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

Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–345 of 345 posts

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#341

Post by auiya »

mises wrote: post #288
manicdee wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main incentive to work is that you need to work to make a living. No. The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your time. Every experiment with UBI has shown that — given guaranteed support income — people are generally happier (or less stressed) and have a greater incentive to find work because the disincentive of reporting job-searching efforts is removed. In addition, under a UBI…

> The main incentive to work is to have something meaningful to do with your time. Not sure about this. Only short-term experiments have been conducted. Who knows what might happen if we have people who are raised on the idea that a living will come to them no matter what? I think there's also an assumption that everyone loves what they do. Many of us do, so it's easy to think. However, the people who arguably need s…

> Somebody has to do the work. Garbagemen will never be worth $15/hr. Many jobs that aren't will simply end up outsourced.

Testing out UBI is predicated on the assumption most of those jobs "nobody wants" will be automated, and thus not available anyway.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#342

Post by tracker1 »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #213
tracker1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'd be a great idea.. you either are on disability, work an average of at least 20 hours a week at a paid, taxable job (under the table work won't count), or you volunteer for registered services programs for 20 hours a week. 20 hours a week is just my suggestion as a minimum that would allow for people to still job search if they choose to and could be averaged over a quarter or year or similar. Exceptions…

> Note: I think if UBI were implemented that Medicare and a lot of other programs should be replaced by it. Medicare is a program that solely exists for the retired who over 65 and disabled people. Medicaid, on the other hand, is available to those who live in states that accepted federal funding via the ACA and are within a certain percentage of the federal poverty line. Those who don't qualify for Medicaid, but are…

I specifically said medicare... also, I meant medicare. If there's a program for UBI, then medicare should be part of it. I said nothing of medicaid, or the ACA subsidization, and you are assuming a lot here.

Similarly, I think socialized insurance programs should also fold in VA medical benefits, medicaid and other subsidized programs under a single umbrella. I'm not a fan of bureaucracy. That said, the post you replied to mentions no such thing.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#343

Post by tracker1 »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #162
tracker1 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it'd be a great idea.. you either are on disability, work an average of at least 20 hours a week at a paid, taxable job (under the table work won't count), or you volunteer for registered services programs for 20 hours a week. 20 hours a week is just my suggestion as a minimum that would allow for people to still job search if they choose to and could be averaged over a quarter or year or similar. Exceptions…

Most of the discussions of UBI are amounts too small to cover e.g chemotherapy. Or are you picturing a collapse in prices of healthcare as well?

Again, I'm not talking about touching medicaid, I'm also not talking about any specific limits for given age brackets. Only suggesting that any such new organization should fold in one or more existing organizations.

Re: Basic income in Finland did not lead to finding work, researchers said

#344

Post by _rpd »

mises wrote: post #294
_rpd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a key concern. I don't think that there is a good counterargument, but the best that I've heard is that UBI will enable mass migration to rural areas or remote exburbs (including corporate sponsored - welcome to your new Google Home!). Of course some are happy to introduce rent controls or spark an inflationary death spiral with 'cost of living' adjustments.

You're saying I should go live in the countryside, away from everyone? Yeah, teleconferencing is possible, but I don't know that most people would want to. It's also impractical to build public transportation that far out (you have to build increasingly more for each mile you expand from the nearest city center; distance between angles grows as you move outward), meaning that people would be driving a LOT more (highe…

It's less 'should' than that UBI enables the possibility of reversal of the long term rural -> urban migration trend, since this trend is driven by job seekers. I don't think it will occur (the lower your income, the more you rely on geographically-based support networks) but if it doesn't, then UBI increases will be largely captured by rentiers. If it does, then urban rentiers will have to compete with non-urban rentiers, and UBI will have a chance to have the economic effect intended by proponents.
Post reply on HN