24 ms·

Finnish basic income pilot improved wellbeing, study finds

230 points by denzil_correa 6y ago

nocitrek 6y ago
Important thing to keep in mind regarding UBI is that goverment does not generate any money. In order for goverment to give money, it needs to take it from someone. So UBI is just proxy for wealth redistribution. Sure, wellbeing has improved for small group of people, but the question is how scalable UBI is? Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- standardUser 6y ago
  I wouldn't call trying to build and maintain a prosperous society a "road to hell", but it's true that UBI is just a different form of wealth redistribution. But most nations currently achieve redistribution through a convoluted mosaic of overlapping/competing/intertwined systems, each with their own entrenched bureaucracies and complicated rules. In contrast, a UBI system can be streamlined and efficient and, based on studies like these, even have better outcomes for recipients.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    > I wouldn't call trying to build and maintain a prosperous society a "road to hell" The phrase was "road to hell is paved with good intentions". "Trying to build and maintain a prosperous society" was the good intentions part. The hell part is the reality that the next generation lives in after wealth redistribution has been forced: we've seen it over and over again, every time it's been tried.
- superkuh 6y ago
  Money is generated as a form of basic income but only for chartered banks. Money supply is generated by banks creating debt on balance sheets while giving out loans of money they don't actually have (fractional reserve banking) and the same story between these banks and regional government proxy federal banks.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chillacy 6y ago
  > road to hell is paved with good intentions Unrelated but I really dislike this phrase because it tells us nothing, it's not actionable, nor is it accurate. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions too. There are other roads to hell paved with bad intentions, and probably a few to heaven with bad intentions as well. A more accurate saying would be "be careful of unintended bad side effects". That's something useful you could say in the workplace in response to a proposal.
- jostylr 6y ago
  It is explicitly about wealth redistribution, one in which there is no skewing of paying people to be in a certain state other than alive (which welfare systems are doing). Of course, no money needs to be taken; inflation can do that for us if we prefer uncontrolled recapture. Under a basic, reasonable fair model, random economic flows in a free market will tend to have all the wealth accumulated by a few: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine... Depending on the redistribution amounts (not specifically UBI, just aggregate), differing levels of oligarchy will or will not form. UBI allows for a very gentle way of avoiding all the wealth captured by a few. You could think of it as economic transfers tend to create blackholes and UBI pumps some of the accumulated matter back into the universe to keep activity flowing.
notkaiho 6y ago
> "Aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might encourage people to take up often low-paid or temporary work without fear of losing benefits" Turns out people do not, in fact, generally want to take precarious or otherwise unattractive jobs unless forced to economically. Who'd a thunk?
- neetfreek 6y ago
  But still: >"The researchers also noted a mild positive effect on employment, particularly in certain categories, such as families with children" at least says something.
- protonimitate 6y ago
  N = 81 here also, so it's not really a full picture of what "universal" would be.
  - pasiaj 6y ago
    The basic income study included 2500 participants + the control group.
    - protonimitate 6y ago
      yep, but the conclusions were drawn based on interviews with only 81 of them: > The researchers, who conducted 81 in-depth interviews with participants in the scheme, concluded that...
      - pasiaj 6y ago
        Qualitative in-person interviews had 81 participants The quantitative employment analysis was based on 2000 participants.
- pasiaj 6y ago
  You are correct. People also don't seem to take up fulfilling and meaningful jobs /w low wages even with basic income support. One of the arguments in Finland was that basic income would encourage and enable people to take on meaningful & important NGO jobs and community efforts despite their low pay.
BitwiseFool 6y ago
The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic. From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better. But from an experimental perspective, they aren't getting the 'full package' of UBI. The participants aren't seeing increased taxes and they aren't seeing inflation from this. Chances are, their landlord doesn't know about this extra money and hasn't raised their rent.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Don't we already know how that works? Folks on a pension; folks in a state that provides stipends (e.g. Alaska); folks who are independently wealthy. Their behavior has been studied repeatedly, I imagine. In fact I'm confused why this keeps being 'tried' like its some new idea.
  - enaaem 6y ago
    We already know how society looks like if a small portion does not need to work. But how will it be if no one needs to work? An interesting case is Saudi Arabia that pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import many foreign workers to run the economy. To prepare the country for a post oil world companies are required to hire a minimum percentage of Saudi nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Alaska is highly underrated in terms of UBI experiments.
    - grecy 6y ago
      Australia too
    - akvadrako 6y ago
      It's only about $1600 a year in a state with high living expenses. I don't see how that will tell you much about a full-on UBI program.
known 6y ago
https://archive.vn/FBKmt https://archive.vn/FBKmt
known 6y ago
UBI should be coupled with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
- trianglem 6y ago
  Not if you’re looking for an easy life. Self-actualization doesn’t always result in wanting to be a productive monster, it’s subjective and depends on your goals.
- rgblambda 6y ago
  Not wanting to be pedantic, but isn't Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs now considered to be quack science?
  - epicureanideal 6y ago
    I'd love to read about this. Anyone have a link?
DonaldFisk 6y ago
Analysis of data from the Canadian Mincome experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome) by Evelyn Forget showed more concrete benefits. People's health improved: "Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from accidents and injuries. Forget also compared proportions of women with children and suggested lower lifetime fertility as a possible outcome by comparing birth rates of young mothers with those of a control group. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."
pasiaj 6y ago
I'm looking at the report's table of contents. It's in Finnish. The report includes overviews of multiple studies and provides plenty of valuable insight on multiple themes. Here's my rough translation: 1. Introduction 2. Other basic income studies in other countries 3. Effects on employment 4. Perceived health, psychological wellbeing and cognitive performance 5. Economic well-being 6. Experiences on bureaucracy 7. Basic income and trust 8. Participant interviews on basic income's effects on employment, participation, autonomy 9. BI in media 10. General populations views on BI and uncertainty relating to income I'm sure an English language version will be published at some point but I could not find one yet.
mamon 6y ago
UBI will be introduced, just not in the way most of us would like. It will be throught Quantitive Easing, as currently done by FED. What QE does is - it concentrates the wealth in hands of 0.1% of society. Each financial crisis (2008, 2020) only speeds up this process. Once top 0.1 owns more than, say 90% of wealth we will be back to ancient Rome - "panem et circenses", wealthy people throwing some scraps of wealth towards mases, just enough to keep them from revolting. Gig economy will also play some role: we are slowly cooking the frog, getting people used to the fact that they don't own their homes, or their cars, they do not have pemanent jobs. Everything they have is a short term rental. They are living using borrowed things, on borrowed time...
akvadrako 6y ago
This was not really a UBI experiment. Those who got the unconditional payout got it on top of conditional welfare. I don't know why people keep pretending it tells us something about UBI.
nicbou 6y ago
Last year, I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting). I knew a life without work would be amazing, but I never expected it to be this great. I had much more time and energy to enjoy life. There was never a rush to do anything. I woke up when I wasn't tired. I could read in bed for an hour if it felt right. Sometimes I'd just walk 3-5 kilometres to an appointment, and stop for a pint along the way. I didn't stagnate either. My personal projects became my job. My work day started when I was ready and ended when I was done. With my finances already sorted out, I worked on things I enjoyed, not on potential startups. Interestingly enough, life got cheaper. I didn't eat out as often, and cooked from scratch. I could afford the time it takes to be frugal. Never in my life have I been so content with my situation. I didn't make much, but I had all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what people say they'd do if they won the lottery? The second part of the experience came when I got a short work contract to finance a motorcycle trip. Suddenly, I was back to losing sleep, skipping breakfasts, waiting for the day to end, commuting and generally trying to fit life around my job. I give basic income a 10/10, and wish everyone was given the chance to enjoy life on their own terms. I don't know if it's economically viable, but it's definitely the most enjoyable lifestyle I got to experience. EDIT: this is getting a bit of attention. I'd be happy to answer questions publicly or privately. There's a fair bit of luck involved, but no dirty secrets.
- gustavo-fring 6y ago
  You didn't have UBI, you had a well-paying job. The main UBI proposals for the US target $1k per month and that target means a budget of about 3 trillion per year and does not take into account health insurance. I don't know about you, but living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible. Either you get roommates or you are going to end up in the cheapest most out of the way apartment you can find for $500 a month. If you are eating off $10 a day (which is reasonable, and isn't accounting for the odd pint), you're down to $200 for your monthly budget. You still have to pay for utilities and this isn't taking into account any modern necessities (phones, etc), nor certainly not a car, which you probably need because your cheap apartment isn't close to anything. You, even with this extreme skimping, basically have no room for anything to go wrong. Hopefully your shoes that you're walking everywhere in don't wear out. Doesn't sound peaceful to me, it sounds like something that would put me always on edge (I've lived making 3x that and it does put you on edge). You felt comfortable because you were lucky enough to have a website that you could make income on by babysitting it. Is that really anything like UBI? If we're going to discuss UBI, then we need to discuss UBI, not any form of passive income or welfare program, which by their definition are not UBI. Seeing stuff like this get upvoted only leads me to believe that a lot of UBI proponents aren't taking serious how many obstacles there are to overcome actually implementing it, nor what it will look like in practice.
forgot_again 6y ago
Of course basic income on a small enough scale to avoid inflation improves recipients' wellbeing. That's not really in dispute. The challenge is whether or not it is possible to actually implement on a society wide scale without net negative or self nullifying side effects. One self nullifying side effect: give everyone free money -> prices go up -> everyone is back to where they started.
new2628 6y ago
I believe the study, I would also love to be on BI while the rest of society is not.
lcall 6y ago
I tried to explain in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922 ...why a UBI at the US federal level takes away freedom to try better ideas to do good at other levels, is morally wrong, is harmful, and that we can do much more good with persuasion, fundraising, letting states handle it (or smaller scopes), etc etc. (With down-votes, a thoughtful comment is appreciated; thanks.)
- chillacy 6y ago
  Hmm at a glance your comment seems to have a lot of normative assumptions baked in so it's hard to argue with anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. The comment seems to boil down to: 1. These list of behaviors are good 2. This thing (UBI) does not serve those behaviors 3. Therefore UBI is not good --- First of all anyone who disagrees with one or more of the list of behaviors will probably not be convinced by the remainder of the argument. Those are normative beliefs, anyone from another culture or background/faith won't share all of them with you. But assuming we accept all of #1, I do not see enough evidence for point #2, why does UBI violate the norms? After all plenty of Christians have been in support of UBI, like MLK and the Pope. I saw the phrase "charity by force" several times but no clear definition of what that is or isn't, for instance the "Basic incentive of working" seems sort of like forceful coercion at some level: you either work or you starve and die. What exactly do these terms mean? With all that, I'm not convinced that point 3 is supported by what I read.
  - lcall 6y ago
    UBI takes away freedom (in the form of $ ie time, energy & planning) to try anything but what the fed. govt. decides. States and private organizations can do it better, but that is hampered when the fed govt takes so much of the resources (and, as I mentioned (and linked to more), it often does things badly. And there is a scripture in my belief system, that if one doesn't work, one doesn't eat. God can provide, and this life is not the end (my web site says how I know this personally). But even (to me at least) logically there is no inherent right for one who does not seek work to take resources from one who does. The USA fought a War of Independence in the 1770s, in part to be free from control of individuals by faraway people, which to me is the same as the fed govt taking taxes and giving resources to others that I did not choose to give to. Edit: If we were 5 families on one desert island, there is no inherent right of one to steal food (or the results of other productive labors) from another. If I plan and save and work hard, why does anyone have the right to tell me I have to support someone else who does not choose to live the same principles? (cf. libertarianism.) Edit: UBI is like forcing one family on the island to support the drug habit of another (or whatever lifestyle choice, agree or disagree), only with federal power and inefficiency. Local-decision-making can do a much better job, because you have the chance of knowing individuals personally and help them. The public/private humanitarian and welfare partnerships in Utah are a good example of this (probably there is a link somewhere on my web site with details). That is we we have states, aka "laboratories of democracy" who can then learn from each other. Edit: as far as birth goes, rich vs. poor, I observe at least one private organization (my church, but of course there are many others) working hard (with affordable educational opportunities, financial help, mentoring, food, humanitarian aid, etc etc) to lift anyone who wants to be able to live, and have peace. (I also believe the rich are responsible to help others, and that we all will someday answer to God for how we treated others. Again, web site in profile says how I know this, in great detail.) (Edit: FWIW, I have not taken a position on what should happen when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, nor how that should happen. I think the rich should keep in mind that that is what starts revolutions, though I believe our constitutional order is the most important thing of all (like more important than UBI pro or con)--such things should be done lawfully and our constitution allows us to work things out, hopefully at the state level first an foremost. But to support idleness is a bad idea as I have tried to explain.) Edit: Maybe my reasoning is not as persuasive to you as it is to me, and certainly we are individuals with the right to decide for ourselves. That individual right I believe extends also to deciding for ourselves what we will do with the fruit of our labors, with few exceptions (ie for common defense, safety) written as powers granted by the people to a constitutionally limited federal government. Again, I hope we can leave the rest to the states to try things and learn from each other what works well.
zhoujianfu 6y ago
I don’t get the goal of trying to get more people to “work”. I would think increasing wellbeing should be the goal. It’s the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of hours worked. I’m sure the hunter-gatherers were upset the farmers weren’t motivated to hunt and gather too.
- PunchTornado 6y ago
  as long as they don't live from my taxes, they can not work.
  - CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
    How much of your taxes would you be willing to spend to get people to stop working? Let’s say in telemarketing? I get quite a few unsolicited calls, would gladly spend some money to not have to have them. Or in tobacco perhaps. N or sure how much of my taxes are spent on managing the fallout from that industry, but I’m pretty sure I‘d rather spend them on keeping people from working in it.
  - mydongle 6y ago
    That's a nice wet dream of being the sole contributor to the taxes of an entire nation. But the truth is your contribution is a drop in the bucket, and what you get out of society is so much more. It's what gives you the security of not being murdered one night and having all your stuff stolen, assuming you don't have your own private security. And guess what, you live off the taxes from a great number of people who DO support the idea that their taxes goes to supporting the less fortunate. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and find some private island and private security (since you'll need it) to live on.
    - PunchTornado 6y ago
      We have elections. I'll vote according to my beliefs that small taxes is better and you and others vote for the opposite. And we see who wins in US.
black_puppydog 6y ago
Interesting exercise in spin here. The German state media tagesschau.de [1] phrases it like this: > Finns take stock soberly > More security, fewer depressions: the Finnish UBI experiment benefited the participants. Alas, the results show: the desired effect for the work market cannot be shown. For me, the German title reads very much like "this doesn't work" while the article mentions that the results regarding the market cannot be distinguished from other interfering changes to the social welfare system that were made in the meantime. Which funnily reminds me of the top comment in the current ad-tech thread [2]: "The hard part is convincing the [people in charge] to stop messing with stuff long enough that you can actually measure the results." [1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-103.html https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-10... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492
- pdeuchler 6y ago
  Yeah some pretty clear propaganda going on... from reading the released summary of the study the vast majority of dependents that did not find employment seem to live in job deserts and economically depressed areas. Obviously UBI won't increase employment if nobody is hiring.
mikorym 6y ago
Has the economics behind a universal basic income been (attempted to be) modelled? I don't expect a perfectly representative model, but I think a lot along the lines of what made Warren Buffet famous: What is the worth of something vs. the price of that thing? And how does one bring labour into the equation?
jokoon 6y ago
I wish there was some study that would actually prove that free money is bad, and that it's required to pay people have a productive society. Because so far, this sort of belief belongs to religious texts, and it's still an important pillar of how society works. We still judge the homeless and moochers because they are not willing to work. We even put people at job where they're not productive, as long as they look busy, available, and obeying.
7532yahoogmail 6y ago
The American system is or aims for equality of opportunity. Europe manages for equality of outcomes. These are vastly different. To make UBI work in the US is a much bigger uphill battle as a result. Now, it can be rightly argued that these remain goals to some extent. Civil rights weren't passed until the 60s in the US. So we can inveigh there where gaps remain. Finally, UBI cannot be seriously engaged and implemented without tackling tax breaks, and other social programs like Medicare/Medicade. Otherwise it's just more money. More money isn't always the answer
anm89 6y ago
Of course redistributing wealth to a person in bulk in the short term is going to improve their wellbeing. Was anybody really wondering if this is true? This is bordering on tautology. The criticism of these programs is that they will cause economic problems in the long run. It's not to say they won't make anybody happy in the short run.

230 points by denzil_correa 6y ago

Important thing to keep in mind regarding UBI is that goverment does not generate any money. In order for goverment to give money, it needs to take it from someone. So UBI is just proxy for wealth redistribution. Sure, wellbeing has improved for small group of people, but the question is how scalable UBI is? Remember, road to hell is paved with good intentions.

standardUser 6y ago
I wouldn't call trying to build and maintain a prosperous society a "road to hell", but it's true that UBI is just a different form of wealth redistribution. But most nations currently achieve redistribution through a convoluted mosaic of overlapping/competing/intertwined systems, each with their own entrenched bureaucracies and complicated rules. In contrast, a UBI system can be streamlined and efficient and, based on studies like these, even have better outcomes for recipients.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > I wouldn't call trying to build and maintain a prosperous society a "road to hell" The phrase was "road to hell is paved with good intentions". "Trying to build and maintain a prosperous society" was the good intentions part. The hell part is the reality that the next generation lives in after wealth redistribution has been forced: we've seen it over and over again, every time it's been tried.
superkuh 6y ago
Money is generated as a form of basic income but only for chartered banks. Money supply is generated by banks creating debt on balance sheets while giving out loans of money they don't actually have (fractional reserve banking) and the same story between these banks and regional government proxy federal banks.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chillacy 6y ago
> road to hell is paved with good intentions Unrelated but I really dislike this phrase because it tells us nothing, it's not actionable, nor is it accurate. The road to heaven is paved with good intentions too. There are other roads to hell paved with bad intentions, and probably a few to heaven with bad intentions as well. A more accurate saying would be "be careful of unintended bad side effects". That's something useful you could say in the workplace in response to a proposal.
jostylr 6y ago
It is explicitly about wealth redistribution, one in which there is no skewing of paying people to be in a certain state other than alive (which welfare systems are doing). Of course, no money needs to be taken; inflation can do that for us if we prefer uncontrolled recapture. Under a basic, reasonable fair model, random economic flows in a free market will tend to have all the wealth accumulated by a few: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inevitable/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine... Depending on the redistribution amounts (not specifically UBI, just aggregate), differing levels of oligarchy will or will not form. UBI allows for a very gentle way of avoiding all the wealth captured by a few. You could think of it as economic transfers tend to create blackholes and UBI pumps some of the accumulated matter back into the universe to keep activity flowing.

notkaiho 6y ago

> "Aimed primarily at seeing whether a guaranteed income might encourage people to take up often low-paid or temporary work without fear of losing benefits" Turns out people do not, in fact, generally want to take precarious or otherwise unattractive jobs unless forced to economically. Who'd a thunk?

neetfreek 6y ago
But still: >"The researchers also noted a mild positive effect on employment, particularly in certain categories, such as families with children" at least says something.
protonimitate 6y ago
N = 81 here also, so it's not really a full picture of what "universal" would be.
- pasiaj 6y ago
  The basic income study included 2500 participants + the control group.
  - protonimitate 6y ago
    yep, but the conclusions were drawn based on interviews with only 81 of them: > The researchers, who conducted 81 in-depth interviews with participants in the scheme, concluded that...
    - pasiaj 6y ago
      Qualitative in-person interviews had 81 participants The quantitative employment analysis was based on 2000 participants.
pasiaj 6y ago
You are correct. People also don't seem to take up fulfilling and meaningful jobs /w low wages even with basic income support. One of the arguments in Finland was that basic income would encourage and enable people to take on meaningful & important NGO jobs and community efforts despite their low pay.

BitwiseFool 6y ago

The problem I have with studies like this one is that they only measure the effects of getting a stipend during a limited amount of time with a limited amount of people. It's not universal and it's not basic. From a non-scientific view point, of course giving people free money makes them feel better. But from an experimental perspective, they aren't getting the 'full package' of UBI. The participants aren't seeing increased taxes and they aren't seeing inflation from this. Chances are, their landlord doesn't know about this extra money and hasn't raised their rent.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Don't we already know how that works? Folks on a pension; folks in a state that provides stipends (e.g. Alaska); folks who are independently wealthy. Their behavior has been studied repeatedly, I imagine. In fact I'm confused why this keeps being 'tried' like its some new idea.
- enaaem 6y ago
  We already know how society looks like if a small portion does not need to work. But how will it be if no one needs to work? An interesting case is Saudi Arabia that pretty much runs on free oil money. Saudi nationals are notorious for having bad work ethics, and they have to import many foreign workers to run the economy. To prepare the country for a post oil world companies are required to hire a minimum percentage of Saudi nationals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudization
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Alaska is highly underrated in terms of UBI experiments.
  - grecy 6y ago
    Australia too
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    It's only about $1600 a year in a state with high living expenses. I don't see how that will tell you much about a full-on UBI program.

known 6y ago

https://archive.vn/FBKmt https://archive.vn/FBKmt

known 6y ago

UBI should be coupled with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization

trianglem 6y ago
Not if you’re looking for an easy life. Self-actualization doesn’t always result in wanting to be a productive monster, it’s subjective and depends on your goals.
rgblambda 6y ago
Not wanting to be pedantic, but isn't Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs now considered to be quack science?
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  I'd love to read about this. Anyone have a link?

DonaldFisk 6y ago

Analysis of data from the Canadian Mincome experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome) by Evelyn Forget showed more concrete benefits. People's health improved: "Forget found that in the period that Mincome was administered, hospital visits dropped 8.5 percent, with fewer incidents of work-related injuries, and fewer emergency room visits from accidents and injuries. Forget also compared proportions of women with children and suggested lower lifetime fertility as a possible outcome by comparing birth rates of young mothers with those of a control group. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalization, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals."

pasiaj 6y ago

I'm looking at the report's table of contents. It's in Finnish. The report includes overviews of multiple studies and provides plenty of valuable insight on multiple themes. Here's my rough translation: 1. Introduction 2. Other basic income studies in other countries 3. Effects on employment 4. Perceived health, psychological wellbeing and cognitive performance 5. Economic well-being 6. Experiences on bureaucracy 7. Basic income and trust 8. Participant interviews on basic income's effects on employment, participation, autonomy 9. BI in media 10. General populations views on BI and uncertainty relating to income I'm sure an English language version will be published at some point but I could not find one yet.

mamon 6y ago

UBI will be introduced, just not in the way most of us would like. It will be throught Quantitive Easing, as currently done by FED. What QE does is - it concentrates the wealth in hands of 0.1% of society. Each financial crisis (2008, 2020) only speeds up this process. Once top 0.1 owns more than, say 90% of wealth we will be back to ancient Rome - "panem et circenses", wealthy people throwing some scraps of wealth towards mases, just enough to keep them from revolting. Gig economy will also play some role: we are slowly cooking the frog, getting people used to the fact that they don't own their homes, or their cars, they do not have pemanent jobs. Everything they have is a short term rental. They are living using borrowed things, on borrowed time...

akvadrako 6y ago

This was not really a UBI experiment. Those who got the unconditional payout got it on top of conditional welfare. I don't know why people keep pretending it tells us something about UBI.

nicbou 6y ago

Last year, I had something that was very close to basic income (income-generating website that doesn't require active babysitting). I knew a life without work would be amazing, but I never expected it to be this great. I had much more time and energy to enjoy life. There was never a rush to do anything. I woke up when I wasn't tired. I could read in bed for an hour if it felt right. Sometimes I'd just walk 3-5 kilometres to an appointment, and stop for a pint along the way. I didn't stagnate either. My personal projects became my job. My work day started when I was ready and ended when I was done. With my finances already sorted out, I worked on things I enjoyed, not on potential startups. Interestingly enough, life got cheaper. I didn't eat out as often, and cooked from scratch. I could afford the time it takes to be frugal. Never in my life have I been so content with my situation. I didn't make much, but I had all the time in the world to enjoy life. Isn't that what people say they'd do if they won the lottery? The second part of the experience came when I got a short work contract to finance a motorcycle trip. Suddenly, I was back to losing sleep, skipping breakfasts, waiting for the day to end, commuting and generally trying to fit life around my job. I give basic income a 10/10, and wish everyone was given the chance to enjoy life on their own terms. I don't know if it's economically viable, but it's definitely the most enjoyable lifestyle I got to experience. EDIT: this is getting a bit of attention. I'd be happy to answer questions publicly or privately. There's a fair bit of luck involved, but no dirty secrets.

gustavo-fring 6y ago
You didn't have UBI, you had a well-paying job. The main UBI proposals for the US target $1k per month and that target means a budget of about 3 trillion per year and does not take into account health insurance. I don't know about you, but living off $1k a month where I live (and it's a relatively cheap area) isn't feasible. Either you get roommates or you are going to end up in the cheapest most out of the way apartment you can find for $500 a month. If you are eating off $10 a day (which is reasonable, and isn't accounting for the odd pint), you're down to $200 for your monthly budget. You still have to pay for utilities and this isn't taking into account any modern necessities (phones, etc), nor certainly not a car, which you probably need because your cheap apartment isn't close to anything. You, even with this extreme skimping, basically have no room for anything to go wrong. Hopefully your shoes that you're walking everywhere in don't wear out. Doesn't sound peaceful to me, it sounds like something that would put me always on edge (I've lived making 3x that and it does put you on edge). You felt comfortable because you were lucky enough to have a website that you could make income on by babysitting it. Is that really anything like UBI? If we're going to discuss UBI, then we need to discuss UBI, not any form of passive income or welfare program, which by their definition are not UBI. Seeing stuff like this get upvoted only leads me to believe that a lot of UBI proponents aren't taking serious how many obstacles there are to overcome actually implementing it, nor what it will look like in practice.

forgot_again 6y ago

Of course basic income on a small enough scale to avoid inflation improves recipients' wellbeing. That's not really in dispute. The challenge is whether or not it is possible to actually implement on a society wide scale without net negative or self nullifying side effects. One self nullifying side effect: give everyone free money -> prices go up -> everyone is back to where they started.

new2628 6y ago

I believe the study, I would also love to be on BI while the rest of society is not.

lcall 6y ago

I tried to explain in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23033922 ...why a UBI at the US federal level takes away freedom to try better ideas to do good at other levels, is morally wrong, is harmful, and that we can do much more good with persuasion, fundraising, letting states handle it (or smaller scopes), etc etc. (With down-votes, a thoughtful comment is appreciated; thanks.)

chillacy 6y ago
Hmm at a glance your comment seems to have a lot of normative assumptions baked in so it's hard to argue with anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. The comment seems to boil down to: 1. These list of behaviors are good 2. This thing (UBI) does not serve those behaviors 3. Therefore UBI is not good --- First of all anyone who disagrees with one or more of the list of behaviors will probably not be convinced by the remainder of the argument. Those are normative beliefs, anyone from another culture or background/faith won't share all of them with you. But assuming we accept all of #1, I do not see enough evidence for point #2, why does UBI violate the norms? After all plenty of Christians have been in support of UBI, like MLK and the Pope. I saw the phrase "charity by force" several times but no clear definition of what that is or isn't, for instance the "Basic incentive of working" seems sort of like forceful coercion at some level: you either work or you starve and die. What exactly do these terms mean? With all that, I'm not convinced that point 3 is supported by what I read.
- lcall 6y ago
  UBI takes away freedom (in the form of $ ie time, energy & planning) to try anything but what the fed. govt. decides. States and private organizations can do it better, but that is hampered when the fed govt takes so much of the resources (and, as I mentioned (and linked to more), it often does things badly. And there is a scripture in my belief system, that if one doesn't work, one doesn't eat. God can provide, and this life is not the end (my web site says how I know this personally). But even (to me at least) logically there is no inherent right for one who does not seek work to take resources from one who does. The USA fought a War of Independence in the 1770s, in part to be free from control of individuals by faraway people, which to me is the same as the fed govt taking taxes and giving resources to others that I did not choose to give to. Edit: If we were 5 families on one desert island, there is no inherent right of one to steal food (or the results of other productive labors) from another. If I plan and save and work hard, why does anyone have the right to tell me I have to support someone else who does not choose to live the same principles? (cf. libertarianism.) Edit: UBI is like forcing one family on the island to support the drug habit of another (or whatever lifestyle choice, agree or disagree), only with federal power and inefficiency. Local-decision-making can do a much better job, because you have the chance of knowing individuals personally and help them. The public/private humanitarian and welfare partnerships in Utah are a good example of this (probably there is a link somewhere on my web site with details). That is we we have states, aka "laboratories of democracy" who can then learn from each other. Edit: as far as birth goes, rich vs. poor, I observe at least one private organization (my church, but of course there are many others) working hard (with affordable educational opportunities, financial help, mentoring, food, humanitarian aid, etc etc) to lift anyone who wants to be able to live, and have peace. (I also believe the rich are responsible to help others, and that we all will someday answer to God for how we treated others. Again, web site in profile says how I know this, in great detail.) (Edit: FWIW, I have not taken a position on what should happen when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, nor how that should happen. I think the rich should keep in mind that that is what starts revolutions, though I believe our constitutional order is the most important thing of all (like more important than UBI pro or con)--such things should be done lawfully and our constitution allows us to work things out, hopefully at the state level first an foremost. But to support idleness is a bad idea as I have tried to explain.) Edit: Maybe my reasoning is not as persuasive to you as it is to me, and certainly we are individuals with the right to decide for ourselves. That individual right I believe extends also to deciding for ourselves what we will do with the fruit of our labors, with few exceptions (ie for common defense, safety) written as powers granted by the people to a constitutionally limited federal government. Again, I hope we can leave the rest to the states to try things and learn from each other what works well.

zhoujianfu 6y ago

I don’t get the goal of trying to get more people to “work”. I would think increasing wellbeing should be the goal. It’s the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of hours worked. I’m sure the hunter-gatherers were upset the farmers weren’t motivated to hunt and gather too.

PunchTornado 6y ago
as long as they don't live from my taxes, they can not work.
- CuriousSkeptic 6y ago
  How much of your taxes would you be willing to spend to get people to stop working? Let’s say in telemarketing? I get quite a few unsolicited calls, would gladly spend some money to not have to have them. Or in tobacco perhaps. N or sure how much of my taxes are spent on managing the fallout from that industry, but I’m pretty sure I‘d rather spend them on keeping people from working in it.
- mydongle 6y ago
  That's a nice wet dream of being the sole contributor to the taxes of an entire nation. But the truth is your contribution is a drop in the bucket, and what you get out of society is so much more. It's what gives you the security of not being murdered one night and having all your stuff stolen, assuming you don't have your own private security. And guess what, you live off the taxes from a great number of people who DO support the idea that their taxes goes to supporting the less fortunate. Feel free to put your money where your mouth is and find some private island and private security (since you'll need it) to live on.
  - PunchTornado 6y ago
    We have elections. I'll vote according to my beliefs that small taxes is better and you and others vote for the opposite. And we see who wins in US.

black_puppydog 6y ago

Interesting exercise in spin here. The German state media tagesschau.de [1] phrases it like this: > Finns take stock soberly > More security, fewer depressions: the Finnish UBI experiment benefited the participants. Alas, the results show: the desired effect for the work market cannot be shown. For me, the German title reads very much like "this doesn't work" while the article mentions that the results regarding the market cannot be distinguished from other interfering changes to the social welfare system that were made in the meantime. Which funnily reminds me of the top comment in the current ad-tech thread [2]: "The hard part is convincing the [people in charge] to stop messing with stuff long enough that you can actually measure the results." [1]: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-103.html https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/grundeinkommen-finnland-10... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103492

pdeuchler 6y ago
Yeah some pretty clear propaganda going on... from reading the released summary of the study the vast majority of dependents that did not find employment seem to live in job deserts and economically depressed areas. Obviously UBI won't increase employment if nobody is hiring.

mikorym 6y ago

Has the economics behind a universal basic income been (attempted to be) modelled? I don't expect a perfectly representative model, but I think a lot along the lines of what made Warren Buffet famous: What is the worth of something vs. the price of that thing? And how does one bring labour into the equation?

jokoon 6y ago

I wish there was some study that would actually prove that free money is bad, and that it's required to pay people have a productive society. Because so far, this sort of belief belongs to religious texts, and it's still an important pillar of how society works. We still judge the homeless and moochers because they are not willing to work. We even put people at job where they're not productive, as long as they look busy, available, and obeying.

7532yahoogmail 6y ago

The American system is or aims for equality of opportunity. Europe manages for equality of outcomes. These are vastly different. To make UBI work in the US is a much bigger uphill battle as a result. Now, it can be rightly argued that these remain goals to some extent. Civil rights weren't passed until the 60s in the US. So we can inveigh there where gaps remain. Finally, UBI cannot be seriously engaged and implemented without tackling tax breaks, and other social programs like Medicare/Medicade. Otherwise it's just more money. More money isn't always the answer

anm89 6y ago

Of course redistributing wealth to a person in bulk in the short term is going to improve their wellbeing. Was anybody really wondering if this is true? This is bordering on tautology. The criticism of these programs is that they will cause economic problems in the long run. It's not to say they won't make anybody happy in the short run.