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

151–160 of 182 posts

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

#151

Post by notahacker »

neilwilson wrote: post #145
notahacker wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Wray and Mitchell aren't radical enough to argue that money printing without work incentives is sustainable...

Nice straw man. Where did I mention that? The money comes from spending the money. And you can do that right up to the point where you run out of unemployment. In the vernacular where government spending becomes ineffective.

I'd have thought the point as pertains to UBI - an expensive permanent universal subsidy rather than a payout to the unemployed or job guarantee which fluctuates cyclically according to unemployment levels - was pretty obvious. In conventional economics the government funds its spending by borrowing or taxation. In Randall/Wray economics a unified govt/central bank spends the money into existence and has huge scope for fiscal stimulus in economic downturns with bond issue being unnecessary, but money still derives its value from the taxes the government levies. Under either economic model, the extra cost of funding voluntary economic inactivity under UBI implies net tax rises.

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

#152

Post by koonsolo »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #57
swebs wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and make sure not to find work That's just welfare, not UBI. The U stands for Universal, which means it goes to everyone. Not just the poor or unemployed.

The problem with "universal" is, that someone with an average paycheck doesn't get anything, because he pays back the same amount he gets in taxes. And the 'average' paycheck is not an 'average' in the term we use now (where we just look at the workers, add up their paychecks and divide by their number), but we also have to add up all the non workers (kids, pensioners, unemployed, studens,...) with "0 EUR" paychecks,…

> The problem with "universal" is, that someone with an average paycheck doesn't get anything, because he pays back the same amount he gets in taxes.

If it stays the same for this person, that means he has to pay an extra UBI to receive the UBI. If this person is making basic income right now, he might as wel stop working and still get the basic income, or at least lose less percentage wise when stop working.

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

#153

Post by luckylion »

andarleen wrote: post #135
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, if ~50% of people work in a country (from age 0 to pensioners), they continued to work, and got 2k extra 'free money', they'd have to pay more than those 2k back in taxes, to cover the 2k for people who don't work at all. If we somehow took 2k/person/month from some nonexisting trillionaire, who has the money to finance it for everyone, then probably yes, prices would go up, because everybody has now 2k…

Not if the extra “free” money are covered by increased productivity due to automation, as it happened over the past decades. Typically the main beneficiaries from increased productivity are shareholders or company founders, and that is why money gets clogged in a few hands. Workers should also benefit more from from it as it is also their productivity that grew 10x along with that of the company. So we are not really…

The issue is that we all already benefit from increased automation and new technologies. We all carry computers with us with powerful batteries and access to the internet.

It's the (much rarer) high-skill workers whose productivity has shot through the roof by using technology as leverage. The individual low-skill worker's productivity hasn't really increased by a lot, unless you say "we've built a robot that does 95% of the work, but let's attribute all of the output to the remaining 3 humans".

> Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

The issue with "fair" is that it's very subjective. Some may say "it's fair when everyone has the same", others may argue that it's unfair when somebody who works hard gets the same as someone who chooses not to work at all.

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

#154

Post by luckylion »

andarleen wrote: post #119
jonkho wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine for most people, and I’m talking about the ones that would continue keep at their their existing job , if there was an extra $2000/month spare cash coming in or $4000 for a couple, it wouldn’t be a difficult stretch of imagination to say they would spend the money on the two most immediately obvious things: 1) upgrade their car 2) upgrade their shelter. If everyone is now affording a new $1000/month car pay…

A transfer of wealth would indeed be an issue. But I am wondering, would UBI give more people the option to live outside large cities, given that the scarcity of income is no longer an issue? And as such the demand for rent would go down? Will try and comment less, because debate on HN gets heavily penalised unless it conforms to certain patterns. But yeah UBI and inflation / transfers of wealth are an interesting to…

Germany might be an example to look at this. We have welfare that's paid out wherever you live. It's conditional in so far that it's expected that you look for a job and aren't rich, but that's about it. It has a fixed money component (~400€/month) and covers rent (up to some amount that's set locally, depending on the local rent prices), utilities, health insurance etc directly.

Therefore, if you're okay with the amount of money you'd get, you'd probably be better off if you're not living in a large city, because, rent aside, city living is a bit more expensive. Also, considering that you're supposed to look for work, living in a city (where the jobs are, if they are anywhere) would increase the chances of you being expected to take a job, which you wouldn't have to in more rural areas.

People still move to the cities, even though the job market isn't promising for low-skill workers there either.

There are certainly many reasons, but some I believe to be involved: it's harder to get an apartment when you're on social benefits (even more so if not in the community you're currently living in), it's harder to live in a rural area if you don't have a car (which you'll likely not be able to buy while on benefits), few people have the means to move when money is tight.

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

#155

Post by specialist »

koonsolo wrote: post #149
specialist wrote: post #131

Medicare for All (or equiv) is enabler for widespread UBI. The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. If I had had health insurance, I would have taken a lot more risks. But I average a major health crisis every two years, so whenever I ran out of savings and COBRA, I had to take jobs just to get insured. (ACA helped by prohibit…

> The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. Funnily enough, the western country with the least amount of safety net has the most successfull startup community and entrepreneurial spirit. Must be an anomaly in your theory.

How many companies are listed on the misc stock exchanges? How has that number changed over time?

How many businesses are started per jurisdiction over time? What is the trend?

Which businesses account for most employment growth?

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

#156

Post by luckylion »

koonsolo wrote: post #149
specialist wrote: post #131

Medicare for All (or equiv) is enabler for widespread UBI. The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. If I had had health insurance, I would have taken a lot more risks. But I average a major health crisis every two years, so whenever I ran out of savings and COBRA, I had to take jobs just to get insured. (ACA helped by prohibit…

> The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. Funnily enough, the western country with the least amount of safety net has the most successfull startup community and entrepreneurial spirit. Must be an anomaly in your theory.

Coincidentally, the western countries with the strongest safety nets, m4a and affordable / free child care have weak startup communities and little entrepreneurial spirit. Another anomaly!

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

#157

Post by luckylion »

nabla9 wrote: post #32
misja111 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI is just a redistribution scheme and aggregate income stays the same, how is UBI than different from the various 'social' countries in Europe such as e.g. Sweden and Finland? Those countries have progressive income taxes and social benefits for those without work. Isn't this the same as what UBI would look like if aggregate income would stay the same?

UBI removes high marginal tax rate from poor households. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=23140692

> UBI removes high marginal tax rate from poor households.

How so? I understand the "it's the same, just with less bureaucracy" camp wants everybody to get UBI, but everyone that's not below a certain threshold will essentially pay all of the UBI back via increased taxation.

So if you get $1000 in welfare now and you earn money, this changes the amount of welfare you receive. I understand that. How does that change if you get $1000 in UBI and for every buck you make, you'll pay essentiall $1 in taxes? You'll still only actually have more money when you're > $1000 on income.

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

#158

Post by specialist »

luckylion wrote: post #156
koonsolo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. Funnily enough, the western country with the least amount of safety net has the most successfull startup community and entrepreneurial spirit. Must be an anomaly in your theory.

Coincidentally, the western countries with the strongest safety nets, m4a and affordable / free child care have weak startup communities and little entrepreneurial spirit. Another anomaly!

Rankings from 2005. USA is #32.

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/New-...

To your point, it'd be interesting to compare more recent data. Please share if you find such datasets.

--

Of course there are multiple factors. Inhibitors and accelerators, advantages and disadvantages. Even between states. Access to capital, quality of schools, real estate prices, labor laws, ad nauseum.

Some are non-obvious. One possible crucial factor between Boston and Silicon Valley was California's lack of non-compete employment arrangements. If true, shouldn't others consider adapting? Why haven't they?

Imagine young professionals have children. Imagine access to reasonable and trustworthy child care is important to those parents. So important it influences their job choices. Imagine innovative companies providing that service to better recruit and retain talent.

You don't have to imagine. Because it's already happening.

Ditto healthcare.

So why shouldn't similarly minded jurisdictions do the same?

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

#159

Post by specialist »

sauwan wrote: post #132
specialist wrote: post #131

Medicare for All (or equiv) is enabler for widespread UBI. The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. If I had had health insurance, I would have taken a lot more risks. But I average a major health crisis every two years, so whenever I ran out of savings and COBRA, I had to take jobs just to get insured. (ACA helped by prohibit…

>The combo of M4A, UBI, and affordable childcare will lead to an explosion of entrepreneurial spirit, small businesses, and startups. Unequivocally. Which is why it won't happen until citizen united is overturned. It would be a major threat to the monopoly powers that exist.

I empathetically agree that Citizen's United, along with all the other winner-takes-all rulesets, should be reversed. Over concentration of power, in any domain, should be counterbalanced.

I just don't think we should wait.

One silver lining of the federal power vacuum is cities, states, regions are no longer waiting for permission to take action.

Given the tilt of the entire judiciary stack, effectively locking in the vetocracy, I don't anticipate these circumstances changing for decades.

Of course, the pandemic may hit the reset button for a lot of our power sharing arrangements. But again, I wouldn't wait for permission.

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

#160

Post by luckylion »

specialist wrote: post #158
luckylion wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally, the western countries with the strongest safety nets, m4a and affordable / free child care have weak startup communities and little entrepreneurial spirit. Another anomaly!

Rankings from 2005. USA is #32. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/New-... To your point, it'd be interesting to compare more recent data. Please share if you find such datasets. -- Of course there are multiple factors. Inhibitors and accelerators, advantages and disadvantages. Even between states. Access to capital, quality of schools, real estate prices, labor laws, ad nauseum. Some are non-obv…

We have pretty much all that in Germany. Healthcare is mostly public and affordable, strong social safety net, free childcare in lots of cities, free schools & higher education (and if you/your family meet some criteria, you'll actually get "student loans" that are generally interest-free and you only need to pay back half of it). Want to start a company while unemployed? You'll get subsidies you don't need to pay back to get you started etc etc etc.

Germany's top startups are mostly copy cats, and that's pretty much all VCs will invest in (granted, they're not VC by SV standards, but mostly just investors). We're #51 on that list you posted.

I don't believe that entrepreneurship is significantly encouraged or discouraged by what happens if you fail or whether child care is free or expensive. Imho even regulation and red tape isn't the primary issue, but the local culture's general relationship with risk vs safety. Germans save more than e.g. US citizens, and they don't move to other states within Germany nearly as much (even though it's really not that far, Germany is smaller than California).

> Imagine innovative companies providing that service to better recruit and retain talent.

What you do to get & keep talent (aka "the elite") doesn't necessarily scale to the population at large. If you pay someone $200k, adding $10k for perks doesn't matter as much. It's very different if you're paying them $50k.

Post reply on HN