11 ms·

Finland gave two groups identical payments – one saw better mental health

73 points by 2noame 10mo ago

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
> and satisfy bureaucrats That's an unnecessary quip as that's not the point of checks. It's not surprising that if unemployed people receive benefits with no strings attached their "mental health" is better since it removes pressure to find a job. > It was the unconditionality itself—the simple act of trusting people with resources, without surveillance or judgment, without hoops to jump through or forms to fill out—that created these dramatic improvements in psychological well-being. It not about trusting people with the money they are given. The usual checks are because people are expected to earn a living by themselves and unemployment benefits are only meant to help them while they can't and are looking for a job. It is not meant to enable a life-style, which is what unconditionality can lead to. > the conditions we attach to welfare aren’t just bureaucratic inconveniences. They are active harms. They create stress, anxiety, and psychological damage that persists even when the financial support is adequate. Oh dear... This reads like a parody at that point. An useful measurement would be to see which group, if any, found a job quicker. A finding that conditionality does not speed things up would be noteworthy and helpful, a finding that people feel better when they get money every month unconditionally isn't.
- toss1 10mo ago
  >>since it removes pressure to find a job. NO, it does more than that. 1) It removes pressure to find a job on the schedule and expectations of the overseers. 2) It allows the recipient to start work even at a lower-level job without losing out. 3) It allows time for the recipient to find a job that actually suits them and their employer rather than taking the first thing that comes along out of desperation and pressure. >>expected to earn a living by themselves and unemployment benefits This is not testing "unemployment benefits", it is testing UBI >> not meant to enable a life-style An income of €560 per month, about $20/day, is hardly a lifestyle; it is enough to stay out of the gutter. This is only giving to people who do not have savings a sliver of the resources available to people sufficiently fortunate enough to have education and savings to fall back on. It shows many of the differences in poverty are not due to any kind of merit/demerit, but simply lack of funds. >>An useful measurement would be Yes, that would be a DIFFERENT useful measurement. But to ignore the mental health aspects is to ignore real harms to both the people themselves and to the larger society, such as reduced isolation and crime, healthier communities, etc. Much of this was addressed by other experiments later in the article, which you either failed to read or intentionally ignored. The entire point of the studies and article wasn't your trivial "who gets a job fastest (any job, no matter how ill-suited or temporary)", but the effects of payments vs bureaucracy. The actual evidence is massively piling up that eliminating a patriarchal bureaucracy, means testing, and all this other govt overhead and simply giving everyone just-above-poverty-level income, will dramatically improve society, and it will be far more effective than all the layers of bureaucracy which not only add overhead, cost to the taxpayer, but also actual harm.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    Unemployment benefit is to help you while you are out of job _involuntarily_ and while you look for a job, not to subsidise your lifestyle or aspiration to find your dream job. It's not about "patriarchal bureaucracy", whatever that might mean. There is actually a moral aspect here. Morals in society is that you work to earn your own living and that you don't abuse kindness. > This is not testing "unemployment benefits", it is testing UBI No, this was testing a sort of UBI vs traditional unemployment benefits based on the two groups: "The other group got it conditionally, with requirements to look for work, report to unemployment offices, and satisfy bureaucrats. And the money went away with employment." That's unemployment benefits. Again, it is obvious that the group who got money with no strings attached felt better, this does not tell us anything. It sounds like a contrived study that aims to prove that "UBI is better". > your trivial "who gets a job fastest (any job, no matter how ill-suited or temporary)", It's not trivial, it is the key metric. Granted, you could combine it with the "quality" of the new job that would also be useful, but since this is all to help people while they are looking for a job any studies and experiments must measure the impact on that otherwise there are missing the point. Frankly I don't understand this cultish attachment to UBI its proponents tend to have.
    - beardyw 10mo ago
      ,> There is actually a moral aspect here. Morals in society is that you work to earn your own living and that you don't abuse kindness. That is true, but it leaves out the question of who's morals we are discussing. If the recipient is not under any obligation, and yet gets a job, that morality is played out in them. If the person is under obligation and gets a job as a result, their moral position is unknown but likely unchanged Or perhaps we are talking about wanting other people to live out our morality?
      - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
        In this case society is paying (out of moral principles) so this gives it a fair right to set the moral expectation or just the practical one. Let's say someone does not get a job. Are they looking for one and being unsuccessful or are they just cashing their benefits? Checks are needed in practice unless it can be shown they are not (what I suggested in my previous comments).
- kruffalon 10mo ago
  Well, unemployment benefits are also meant to protect your job. As in you, the currently employed person.
- AuthAuth 10mo ago
  Getting psychologically damaged by receiving financial support while you looked for a new job is such a wild statement.
- seniortaco 10mo ago
  +1 they don't even try to hide the amount of bias in the study.
- cycomanic 10mo ago
  So I assume you like your manager constantly checking on your jiras, how much code you have written and calling you in to meetings where you need to justify in detail what you have done over the last week? If not, why not? Those checks are just there because you are expected to earn a profit for the company.
  - hippo22 10mo ago
    I don't think "liking" is the correct phrasing. Many jobs _do_ have someone constantly looking over your shoulder to ensure that you're doing to job adequately. These jobs are often low-trust environments often staffed by low-trust individuals. In terms of the unemployed, are they mostly high-trust or low-trust? That's what should determine the terms and conditions of the program, not whether they "like" the program or not.
egberts1 10mo ago
Need further breakdown on why those got happier without condition. It could be IQ, cultural-specific, polarized against authority, much of which deserve monitoring. I do not think it is a cost-effective way for working population to fund this "freestyle" living unless society gets something from the idles. Otherwise, like a professor giving out highest grade of a student to rest of the class, that too shall normalizes ...." at the lowesr level.
- brailsafe 10mo ago
  > It could be IQ, cultural-specific, polarized against authority, much of which deserve monitoring. It doesn't seem so confounding to me. If you were unemployed and needing assistance, do you think you would be happier or less happy having someone require you to report if you've got a job yet and they can take the income away?
nis0s 10mo ago
Here’s the study, I think https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2025-035.pdf https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2025-035.pdf It would be better if they made it mandatory for everyone to respond to follow-up surveys, as the response rate differed enough to be called out as a study limitation. One interesting thing to note is that the study didn’t find that basic income support increased the chances of becoming employed, or receiving basic income support reduced crime. I am also not sure how to extrapolate study results from Finnish people to people in other cultures.
- cycomanic 10mo ago
  > I am also not sure how to extrapolate study results from Finnish people to people in other cultures. Well the article points out similar (and sometimes even stronger) effects on mental health for experiments in Malawi and Germany. So seems that it does extrapolate.
  - nis0s 10mo ago
    All that says to me is that basic income support had a beneficial effect on mental health in Germany, Finland, and Malawi. This isn’t like a drug trial, where the underlying system, the human body, is more or less the same. Each country is different enough that the same policies don’t necessarily produce the same outcomes, which is why mental health did not improve in every program which provided basic income support, such as Mincome (Manitoba). As such I am still unconvinced these results mean anything for different places where these programs have not been implemented and tested, where day-to-day life, socioeconomic realities, and government policies are different. You observe further differences in program outcomes when you notice that providing basic income support in both Finland and Germany did not reduce crime, but there was some evidence of crime reduction in other places under similar programs. So I don’t take the mental health improvement results for granted, especially since, at least in the Finland case, it’s unclear what will happen when you increase the sample of respondents, ie is the effect going to increase, or decrease, or become negligible altogether. I also think these studies need to report on societal benefits like crime reduction, graduation rates, or gainful employment activity as well. Maybe you cannot ensure that individual effects such as mental health status might improve across countries under such programs. But maybe by pulling enough levers, you can ensure that crime reduction is always a guarantee regardless of type of place. Consider also that there’s an unnecessary assumption that giving people more money is a meaningful benefit. What if you tested against different options, like creating more community programs, third places, or apprentice programs which guarantee jobs with a certain income. UBI is a useful tool under some circumstances, but assuming that it will improve individual outcomes across the board is unfounded. I still do think that a thoughtful and robust UBI program might ensure more stable local communities and economies, regardless of its benefits or lack thereof for an individual receiving it. In short, these studies are measuring the wrong outcomes to make their case.
koliber 10mo ago
I wonder what is the difference between the two groups as far as the rate of finding employment. Might be that the act of looking for a job is stressful. If the goal is to get people back to work, it might not make sense to optimize just for better mental health.
- LorenPechtel 10mo ago
  And note that actually getting work removed the controlled money. That's quite a disincentive to actually finding work. Welfare systems very often end up being a trap because of this--people can't afford to succeed because they'll hit some tripwire that makes them worse off. I'd like to see welfare systems and tax codes modified with a rule that no situation can cause more than a 50% marginal "tax". (Which would mean many cutoffs in the tax code would effectively be replaced with phaseouts even if Congress didn't specifically fix them.)
  - bena 10mo ago
    The tax code (at least in the US, YMMV in other countries) is already progressive. Making more will never have you taking home less. However, most welfare systems have hard cutoffs. If you get $500 in SNAP a month and make $500 a month, you have $1000 to last a month. And if the cutoff is $501, making that one extra dollar is going to cost you $499. What would be more difficult, also gameable, but better all around is to have benefits adjusted to get people to a baseline. Say the poverty level is $1000 a month. You get $1000 - X, where X is how much you made in that month.
    - sokoloff 10mo ago
      > Making more will never have you taking home less. There are corner cases where making more can leave you with less outside of welfare. Tripping into the next IRMAA bucket is one simple to understand one.
      - phil21 10mo ago
        Medicare is a form of welfare, just branded differently. It's a means-tested benefit funded in a pay-as-you-go manner via income tax just like any other. The means are just different amongst various programs. Are there any actual cases of making more earned income via a regular job worse than taking that extra dollar of pay? I'm guessing a few very rare corner-cases exist, but I can't immediately think of any. I imagine they would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the EITC or AMT type things.
rincebrain 10mo ago
This makes sense to me. Having spent a bunch of time with people who have had persistent issues with stable income, a lot of them internalize it at various levels as them personally not being worth anything, because so many systems involved seem to be operating in bad faith. Anything involving the US medical system, for instance - even as someone working in tech with good health insurance, so many of my interactions with doctors can be summarized as "the doctor makes a snap judgment in the first 30 seconds of interacting with you, and arguing with it results in them interacting in bad faith thereafter". And that's not as bad as other machinery in the US. The advice I've heard around trying to use the limited social safety machinery in the US is "plan for it to be a fulltime job for multiple years to get on it, and expect to randomly be kicked off it repeatedly". And having the systems you interact with regularly very clearly act in bad faith, assuming by default you don't deserve things, does things to people's mental health.
bko 10mo ago
From what I understand, two groups of unemployed persons got €560/mo. One group was required to look for work while the other wasn't. And one group was required to report to unemployment offices, and "satisfy bureaucrats". The results were that the one with unconditional payments had "better mental health". Apparently they used a "validated five-item mental health screening instrument that identifies people at risk of mood and anxiety disorders", but realistically how much of this is just people prefer money with no strings attached. Seems pretty obvious. I'm sure a lot of things are linked to "poor mental health" like having to go to work, doing chores and basic maintenance to stay alive. Don't really know is this kind of observation has broader implications
- inglor_cz 10mo ago
  It can be also interpreted as "contact with government officers is inherently stressful", at least for some individuals. That would be enough to move the group mean. Which I saw in my own family. My mother was never unemployed and never demanded anything from the state coffers, but she was afraid of the bureaucracy and the inscrutable power that it wielded over citizens' matters. My former secretary is somewhat spooked by contact with the governmental structures as well.
- idiotsecant 10mo ago
  'People prefer money with no strings attached' is likely a bit reductive. The power imbalance inherent in the expectation that you prove you're 'good enough' to a functionary who has the ability to determine if you have money to buy food or not sounds like a deeply unpleasant scenario to me. I could absolutely imagine a few months of that would be deleterious to my mental health, I don't know about you.
  - TulliusCicero 9mo ago
    > The power imbalance inherent in the expectation that you prove you're 'good enough' to a functionary who has the ability to determine if you have money to buy food or not sounds like a deeply unpleasant scenario to me. You've essentially described how employment works, and yes, it can be rather unpleasant.
oldestofsports 10mo ago
Getting free money with no strings attached makes you happy - who would’ve thunk…
- Ekaros 10mo ago
  Or more so that bureaucracy involved is extremely annoying. Consisting tracking of making enough applications even if there is no relevant positions, possibly making to apply to some irrelevant position. Or just various courses and other stuff like CV workshops that mostly seem like waste of times. Fail any of these and you might end up lowered or no money...
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  Not really, because you don't feel you've earned it. Also you've paid taxes through the nose to get it in the first place. Sales taxes ramp up the cost of living.
- cycomanic 10mo ago
  It's funny how so many posters seem to attribute it to just "free money, yeah". There are plenty of complaints on HN how increased buerocratic burdens/tasks, in particular when they seem pointless or unrelated, leads to low job satisfaction, burn out and mental health issues. But somehow when it comes to the unemployed the same thing does not apply? I certainly can relate that the more tasks pile up the more stressed I become (and being unemployed certainly can feel stressful). Adding some pointless administrative tasks that don't help with my actual goals can often be enough to push me over the edge so I just want to quit.
jdboyd 10mo ago
I think this is interesting, but on its own isn't that compelling. A UBI program that doesn't result in improving employment and education long term sounds both unsustainable and like a moral hazard. What I think this does underscore the importance of not trying to make the program ensure personal accountability. That means we must find a way to ensure program accountability, and measure long-term results, without burdening the recipients with additional mental health burdens.
- AAAAaccountAAAA 9mo ago
  I think it's the conventional unemployment benefit system that should show measurable benefits, not other way around. All the tracking, surveillance, reporting and interviewing costs money, and should not be done for the sake of it.
dogemaster2032 10mo ago
These people found out that interacting with the government has a negative effect on your mental health, or that “looking for job is stressful,” and somehow decided to build a narrative around how “socialist welfare is good.”
nineplay 9mo ago
I'm currently job hunting and 'no shit'. I had better mental health 6 months ago by any measure. Its a ego destroying process, especially with the market now. I've got my first 'tech' interview coming up and while its nice to have a bite after a few months now I'm cramming from interview sites with an increasing feeling of dread.
smallstepforman 9mo ago
What about the mental health of tax payers funding the scheme? Do you want your hard earned taxes to finance “lazy bums” who may or may not be looking for employement. If there are no conditions to receiving the grant, then where is the incentive to take “a” job that comes your way.
- hashmush 9mo ago
  The incentive is to not be poor and have more than the bare minimum. I, for one, am happy to pay taxes to fund this. I've never understood the argument that people would choose to live like that. It doesn't make any sense.
npodbielski 9mo ago
Next study: People are not stressing about they good being when they have money.
forks 9mo ago
Out of curiosity, why does the Algolia result for this submission show '4 days ago', the submission timestamp '3 hours ago', and the metadata on the submission timestamp '2025-12-18T15:34:11 1766072051'? Is this an example of an article being resubmitted (by the same user?) or otherwise boosted back onto the front page?
- antipurist 9mo ago
  Second-chance pool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
  - forks 9mo ago
    Ah neat, thank you for sharing!
potato3732842 9mo ago
I'd bet a lot of money that a third group subject to the same rules as the second group but with the church or some other not the government (and not funded by them either) 3rd party doing the administrating would have mental health outcomes a lot closer to "no strings attached".
im3w1l 9mo ago
Applying for phony ghost jobs and pretending your dream in life is to work some shitty dead end job is basically a humiliation ritual. I think it would be much better if unemployed people were simply assigned work by the government. Feeling unambitious? No shame in staying as long as you like. Want something more? Send out as few or many applications as you want.
wtcactus 9mo ago
Usual social “sciences” ideological fantasies. If you read the article, what does it mean “better mental health”? It means nothing, the “researchers” just came up with some made up metric that justifies their -probable- initial intended outcome according to their political ideology. I couldn’t care less of the “mood” of people receiving my taxpayer money to stay home without finding a job. If I’m forced (by threat of violence from the state, mind you) to work more hours to give my money to these people, the minimum I expect, is for the metrics to show that my money, served to speed up these people finding a new job and stop living on my money. All other metrics are irrelevant.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

73 points by 2noame 10mo ago

> and satisfy bureaucrats That's an unnecessary quip as that's not the point of checks. It's not surprising that if unemployed people receive benefits with no strings attached their "mental health" is better since it removes pressure to find a job. > It was the unconditionality itself—the simple act of trusting people with resources, without surveillance or judgment, without hoops to jump through or forms to fill out—that created these dramatic improvements in psychological well-being. It not about trusting people with the money they are given. The usual checks are because people are expected to earn a living by themselves and unemployment benefits are only meant to help them while they can't and are looking for a job. It is not meant to enable a life-style, which is what unconditionality can lead to. > the conditions we attach to welfare aren’t just bureaucratic inconveniences. They are active harms. They create stress, anxiety, and psychological damage that persists even when the financial support is adequate. Oh dear... This reads like a parody at that point. An useful measurement would be to see which group, if any, found a job quicker. A finding that conditionality does not speed things up would be noteworthy and helpful, a finding that people feel better when they get money every month unconditionally isn't.

toss1 10mo ago
>>since it removes pressure to find a job. NO, it does more than that. 1) It removes pressure to find a job on the schedule and expectations of the overseers. 2) It allows the recipient to start work even at a lower-level job without losing out. 3) It allows time for the recipient to find a job that actually suits them and their employer rather than taking the first thing that comes along out of desperation and pressure. >>expected to earn a living by themselves and unemployment benefits This is not testing "unemployment benefits", it is testing UBI >> not meant to enable a life-style An income of €560 per month, about $20/day, is hardly a lifestyle; it is enough to stay out of the gutter. This is only giving to people who do not have savings a sliver of the resources available to people sufficiently fortunate enough to have education and savings to fall back on. It shows many of the differences in poverty are not due to any kind of merit/demerit, but simply lack of funds. >>An useful measurement would be Yes, that would be a DIFFERENT useful measurement. But to ignore the mental health aspects is to ignore real harms to both the people themselves and to the larger society, such as reduced isolation and crime, healthier communities, etc. Much of this was addressed by other experiments later in the article, which you either failed to read or intentionally ignored. The entire point of the studies and article wasn't your trivial "who gets a job fastest (any job, no matter how ill-suited or temporary)", but the effects of payments vs bureaucracy. The actual evidence is massively piling up that eliminating a patriarchal bureaucracy, means testing, and all this other govt overhead and simply giving everyone just-above-poverty-level income, will dramatically improve society, and it will be far more effective than all the layers of bureaucracy which not only add overhead, cost to the taxpayer, but also actual harm.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  Unemployment benefit is to help you while you are out of job _involuntarily_ and while you look for a job, not to subsidise your lifestyle or aspiration to find your dream job. It's not about "patriarchal bureaucracy", whatever that might mean. There is actually a moral aspect here. Morals in society is that you work to earn your own living and that you don't abuse kindness. > This is not testing "unemployment benefits", it is testing UBI No, this was testing a sort of UBI vs traditional unemployment benefits based on the two groups: "The other group got it conditionally, with requirements to look for work, report to unemployment offices, and satisfy bureaucrats. And the money went away with employment." That's unemployment benefits. Again, it is obvious that the group who got money with no strings attached felt better, this does not tell us anything. It sounds like a contrived study that aims to prove that "UBI is better". > your trivial "who gets a job fastest (any job, no matter how ill-suited or temporary)", It's not trivial, it is the key metric. Granted, you could combine it with the "quality" of the new job that would also be useful, but since this is all to help people while they are looking for a job any studies and experiments must measure the impact on that otherwise there are missing the point. Frankly I don't understand this cultish attachment to UBI its proponents tend to have.
  - beardyw 10mo ago
    ,> There is actually a moral aspect here. Morals in society is that you work to earn your own living and that you don't abuse kindness. That is true, but it leaves out the question of who's morals we are discussing. If the recipient is not under any obligation, and yet gets a job, that morality is played out in them. If the person is under obligation and gets a job as a result, their moral position is unknown but likely unchanged Or perhaps we are talking about wanting other people to live out our morality?
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      In this case society is paying (out of moral principles) so this gives it a fair right to set the moral expectation or just the practical one. Let's say someone does not get a job. Are they looking for one and being unsuccessful or are they just cashing their benefits? Checks are needed in practice unless it can be shown they are not (what I suggested in my previous comments).
kruffalon 10mo ago
Well, unemployment benefits are also meant to protect your job. As in you, the currently employed person.
AuthAuth 10mo ago
Getting psychologically damaged by receiving financial support while you looked for a new job is such a wild statement.
seniortaco 10mo ago
+1 they don't even try to hide the amount of bias in the study.
cycomanic 10mo ago
So I assume you like your manager constantly checking on your jiras, how much code you have written and calling you in to meetings where you need to justify in detail what you have done over the last week? If not, why not? Those checks are just there because you are expected to earn a profit for the company.
- hippo22 10mo ago
  I don't think "liking" is the correct phrasing. Many jobs _do_ have someone constantly looking over your shoulder to ensure that you're doing to job adequately. These jobs are often low-trust environments often staffed by low-trust individuals. In terms of the unemployed, are they mostly high-trust or low-trust? That's what should determine the terms and conditions of the program, not whether they "like" the program or not.

egberts1 10mo ago

Need further breakdown on why those got happier without condition. It could be IQ, cultural-specific, polarized against authority, much of which deserve monitoring. I do not think it is a cost-effective way for working population to fund this "freestyle" living unless society gets something from the idles. Otherwise, like a professor giving out highest grade of a student to rest of the class, that too shall normalizes ...." at the lowesr level.

brailsafe 10mo ago
> It could be IQ, cultural-specific, polarized against authority, much of which deserve monitoring. It doesn't seem so confounding to me. If you were unemployed and needing assistance, do you think you would be happier or less happy having someone require you to report if you've got a job yet and they can take the income away?

nis0s 10mo ago

Here’s the study, I think https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2025-035.pdf https://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2025-035.pdf It would be better if they made it mandatory for everyone to respond to follow-up surveys, as the response rate differed enough to be called out as a study limitation. One interesting thing to note is that the study didn’t find that basic income support increased the chances of becoming employed, or receiving basic income support reduced crime. I am also not sure how to extrapolate study results from Finnish people to people in other cultures.

cycomanic 10mo ago
> I am also not sure how to extrapolate study results from Finnish people to people in other cultures. Well the article points out similar (and sometimes even stronger) effects on mental health for experiments in Malawi and Germany. So seems that it does extrapolate.
- nis0s 10mo ago
  All that says to me is that basic income support had a beneficial effect on mental health in Germany, Finland, and Malawi. This isn’t like a drug trial, where the underlying system, the human body, is more or less the same. Each country is different enough that the same policies don’t necessarily produce the same outcomes, which is why mental health did not improve in every program which provided basic income support, such as Mincome (Manitoba). As such I am still unconvinced these results mean anything for different places where these programs have not been implemented and tested, where day-to-day life, socioeconomic realities, and government policies are different. You observe further differences in program outcomes when you notice that providing basic income support in both Finland and Germany did not reduce crime, but there was some evidence of crime reduction in other places under similar programs. So I don’t take the mental health improvement results for granted, especially since, at least in the Finland case, it’s unclear what will happen when you increase the sample of respondents, ie is the effect going to increase, or decrease, or become negligible altogether. I also think these studies need to report on societal benefits like crime reduction, graduation rates, or gainful employment activity as well. Maybe you cannot ensure that individual effects such as mental health status might improve across countries under such programs. But maybe by pulling enough levers, you can ensure that crime reduction is always a guarantee regardless of type of place. Consider also that there’s an unnecessary assumption that giving people more money is a meaningful benefit. What if you tested against different options, like creating more community programs, third places, or apprentice programs which guarantee jobs with a certain income. UBI is a useful tool under some circumstances, but assuming that it will improve individual outcomes across the board is unfounded. I still do think that a thoughtful and robust UBI program might ensure more stable local communities and economies, regardless of its benefits or lack thereof for an individual receiving it. In short, these studies are measuring the wrong outcomes to make their case.

koliber 10mo ago

I wonder what is the difference between the two groups as far as the rate of finding employment. Might be that the act of looking for a job is stressful. If the goal is to get people back to work, it might not make sense to optimize just for better mental health.

LorenPechtel 10mo ago
And note that actually getting work removed the controlled money. That's quite a disincentive to actually finding work. Welfare systems very often end up being a trap because of this--people can't afford to succeed because they'll hit some tripwire that makes them worse off. I'd like to see welfare systems and tax codes modified with a rule that no situation can cause more than a 50% marginal "tax". (Which would mean many cutoffs in the tax code would effectively be replaced with phaseouts even if Congress didn't specifically fix them.)
- bena 10mo ago
  The tax code (at least in the US, YMMV in other countries) is already progressive. Making more will never have you taking home less. However, most welfare systems have hard cutoffs. If you get $500 in SNAP a month and make $500 a month, you have $1000 to last a month. And if the cutoff is $501, making that one extra dollar is going to cost you $499. What would be more difficult, also gameable, but better all around is to have benefits adjusted to get people to a baseline. Say the poverty level is $1000 a month. You get $1000 - X, where X is how much you made in that month.
  - sokoloff 10mo ago
    > Making more will never have you taking home less. There are corner cases where making more can leave you with less outside of welfare. Tripping into the next IRMAA bucket is one simple to understand one.
    - phil21 10mo ago
      Medicare is a form of welfare, just branded differently. It's a means-tested benefit funded in a pay-as-you-go manner via income tax just like any other. The means are just different amongst various programs. Are there any actual cases of making more earned income via a regular job worse than taking that extra dollar of pay? I'm guessing a few very rare corner-cases exist, but I can't immediately think of any. I imagine they would be somewhere in the neighborhood of the EITC or AMT type things.

rincebrain 10mo ago

This makes sense to me. Having spent a bunch of time with people who have had persistent issues with stable income, a lot of them internalize it at various levels as them personally not being worth anything, because so many systems involved seem to be operating in bad faith. Anything involving the US medical system, for instance - even as someone working in tech with good health insurance, so many of my interactions with doctors can be summarized as "the doctor makes a snap judgment in the first 30 seconds of interacting with you, and arguing with it results in them interacting in bad faith thereafter". And that's not as bad as other machinery in the US. The advice I've heard around trying to use the limited social safety machinery in the US is "plan for it to be a fulltime job for multiple years to get on it, and expect to randomly be kicked off it repeatedly". And having the systems you interact with regularly very clearly act in bad faith, assuming by default you don't deserve things, does things to people's mental health.

bko 10mo ago

From what I understand, two groups of unemployed persons got €560/mo. One group was required to look for work while the other wasn't. And one group was required to report to unemployment offices, and "satisfy bureaucrats". The results were that the one with unconditional payments had "better mental health". Apparently they used a "validated five-item mental health screening instrument that identifies people at risk of mood and anxiety disorders", but realistically how much of this is just people prefer money with no strings attached. Seems pretty obvious. I'm sure a lot of things are linked to "poor mental health" like having to go to work, doing chores and basic maintenance to stay alive. Don't really know is this kind of observation has broader implications

inglor_cz 10mo ago
It can be also interpreted as "contact with government officers is inherently stressful", at least for some individuals. That would be enough to move the group mean. Which I saw in my own family. My mother was never unemployed and never demanded anything from the state coffers, but she was afraid of the bureaucracy and the inscrutable power that it wielded over citizens' matters. My former secretary is somewhat spooked by contact with the governmental structures as well.
idiotsecant 10mo ago
'People prefer money with no strings attached' is likely a bit reductive. The power imbalance inherent in the expectation that you prove you're 'good enough' to a functionary who has the ability to determine if you have money to buy food or not sounds like a deeply unpleasant scenario to me. I could absolutely imagine a few months of that would be deleterious to my mental health, I don't know about you.
- TulliusCicero 9mo ago
  > The power imbalance inherent in the expectation that you prove you're 'good enough' to a functionary who has the ability to determine if you have money to buy food or not sounds like a deeply unpleasant scenario to me. You've essentially described how employment works, and yes, it can be rather unpleasant.

oldestofsports 10mo ago

Getting free money with no strings attached makes you happy - who would’ve thunk…

Ekaros 10mo ago
Or more so that bureaucracy involved is extremely annoying. Consisting tracking of making enough applications even if there is no relevant positions, possibly making to apply to some irrelevant position. Or just various courses and other stuff like CV workshops that mostly seem like waste of times. Fail any of these and you might end up lowered or no money...
nephihaha 10mo ago
Not really, because you don't feel you've earned it. Also you've paid taxes through the nose to get it in the first place. Sales taxes ramp up the cost of living.
cycomanic 10mo ago
It's funny how so many posters seem to attribute it to just "free money, yeah". There are plenty of complaints on HN how increased buerocratic burdens/tasks, in particular when they seem pointless or unrelated, leads to low job satisfaction, burn out and mental health issues. But somehow when it comes to the unemployed the same thing does not apply? I certainly can relate that the more tasks pile up the more stressed I become (and being unemployed certainly can feel stressful). Adding some pointless administrative tasks that don't help with my actual goals can often be enough to push me over the edge so I just want to quit.

jdboyd 10mo ago

I think this is interesting, but on its own isn't that compelling. A UBI program that doesn't result in improving employment and education long term sounds both unsustainable and like a moral hazard. What I think this does underscore the importance of not trying to make the program ensure personal accountability. That means we must find a way to ensure program accountability, and measure long-term results, without burdening the recipients with additional mental health burdens.

AAAAaccountAAAA 9mo ago
I think it's the conventional unemployment benefit system that should show measurable benefits, not other way around. All the tracking, surveillance, reporting and interviewing costs money, and should not be done for the sake of it.

dogemaster2032 10mo ago

These people found out that interacting with the government has a negative effect on your mental health, or that “looking for job is stressful,” and somehow decided to build a narrative around how “socialist welfare is good.”

nineplay 9mo ago

I'm currently job hunting and 'no shit'. I had better mental health 6 months ago by any measure. Its a ego destroying process, especially with the market now. I've got my first 'tech' interview coming up and while its nice to have a bite after a few months now I'm cramming from interview sites with an increasing feeling of dread.

smallstepforman 9mo ago

What about the mental health of tax payers funding the scheme? Do you want your hard earned taxes to finance “lazy bums” who may or may not be looking for employement. If there are no conditions to receiving the grant, then where is the incentive to take “a” job that comes your way.

hashmush 9mo ago
The incentive is to not be poor and have more than the bare minimum. I, for one, am happy to pay taxes to fund this. I've never understood the argument that people would choose to live like that. It doesn't make any sense.

npodbielski 9mo ago

Next study: People are not stressing about they good being when they have money.

forks 9mo ago

Out of curiosity, why does the Algolia result for this submission show '4 days ago', the submission timestamp '3 hours ago', and the metadata on the submission timestamp '2025-12-18T15:34:11 1766072051'? Is this an example of an article being resubmitted (by the same user?) or otherwise boosted back onto the front page?

antipurist 9mo ago
Second-chance pool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
- forks 9mo ago
  Ah neat, thank you for sharing!

potato3732842 9mo ago

I'd bet a lot of money that a third group subject to the same rules as the second group but with the church or some other not the government (and not funded by them either) 3rd party doing the administrating would have mental health outcomes a lot closer to "no strings attached".

im3w1l 9mo ago

Applying for phony ghost jobs and pretending your dream in life is to work some shitty dead end job is basically a humiliation ritual. I think it would be much better if unemployed people were simply assigned work by the government. Feeling unambitious? No shame in staying as long as you like. Want something more? Send out as few or many applications as you want.

wtcactus 9mo ago

Usual social “sciences” ideological fantasies. If you read the article, what does it mean “better mental health”? It means nothing, the “researchers” just came up with some made up metric that justifies their -probable- initial intended outcome according to their political ideology. I couldn’t care less of the “mood” of people receiving my taxpayer money to stay home without finding a job. If I’m forced (by threat of violence from the state, mind you) to work more hours to give my money to these people, the minimum I expect, is for the metrics to show that my money, served to speed up these people finding a new job and stop living on my money. All other metrics are irrelevant.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]