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

241–249 of 249 posts

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#241

Post by chillacy »

lcall wrote: post #230
chillacy wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've summed it up that your beliefs are very specific and if anyone disagrees with one of them they're unlikely to agree with the rest of them. I will also note that libertarian principles are not very popular with the electorate because most people will gladly sacrifice abstract freedom for {economic growth|job opportunities|reduce poverty|etc}.

Hmm. I think they are valuable and can be considered separately, like: 1) that we have a constitution that limits federal authority (for what I think are many good historical reasons); 2) socialism/communism has caused big problems, also with many extensively painful historical examples. I relate this to "government cares for us"; 3) my beliefs about the nature of life, purpose of government, importance of freedom to…

Good fanout, but consider:

1. is normative, it assumes the reader respects the all of the (US) constitution's values. Two possibilities:

(a) the reader is from outside the US (this article is about Finnish basic income after all) and

(b) the reader is american but disagrees with the constitution's values (which ironically is somewhat in spirit with the constitution anyways, free speech and all)

2. This one is somewhat of a problem of semantics if you've ever tried to argue with hardline socialist/capitalists because there is no purely socialist or purely capitalist state out there, even in the US we have plenty of government controls. Hardline socialists are eager to distance themselves from historical failures (it wasn't "real" socialism) and capitalists are eager to distance themselves from supposed market failures (crony capitalism).

(I definitely have personal bias to the latter though. There are plenty of distorted incentives which create market failures, yet I will admit that markets left to their own devices often result in sub-optimal outcomes through a process like the prisoner's dilemma)

3. Not necessarily communicatable to every reader but maybe similar readers would be able to relate.

4. Also not communicatable to every reader but I can believe that one :) though the worst customer service I've ever had was from comcast (caused by either {lack of government regulation | government regulation creating monopolies } depending on who you ask), and they refused to refund a double billing mistake until I ended up having to use some FTC website to make a formal complaint, at which point they finally assigned me a real customer service person from their business division.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#242

Post by drdeadringer »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #138
hellotomyrars wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had the same thought. Too bad we can't ask all the UBI recipients their long term mental state(Because there are none) so instead we'll have to go with this persons gut instinct.

On the other hand, we do know that many working 9-5 or longer hours suffer from burnout and depression, so a fair comparison should account for that.

As I tend to complicate things more than necessary before making them simple [maybe some techo-twisted Churchill quote about Americans], I shall find it interesting to include additional findings against fulltime "with nothing to do", parttime with wanting more [or less], and so forth.

Mega-Meta comprehensive, so to speak ... but maybe we need an AI assist for that or something. I don't know.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#243

Post by manicdee »

commandlinefan wrote: post #162
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…

> living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible Nor is an additional $3 trillion/year expenditure feasible forever. That's what's so disturbing about discussions around UBI: there seem to be people who, genuinely and unironically, believe that the reason some of us are concerned about the concept is because we don't realize how happy not having to work would make people. They a…

So you wouldn’t plan an extra $3B in taxation to reduce inflation?

Remembering that governments with fiat currencies don’t tax for income, they tax for constraining money supply.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#244

Post by lcall »

chillacy wrote: post #241
lcall wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I think they are valuable and can be considered separately, like: 1) that we have a constitution that limits federal authority (for what I think are many good historical reasons); 2) socialism/communism has caused big problems, also with many extensively painful historical examples. I relate this to "government cares for us"; 3) my beliefs about the nature of life, purpose of government, importance of freedom to…

Good fanout, but consider: 1. is normative, it assumes the reader respects the all of the (US) constitution's values. Two possibilities: (a) the reader is from outside the US (this article is about Finnish basic income after all) and (b) the reader is american but disagrees with the constitution's values (which ironically is somewhat in spirit with the constitution anyways, free speech and all) 2. This one is somewha…

1) Yes the OP was about Finland, which is their business, but I was specifically commenting about the concept wrt the US Fed Gov.

2) Disregarding "true believers" on either side of this one who would not be convinced regardless, I think Soviets, Mao, Venezuela, others in Asia, and even France are convincing enough to enough people that there is reasonable hope the USA will not go too far in that direction. If we do, we have serious problems of understanding, education, and communication, and whatever underlies those, IMO. Others are free to disagree of course.

3) Anyone who wants to find why I say I know what I know, can also investigate for themselves. :)

4) Re comcast: so they say, yes. Glad I have not been forced to use them so far, and for your tip on the FTC website in case I ever do have to.

Thanks for reading my comments, and your thoughtful replies. All the best to you.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#245

Post by irishcoffee »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #236
irishcoffee wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree to disagree. Giving people money will solve exactly zero problems.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary? Its FUD that keeps the UBI from happening. Not logic, evidence nor sound economic principles. Old farts that can't let go of 1950's notions of how people should behave.

Did you read the link that created this thread? UBI won't solve anything. I hate to burst your bubble, but you're just ignoring facts. "Old farts" have nothing to do with it.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#246

Post by PunchTornado »

mydongle wrote: post #231
PunchTornado wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as long as they don't live from my taxes, they can not work.

That's a nice wet dream of being the sole contributor to the taxes of an entire nation. But the truth is your contribution is a drop in the bucket, and what you get out of society is so much more. It's what gives you the security of not being murdered one night and having all your stuff stolen, assuming you don't have your own private security. And guess what, you live off the taxes from a great number of people who…

We have elections. I'll vote according to my beliefs that small taxes is better and you and others vote for the opposite. And we see who wins in US.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#247

Post by JoeAltmaier »

irishcoffee wrote: post #245
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary? Its FUD that keeps the UBI from happening. Not logic, evidence nor sound economic principles. Old farts that can't let go of 1950's notions of how people should behave.

Did you read the link that created this thread? UBI won't solve anything. I hate to burst your bubble, but you're just ignoring facts. "Old farts" have nothing to do with it.

A single limited Finnish experiment of limited duration was loosely characterized. Not proving anything; not rational to deduce all that from 'an article'. No, this is more cherry-picking to support a preconceived notion - that the Protestant Work Ethic will always be the right answer to everything.

Read a dozen more articles, not from your bubble, and then get back to me.

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#248

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Mirioron wrote: post #223
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The human cost of building those factories, and maintaining them, is 1% of what the hand labor used to be. Yes points to you for noticing there's a supply chain. But that's automating too. The remaining 'developers' in industry are Engineers. They number a tiny fraction of the human labor that factories used to employ. The idea the we can 'retrain' line workers is nonsense. They can't all become Engineers, even if we…

> The human cost of building those factories, and maintaining them, is 1% of what the hand labor used to be. Yes, if we still built the old stuff, but we don't. We're building better factories for more sophisticated technology. Factories are tools and they've improved just the same as every other tool. Their complexity has increased immensely. Sure, nowadays it still takes less effort to build the factory, but all th…

That up-front cost is again, a percent of what the factory floor used to employ. And they're mostly used once at the beginning.

To support a model of "build new factories forever" requires endless expansion. The world is no longer expanding at a rate that would support that, not nearly. And I don't see that as a desirable world .

Re: Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

#249

Post by JoeAltmaier »

falcolas wrote: post #95
Mirioron wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bankrupt notion that somehow 'were funding those people' is meaningless. The factories pour out the goods. Nobody's slaving away to 'fund' that. Somebody has to create, build, and maintain those factories. Someone else has to manage the output of those factories and distribute it. Someone else needs to work to secure raw materials for the factory. Age you can't produce everything in factories. You don't have a…

Your example of farms is rather poorly put. Modern farms (thinking of corn and wheat and other staple crops) cover hundreds of acres and are managed by 4-5 people. Farms of this size couldn't exist in the past because they required too large of a workforce . And, given the current state of automation, most of the work to maintain those farms is highly automated; the operators are mostly monitoring screens from non-in…

Agreed.

Except up your estimate by an order of magnitude or three. Farms of 10,000 acres managed by a handful of people. John Deere estimates 100M acres under automated tillage today, worldwide.

Post reply on HN