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

Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 275 posts

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#201

Post by anigbrowl »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #163
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #74

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

Yes, but look at the long-term benefits. Under-privileged children end up costing society much more over the longer term.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#202

Post by jordan0day »

300bps wrote: post #147
mikeash wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly is this worth noting? Nobody jumps to point out that there's still somebody paying for the "free" tiers of Dropbox or GitHub or whatever. Yet the moment somebody mentions a "free" social program, people suddenly have to hammer on the point that somebody pays for it. We're not a bunch of imbeciles who think that social programs just rain from the sky....

There are plenty of people that think the government has unlimited money and should spend it on the people. These people don't know that it is literal wealth transfer from one person to another with the government acting as middle man. Sure, you may realize that this is the case but many people don't. It's the same mentality that leads people to believe that insurance companies should pay for everything until they re…

> There are plenty of people that think the government has unlimited money

Technically, any government that has sovereign control over its currency does have unlimited money. We have examples of governments utilizing this fact to disastrous results, but that doesn't make it less true.

> These people don't know that it is literal wealth transfer from one person to another

This isn't necessarily true. For state governments or governments that don't have a sovereign, fiat currency, it is true, but not for a national government like the USA federal government. If it were true, all wealth would be a "zero sum game."

You're correct about people's misguided perceptions about government spending and insurance companies, but it's also harmful when the pendulum swings too far the other way, and we don't want the government to spend any money because we think it only obtains that money via taxes.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#204

Post by avar »

grecy wrote: post #184
at-fates-hands wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

America also takes in taxes from it's vast population, so it still "costs" the same per capita.

Exactly, if anything it should be cheaper for the U.S. to do this per capita due to economies of scale.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#205

Post by anigbrowl »

jerf wrote: post #156
mikeash wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people only ever bring this up with social programs, and not any of the many other "free" things that are discussed around here?

Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…

Because social programs get their money from coercion.

Garbage. I quite like paying taxes, because it suits me to outsource some money allocation to the government. You have a vote, and presumably when you benefit from things you voted for you don't go around feeling guilty at how you've coerced other people into going along with it.

Defending the proposition that we shouldn't be so concerned about the costs

You're focusing only on the costs, while ignoring the potential savings. Finland spends this money because it expects to get something in return: lower infant mortality, and its correlate, lower rates of infant ill-health and negligence. Bringing a baby to term and delivering it only to have it die represents a massive loss of productivity, and that loss is not confined to the grieving or irresponsible parents, it ripples out through society, both via spending by the parents' relatives and friends and through loss of economic productivity from illness, despression and so forth, not to mention that underprivileged children who do survive are more likely to suffer from mental illness, fall into crime, become homeless etc.

This notion that social programs are just a cost and deliver no benefit is asinine. It's highly economically efficient to provide new parents with the essential tools for looking after a baby, and a great more productive than issuing homilies about the (tiny) marginal increase in taxation that results.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#206

Post by nawitus »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #163
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #74

Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…

This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.

The cost per capita is the same, so your argument doesn't really make sense. By the way, I see that argument every single time when someone proposes the USA to do something better. "It's a big country, we can't fix anything".

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#207

Post by nawitus »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #161
_mulder_ wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps American's would be even more educated if they used a system like Finland's, often held up as the worlds best education system. Paying less and getting better results sounds good to me. Maybe Finland's high educational achievement level starts with the picture book in the box? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

If it's so easy to copy, how come no one else in the world has actually managed to do it?

One reason is that education politics are extremely conservative.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#208

Post by anigbrowl »

jan_g wrote: post #78
belorn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. While its technically true, its really misrepresent it. Every time i hear that argument it sounds like a kid holding one part of a singular share of Microsoft stock, proclaiming to the world that he has now "funded Microsoft!" because of his $10 investment. Sure, in societies with lower tax, the state would be less likely to be funding a b…

It's more than a baby box. I do not know how familiar you are with some European countries' social system, but young parents are usually given quite a few months of vacation time and salary from the state, a sort of children allowance until a child is 18 years old (100EUR or so), tax deductions for every child until a child is 18 years old, kindergarten 'bonuses', free health care for every child and similar. So this…

So this definitely deserves a lot of attention as it makes young parents' lives quite easier. And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it.

The beneficiaries likely return it and more through increased productivity. It's a lot easier to be productive when you don't have to worry too much about essentials.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#209

Post by anigbrowl »

icebraining wrote: post #100
rlpb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it. What if it turned out that the baby pays for it because the improved average upbringing allows the baby to earn more and consequently pay more tax in absolute terms, though not in percentage terms? Would it be a cost to the taxpayer then?

It depends. "Brain drain" is a real problem for many nations.

Not the ones with advanced economies and reliable social safety nets, though. People tend to leave places that don't offer economic security and opportunity for those that do.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#210

Post by anigbrowl »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #133
rlpb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of us choose not to, suggesting these benefits are worth less to us than money. Or you could be suffering from a Tragedy of the Commons. Your American viewpoint may be preventing you all from pooling your money together and saving overall. Instead you all have to act as individuals, and in this case it is in your individual best interests to not spend the money, since you only get the saving if you all act tog…

I don't understand. The tragedy of the commons is about resource depletion in the absence of price signals. If I choose to work rather than take paternity leave, what resource am I depleting? Or more generally, what harmful externality am I creating?

Ask your kids.
Post reply on HN