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

Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 205 posts

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#111

Post by jesterman81 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #13
raaaaraaaa122 wrote: post #2

Basic income means that people who are willing to work will pay probably higher taxes. I believe that will be easier for some people who do not earn much to just stay home with basic income. Then less people will be economically active (who will do low wage jobs ?) and taxes will need to go higher etc... It's economical spiral of death for whole nation.

It's nice when your model is simple enough to make conclusions obvious, but simplistic models of complex systems have a nasty habit of being incredibly inaccurate.

This sums up all the comments perfectly. Ideas have consequences and most times human predictions are far from right for complex things.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#112

Post by arunster »

India is toying with this idea with the NYAY guaranteed income scheme which the Congress party proposed as part of its 2019 election manifesto. If implemented, it will be the largest scheme of it's kind in the world, ensuring that the poorest 20% of the population will be paid Rs.6000 (approx. 85 USD) per month. But 20% of the population = 50 million people. How the scheme will work on this grand scale is yet to be seen.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#113

Post by carlmr »

fxj wrote: post #65

A big problem about the basic income is that it is perceived as money that you get for nothing and so people don't have to work and therefore they are lazy. Let me give you an analogy: Imagine that breathing air would cost money and you would have to work in order to breathe. Unless you don't work you would die. Would then a basic income be something that makes you lazy or would it be something that gives you confide…

The problem with your analogy is that other people have to work to make the food, provide the medical care, produce the clothing, and give shelter. You don't do anything to produce air (more likely we do the opposite).

The question is, can we make the economy work while providing everyone with these basic needs. If too many people stop working, either the people that are working will be reduced to a similar sustenance level, or it won't even be enough to cover the basic needs of all anymore. If the people that are working don't get more they will think "why should I be the one working?", and then the problem exacerbates.

In this experiment, the unemployment numbers didn't rise, but the participants knew it was supposed to be a temporary measure. So this doesn't really look at long-term sustainability.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#114

Post by petra »

mises wrote: post #31

If you give people everything, they just won't work as hard. At least, I don't think they will over the long term. It's like retirement: some may learn a skill, volunteer, etc., but most just watch TV and wait to die. This is hard for many of us to realize, because we spend much of our free time tinkering with and leaning technologies. I hear a lot of people saying that society is bound to provide all the needs of a…

So people won't work as hard. So our consumption levels in the relativelt rich country would decline.

So what ?

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#115

Post by engineerworks »

spaceribs wrote: post #11

Is it a legitimate argument that smart hardworking people who are considered economically valuable will be swayed to non-economically valuable interests within this system? As a former fine arts student that became a UI developer mostly for the monetary stability, I do feel like if I had the ability to fully invest myself creating art without constantly struggling with relevancy and rent, I would have been far more q…

I work for an evil corporation which is harvesting data off gullible people who have no idea how their data is being used.

If there was UBI, I'd have stopped working for them altogether.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#116

Post by mises »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #98
mises wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose to do this? We have a lot of trouble doing it with old people already.

Do we? I'm unaware of that, actually. I was under the impression it was widely known that retired people are the sizeable portion of those who volunteer for anything in particular, and there's the existing tropes of retired people getting into art and fitness, and community activities. Book clubs. Crochet/knitting clubs. Bingo. Dancing.

A sizeable portion, maybe, but certainly not all (and probably not even most). Do you think crocheting, knitting, bingo, and dancing are honestly good things to put people to do? Let alone pay them for?

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#117

Post by ams6110 »

qntty wrote: post #63
kvczor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the fact that you earn more by doing UI work prove that you are far more useful to society than by making art?

Would society be better off if Linux kernel developers stuck to doing things that paid?

Maybe, if you extend that to free software in general. It's interesting to think about.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#118

Post by fxj »

raaaaraaaa122 wrote: post #81
fxj wrote: post #65

A big problem about the basic income is that it is perceived as money that you get for nothing and so people don't have to work and therefore they are lazy. Let me give you an analogy: Imagine that breathing air would cost money and you would have to work in order to breathe. Unless you don't work you would die. Would then a basic income be something that makes you lazy or would it be something that gives you confide…

Of course if there is MAGICALLY enough 'resources' all citizens could enjoy basic income.

But that is what automation is all about. The productivity of a single worker went through the roof in the last century. There is not enough work for all the people who want to.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#119

Post by ams6110 »

kingkawn wrote: post #104
Talyen42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an employed person making 100k, if given UBI I would quit and not do anything productive-to-society for most of the rest of my life. So yes, that is a legitimate argument. The counter-argument is that the benefit coming from more people pursuing entrepreneurial/risk-taking/passion-driven endeavors will OUTWEIGH the lazy fucks like me.

The gift of ubi is society saying, “we are here to help you without compelling you to contribute in any specific way. But if you don’t contribute in some way, we may lose the ability to help people. here and now is your chance to choose for yourself how to keep the world afloat and vibrant. You have our support. We are looking forward to seeing how you choose to support the world in turn.”

Honestly I think about 5% of people will be motivated by that sentiment.

Re: Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure

#120

Post by 0-_-0 »

qntty wrote: post #87
kvczor wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP wrote: "I would have been far more qualitatively useful to society at large." There are far more people that need UI work (in the form of websites, apps, etc) these days than art. UI work scales very well, art not really - you can affect way more people and that is reflected in the salary. "Qualitatively" UI work is far more useful to society.

There's absolutely no basis for a judgement like that without introducing assumptions about what's valuable and what's not.

Let's go with "valuable is something that improves your life" or "improves your wellbeing"
Post reply on HN