Finland’s Basic Income Experiment Shows Recipients Are Happier and More Secure • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by llcoolv » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #198

llcoolv wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire thread is on socialism - what do you think UBI is? Also you're talking about academic ignorance but your posts are nothing other than extremely lowly ad hominem attacks - first I was an anarchist, now I am ignorant - where are your real arguments? And I use public infrastructure - was raised 200 meters away from a transfer subway station - and I call taxation a robbery. But I am not a hypocrite, because on…

Socialism is communal ownership of the means of production and self-regulation of workers. This is ELEMENTARY, by the way, so your propaganda-based misinformation on the subject definitely demonstrates the low-quality of your opinion. Using a government to regulate a market to provide a social safety net is not "socialism" outside of the radicalized anti-academic conservative sphere who use the red scare in every sin…

And here is the second part of the quote you posted (the first result if you google your quote).

"Under a socialist system, everyone works for wealth that is in turn distributed to everyone. ... The government decides how wealth is distributed among the people" which is UBI.

I am really sorry, but you're very cheap fraud.

P.S. Also in our discussion the only person advocating violence was you, so don't you dare comparing me to terrorists. Don't you have at least a tiny bit of self-respect? And you have also called me a conspiracy theorist - this is funny now.

"When the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, everything seems to be a nail."

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

#202

Post by anonlapwarmer » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

keymone wrote: post #136

mises wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't need to do unimportant stuff just to put bread on a table I think at first they will, but I think over time they will realize they don't have to do anything at all. People work because they want something, or at least I always have.

> People work because they want something nope. there is a deep psychological need to feel productive and useful to society in all but very few sociopathic humans.

When people retire, they get doubly depressed from age and if they don't have structure and activities to keep them occupied. It's best to never "retire," not because of cognitive "use it or lose it" (which was disproven[1]) but because of the harms of slipping into depression.

For example, my step-father was a copy editor for a large government body who was initially happy/go-lucky on retirement initially but is now extremely self-isolated and depressed.

EDIT: 1. https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4925

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

#203

Post by nickflood » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 7:25 AM UTC

b_tterc_p wrote: post #133

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…

You’re basically saying that because it has ethical value it can’t make people lazy. That’s irrelevant. UBI might make people lazy. In fact, it would be pretty shocking if it didn’t make some % of the population choose to do nothing for their entire lives but stay at home and play video games. People like to point out that techies would feel more comfortable building start ups, and that’s probably true. But for peopl…

So it looks like what you argue is that without UBI some people are forced to work the shitty low paying jobs that more secure people would pass on, and that's beneficial to society? So basically wage slavery of the lower income people is beneficial to society?

I dunno... I think, UBI may actuall ydrive change in those very awful professions where they become more attractive either through quality of life improvements or through the pay rise. Otherwise, yep, I think having people not to go to a soul crushing job because they are secure is a better thing than grinding lots of them down generation over generation.

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

#204

Post by b_tterc_p » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

nickflood wrote: post #203

b_tterc_p wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re basically saying that because it has ethical value it can’t make people lazy. That’s irrelevant. UBI might make people lazy. In fact, it would be pretty shocking if it didn’t make some % of the population choose to do nothing for their entire lives but stay at home and play video games. People like to point out that techies would feel more comfortable building start ups, and that’s probably true. But for peopl…

So it looks like what you argue is that without UBI some people are forced to work the shitty low paying jobs that more secure people would pass on, and that's beneficial to society? So basically wage slavery of the lower income people is beneficial to society? I dunno... I think, UBI may actuall ydrive change in those very awful professions where they become more attractive either through quality of life improvement…

Nope. I’m saying UBI, economically cannot lift these people out of the jobs because someone needs to be at the bottom.

If you want to help people, improve minimum wage

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

#205

Post by swiley » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

mises wrote: post #88

swiley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that there’s less personal risk sine a failed business won’t result in the founders becoming homeless.

But there's a lot more risk for the investors, and there's a lot less money for companies to buy their products.

Oh dear, the poor investors, That's a catastrophe right there.