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

231–240 of 275 posts

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#231

Post by jerf »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #194
jerf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

"You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak."

In addition to what refurb said, I feel you're exactly backwards. We should always remember that taxes come from the threat of imprisonment if you don't pay and coercive force. There are things that are worth this threat. Civilization is a big deal. It's a good thing. I'm rather Hobbesian on my view of Nature; in that sense I'm probably more enamored with civilization than the average liberal who believes in the inherent goodness of man. I think we have much farther we can fall than such a person would. But people should not casually use this power. To wipe away the fact that taxation is coercive is to encourage attitudes that spend your time and energy on irrelevant, if not downright wrong, purposes. That's not something we should overlook.

Taxation is a big deal. It's intrinsically coercive. It should only be used on really important things, not for things like shutting up some interest group somewhere, or buying votes, or lining the pockets of your buddies, or worthless administration (and please note the word "worthless" isn't superfluous there), or any of the other myriad of ways government can coercively spend the fruits of our precious, precious time on this planet.

That said, by the way, I think this particular thing is a solid use of taxpayer dollars. Or at least it is, provided it's somewhat efficient; if they're managing to blow $10,000 a box or something, as the US government would probably find a way to do (a snipe at our particular government today, not the concept of government in general), that's less true.

Also, if you do not today agree with me, wait three years. When a Republican is President again, it will once again be a popular notion that we shouldn't have to pay our taxes blindly to the government and we should think really carefully about how we're spending on things. I'm just ahead of the progressive curve here, that's all.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#232

Post by tomkarlo »

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.

It's even more expensive to do nothing when your health care system has to pick up the pieces. Appropriate preventative strategies can be cost-effective, and should be easier for voters to support (since they benefit everyone rather than just the ill.)

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#233

Post by jerf »

anigbrowl wrote: post #205
jerf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

"You're focusing only on the costs"

Bollocks. I'm saying we should talk about the costs, not ignoring the benefits. I actually think this is a net good move on Finland's part. I know you're projecting, since you've imputed claims to me I actively disagree with.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#234

Post by [deleted] »

jami wrote: post #189
ProcessBlue wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean the private room? That wasn't a luxury option, I should have been more clear on that :-). All rooms are private, and though we got lucky and got one that was slightly larger than the others it didn't cost extra. I think the small fee they impose is simply meant to encourage people not to overstay.

I'm experiencing extreme envy at these private room stories. I had my first child in a great hospital with the same room all to my family for our full two-day stay. For my current pregnancy, I switched care providers, but I chose the new midwife based on her ability to deliver at the great hospital where I had my first child. Last month (when I was seven months pregnant), my insurance company decided they no longer c…

[deleted]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#235

Post by pmorici »

randallsquared wrote: post #227
tych0 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point was that the financial arithmetic isn't prohibitive. A box full of stuff costs the same amount whether you give out 5 million or 300 million (in fact, economics of scale says that the US could probably do it cheaper than Finland can). We have 300 million people (or whatever the birthrate is) which is certainly more than Finland has, but we also then have 300 million taxpayers. Sure, the absolute cost is hig…

Well, about 300 million people, but less than 100 million taxpayers. About 130 million workers in the US [1], of whom about 30% have a negative income tax rate[2]. Doesn't completely change your point, since less than half of Finland's population works as well[3], but I thought it worth mentioning. [1] http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/…

Just because you have a zero or negative federal income tax rate doesn't mean you don't pay any taxes in the US. These people are still paying 7.65% payroll taxes on that income, sales tax, property tax, and the seemingly endless list of other taxes and government imposed fees we all pay on many other services. Since most social welfare programs are funded by a combination of federal and state taxes I don't think the number of people paying federal income tax is meaningful one way or the other.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#236

Post by Gravityloss »

Domenic_S wrote: post #191
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?

What if the improved upbringing opens up more opportunities for the child -- in other countries? So now instead of an average taxpayer you get nothing at all?

It certainly gives lots of job opportunities - for example in the USA. With finnish mediocre salaries and high tax rates, americans think young couples are crazy to return here to raise their families. Yet they do. Certainly they're not returning directly because of a cardboard box.

There are many places which extract some high value years from the workforce of some other country, for example I've heard that many educated german speaking young people go to work in Switzerland for a few years but ultimately return.

It's a bit unclear to me who wins here.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#237

Post by fulafel »

skreech wrote: post #181
ionforce wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would there be a hospital policy against gender disclosure?

To prevent parents from aborting children of the "wrong" gender. It has sadly happened, apparently.

By the time you can tell, you can't have a legal abortion. Black market ultrasound is probably not the limiting factor in illegal abortions in Sweden or Finland.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#238

Post by anigbrowl »

jerf wrote: post #233
anigbrowl wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

"You're focusing only on the costs" Bollocks. I'm saying we should talk about the costs, not ignoring the benefits. I actually think this is a net good move on Finland's part. I know you're projecting, since you've imputed claims to me I actively disagree with.

Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a complaint that the money from social programs was extracted from you by 'coercion' the implication is that you're being forced to pay for something people should have to finance themselves.

I really don't get how you think this is a net good move but couch your argument in the form of a complaint about the government taking your lunch money. By definition, a net good is economically less costly to provide than to withhold. Even over the very short term (ie within the same fiscal year) I suggest that the opportunity cost of supplying the baby box is no more, or possibly lower than the costs of autopsies and lost productivity resulting from a higher rate of infant mortality.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#239

Post by sneak »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #194
jerf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

> You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak.

By your own copypasted definition, how can they be anything but?

Even if you love taxation and government spending, this is factually true.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#240

Post by sneak »

flagnog wrote: post #142
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....

Regardless whether or not people are imbeciles, they still have a habit of abstracting away common knowledge, and then forgetting that the common knowledge exists. I see this all the time in the computer industry. It's good to remind everyone now and again that free is not necessarily free.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Post reply on HN