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

51–60 of 205 posts

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

#51

Post by chrisseaton »

tekkk wrote: post #46
chrisseaton wrote: post #8

What person wouldn't be happier and more secure with more money?

That's not what the articled alleged but yes, certainly it could be a reason. I can't recall was the extra income on top of the already existing one but certainly getting free extra money must feel better than without. The conclusion that the article made, that the simplification of the process and reduction of the extra bureaucracy makes you more content, doesn't seem highly implausible either. I certainly would enj…

> That's not what the articled alleged

It's literally the headline of the article.

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

#52

Post by cm2187 »

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.

I believe there is a psychological aspect as well. Work is socially useful, gives a sense of purpose, of accomplishment. Sure, some won't mind being paid minimum salary staying at home doing nothing (and even feel entitled). But I expect many to become depressed and feel resentful.

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

#53

Post by spaceribs »

kvczor wrote: post #25
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…

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?

My skills are now very bounded to building interfaces for consumption, not critical thought. In fact, the choices I make for developing interfaces usually revolve around the user being some level of drunk.

My senior thesis was a receipt printer that wireshark'd instant messenger messages on our school's unsecured wifi and dumped those messages into a pile.

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

#54

Post by mises »

Talyen42 wrote: post #35
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…

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 problem is whole I'd like to think they would, I think people will gradually get lazier as they get used to it. Most people do the minimum required now; what makes everyone think they will keep that same level of productivity arbitrarily when it's not the minimum liveable?

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

#55

Post by _red »

Since the economic crises of 2008, central banks have been desperate to induce some positive inflation. "Helicopter Ben" even said he would drive around in a helicopter and drop pallets of cash out of it, before he allowed deflation to take hold (the only way out of their debt crises, is to inflate it away).

Its no wonder that the PTB are now pushing for helicopter money across the debt-laden west, its the last tool they have. Sad its the poor who must suffer.

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

#56

Post by futurenanigans »

kvczor wrote: post #25
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…

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?

Are you measuring a persons worth based on their income?

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

#57

Post by chrisco255 »

Talyen42 wrote: post #35
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…

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.

You can't have a UBI without massive taxation. Massive taxation increases the risk of doing business. The higher the risks, the less entrepreneurship a country will see.

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

#58

Post by em500 »

m52go wrote: post #7

Why can't UBI be attempted on a local scale first? We have state and local governments for a reason. Something as risky and expensive as UBI, if it is going to be implemented, should be implemented gradually with proper testing, feedback, and adaptation.

Probably not. One of the most fundamental and vexing problems of macro-economics is that individial effects often don't aggregate to the larger system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregation_problem

Just consider the simplest thought experiment: levy a one-off extra tax of $0.01 on every tax payer and credit some random poor person. This is almost certainly a strict Pareto improvement, but it clearly doesn't scale.

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

#59

Post by montenegrohugo »

Jedi72 wrote: post #43
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…

A huge amount of effort in society is wasted in pointless competition simply because people need income. Imagine 2 farmers selling melons, each with 50% market share. One discovers if she hires a social media marketer she can get to 70% market share. The other farmer now must respond by hiring their own marketing people. These two marketers are both very happy to be employed, but overall we would have been better jus…

I very much like your analogy. Competition has its advantages, but it can oftentimes be a destructive force. The entire marketing/advertising industry is enormous and yet nothing of value is being produced. Instead, apps and platforms feel the need to become ever more addictive and receive ever more of our attention share, just because then they can place more ads in front of our eyeballs. Ads that contribute nothing to society except distract and annoy.

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

#60

Post by Jhsto »

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…

Yes, but currently you must be unemployed to get most aids. These aids may be as much as your monthly pay at work. If you end up unemployed, it makes sense to stay so for a while. With basic income it would get continuous and unconditional, albeit less in amount. Finland has quite complex welfare system and basic income would make it simpler and avoid people gaming the system to optimize aids instead of focusing on getting employed.
Post reply on HN