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

> How does Finland punch above their weight? Can't we steal some of their fire?

I mean, Finland fought off the Soviet Union's invasion, punching above their weight seems to be their national pasttime. Maybe size matters, just like small companies will be more agile than large ones, smaller states will be able to pivot easier.

> When Reagan-era policies are now regarded as marxism, methinks we've gone too far in the other direction.

We have essentially the opposite trend in Germany. Social democrat policies of the 70ies and 80ies are considered conservative/reactionary today.

I still believe we should establish some international citizenship trading system. Apparently plenty of Americans would love to get into Europe and I know quite a few Europeans who'd like to emigrate to the US. That'd really allow voting with your feet.

Nice list. Belgium is above US. Any Belgian entrepreneur can have a great laugh looking at this.

> UBI doesn't mean we all get the same - it just means none of us starve, and can live with dignity no matter what we do ...or don't do.

By that definition, most of Europe has UBI and then some ;)

> Is it really that bad a thought that the goal of tech is to finance a society where no one is left without food and basic, decent, shelter?

That's a very US-centric view. Food insecurity is a solved problem in Europe and has been for decades. Basic, decent shelter? How about 450sqft, utilities included and we'll buy you a TV, throw in free health care, free higher education and 400€ a month in cash? Yet still, people will claim that this does not allow for genuine self-actualization because somebody else will have 900sqft and two TVs or a car.

> Why does it have to be a struggle for so many when we can just build tech that covers basic needs.

Because people don't want to be limited to basic needs, they want what they see others having. They want smartphones, microwaves, computers, internet, entertainment, transportation etc. And as society, we still need somebody to actually create all of that and keep it running. Incentivizing opting out of contribution is, from society's perspective, counter-productive, and the more you redistribute, the more you encourage the contributing members to leave.

Consider this: Germany is at or near the top for total taxation of working individuals. At the same time, top salaries for high-skilled workers are significantly lower than in the US.

Say we add some more taxes to redistribute more towards the unemployed and remove the rest of incentive to work for low-skilled workers. We'll increase the number of people opting to not work, further increasing the required taxes on those that do. And we'll increase the earning-gap for high-skilled workers compared to e.g. the US, increasing the reward of emigration for that group. That's a vicious circle and it's going to be hard to stop once it reinforces itself.

These all are very interesting points, but I think most are centred around unemployment benefits, rather than UBI.

This pandemic made me realise how fortunate we are for living in Europe - literally any part of the eu, has done a better job at helping people and making sure they dont starve, compared to the US. Thats a great observation! Europe is indeed very close to UBI. The only issue is it finances it through more taxes on an individual’s output and is not universal.

People who want more than basics can demand it as much as they want. Thats not UBI, thats lazy and scrounging. Go get a job. Period.

The point you are making re even more taxation is also spot on - that is why my view is that instead of taxing current workers even more we instead invest in tech that leads to even more productivity growth and we tax the difference in that new productivity gain.

I dread more taxation, as it usually means more taxes for us, less for those who disproportionately benefit from increases in tech and automation, due to the current economic system.

For example if BMW automates 10x more of their assembly lines, then tax the gain in productivity but NOT at a level where it punishes said growth, rather at a level where both BMW and the taxman are happy. Money go into a UBI pot much like norway’s sovereign investment fund.

Tech can be treated like a natural resource that we all own, but none of us have exclusive rights over it, while those who successfully exploit it will get more of the pie.

Apply the same to all sorts of manufacturing, agriculture and anything else that can be automated.

The money in that pot go to everyone in the country, and this is where UBI is radically different from unemployment benefits. Everyone gets a share, meaning those already in employment will get a tax cut and those not in employment don't get the stigma associated with benefits.

Dont worry about people immigrating to the us - the very workers we automate out of jobs dread us highly skilled immigrants, as they dint see the benefits from our work - more than taking pictures with shiny new iphones - and they want us to stay out, by voting for Trump.

TL;DR I guess I have a few random ideas about an ideal world where we use tech for building a star trek like society, where basics are no longer an issue and all we do is advance our society.

Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society, and that taxes are omnipotently levied against the activity. Conmen (Enron; Bernie Madoff) and people who squander inherited wealth (trust-fund babies; Paris Hilton) arguably have a negative contribution to society, but pay plenty in taxes. Does their existence as high-value tax base truly outweigh a kind, loving person who had the misfortune to born poor, and not get the same opportunities in life as someone who's family donated a building to Harvard?

Capitalism is unable to recognize the value of lots of kinds of work (that is often done by women), especially when those performing the work aren't the kind to charge for it. Just because work is being given away for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Capitalism has some shortcomings and one of them is that it's unable to support certain business models that provide value to the world.

Wikipedia manages to exist on the largess of wealthy benefactors, and a ton of volunteer labor. Are those volunteers a "net burden" on society?