a net benefit or not.

How would measure that? Do you only count paid labor? Is all labor productive?

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#15

Post by nabla9 »

shse wrote: post #3

It only works for a relatively small group of people. Scaling it up to 100% of the population would result in inflation.

UBI is just redistribution scheme. There is no increase of price level because aggregate income stays the same.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#17

Post by tonyedgecombe »

shse wrote: post #3

It only works for a relatively small group of people. Scaling it up to 100% of the population would result in inflation.

It depends, if you have some essential resource where supply is constrained then you might expect inflation. On the other hand goods that are readily available like food or oil shouldn't see any significant difference.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#18

Post by HPsquared »

squnch wrote: post #5

Nothing in Scandinavia or Japan is a viable concept for elsewhere unless explicitly tested elsewhere.

It wasn't even really tested in Finland, just some aspects. A pilot scheme which is understood by the participants to be temporary does not induce anything like the same incentives as a real UBI implementation.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#19

Post by luckylion »

ornornor wrote: post #6
diekdnk wrote: post #2

The experiment was terribly flawed in that it only addressed the unemployed, and it didn't affect the existing unemployment system for them, making incentives perverse for all taking part. The UBI was offered tax-free on top. It represents nothing like real life UBI and needs to be redesigned as a test.

Why can’t we ever design one such experiment right? It’s as if we were giving ammunition to those opposed to it by conducting trials that have flaws! Would it really be so hard to run a proper test that follows all the best practices and isn’t biased/flawed so that we could once and for all point at it and say “we can conclusively say UBI is/isn’t viable based on this experiment”? I mean if a country goes all the way…

A "real" test would be much harder, and to be actually useful, it would also have to contain a way to finance itself, i.e. by testing it not on a selected group of people, but on a region and adding additional taxes for everyone in the region large enough to offset the payments.

If you're only testing the outcome, but not the income, you're essentially allowing "free energy" people to plug their magic machines into a wall socket while you test the energy output of their machines.

Much fewer people will agree to run that test (as it'll negatively affect their bottom line), and I do believe that proponents of UBI will also be more hesitant to run it, as it might prove that adding e.g. 20% to income tax will motivate tax payers to migrate away from UBI zones.

Re: Results: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Help Us Build the Post-Pandemic World

#20

Post by swebs »

diekdnk wrote: post #11
ornornor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t we ever design one such experiment right? It’s as if we were giving ammunition to those opposed to it by conducting trials that have flaws! Would it really be so hard to run a proper test that follows all the best practices and isn’t biased/flawed so that we could once and for all point at it and say “we can conclusively say UBI is/isn’t viable based on this experiment”? I mean if a country goes all the way…

The test was conducted by a popular right wing party "Kokoomus", which is heavily opposed to the system. This might affect the design of the test

>According to its 2006-adopted platform, the National Coalition Party's policy is based on "freedom, responsibility and democracy, equality of opportunity, education, supportiveness, tolerance and caring".[9] The party is described by literature as a liberal[2] and conservative[3] as well as a liberal-conservative[4] party in the centre-right[8] with catch-all party characteristics.[29] The non-profit Democratic Society described it as "the heir to both liberal and conservative strains of right-of-centre thought" that is becoming increasingly liberal compared to its official stance of conservatism.[6]

>Specifically, it contains elements of cultural and economic liberalism and social reformism.[30] For example, it supports multiculturalism, work-based immigration, gay rights and same sex marriage.[6][31][32][33] Although formerly considered to have been critical of the Nordic welfare model and campaigning for strict doctrines of economic liberalism, in the 1970s the party shifted to supporting more social liberalism, such as increased social security and a welfare state, justified by increased individual liberty.[34]

They've really pivoted on that issue in the past few decades.

Post reply on HN