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

Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

psypost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#121

Post by bumby »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #78
tbrownaw wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not linked to the lack of a job, but the lack of income that a job brings Or to the constant failure / hopelessness / whatever from a constant job search getting no results; if it was just money then the correlation would very obviously be with peoples monetary situation rather then their employment status.

good point, but hard to differentiate. How do we tell if the cause is the shitty grind of constant rejection from jobs, or the shitty grind of life with very little money? We do know (anecdotally) that people with money (regardless of employment status) don't suffer the same symptoms.

>How do we tell if the cause is the shitty grind of constant rejection from jobs, or the shitty grind of life with very little money?

You could study the well-being of those with relatively low-paying "grind" jobs but whose jobs are also held in high-esteem by their society. E.g., junior enlisted in the military.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#122

Post by bumby »

kelnos wrote: post #83
nradov wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unemployment is a specific term in economics which refers only to workers who don't have a job and are actively looking for a job. People like your friend aren't unemployed they just don't have a job.

Sure, but I think the point is a little higher-level than that. The reason people become disengaged and apathetic has nothing to do with employment. They become that way because they lack the finances to control their lives, and because financial instability causes stress and anxiety. Let's change the study a bit. Instead of just watching and tracking these unemployed people, say the people running the study started…

>They become that way because they lack the finances to control their lives,

Yes, autonomy seems to be a fundamental aspect of well-being.

>I guarantee you those unemployed people would start feeling engaged again.

I'm always a little hesitant when I hear someone say they "guarantee" something based on a thought experiment. But the little data we have, like the recent Sam Altman-funded UBI experiment, doesn't seem to back up this idea. While people said they were more open to thoughts of aspects like entrepreneurial activities and education, it didn't actually manifest in real actual engagement in those activities.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#123

Post by room4 »

kelnos wrote: post #79
WalterBright wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I spent a little bit of time responding to each of your questions with why I think they're much less harmful to an employer than pretty much anything an employer can do to their employees. But I realized none of that point-by-point stuff really matters, and deleted it all. An employer can systematically destroy an employee's life and finances if they pull the right levers. In places like the US, employees are often t…

> In places like the US, employees are often terrified of getting fired or laid off because they'll lose their health insurance

This is a common misunderstanding.

If an American loses their job for any reason, they can always keep their current insurance through COBRA. In fact, they don't even need to take any immediate action. If they need healthcare in the month of, or month after, their loss of job, they can go get it and then later on pay their premium to have the insurance retroactively go back in time to cover them. The only difference is that the covered person needs to pay the full premium, while the standard employment agreement has the employer paying a significant portion of the premium.

For people who don't want to stay on their previous employer's plan, the loss of the job is a "qualifying event" which allows them to immediately do things like join their spouse's plan or sign up for an individual "Obamacare" plan through healthcare.gov. There are subsidies based on income to make the premiums manageable for low-income people if they can't afford the market rate.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#124

Post by [deleted] »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #68
naming_the_user wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, as someone who doesn't need to work on a daily basis (made enough in my 20s), extended periods of unemployment can quite easily lead me down a similar path to the one that the article describes. If you slip into a pattern of not waking up at a reasonable time, staying indoors and not exercising, not making attempts to socialise, etc, then it can be quite easy to throw your brain chemistry out of…

I save 90% of my income, and work freelance. My experience may be unusual but it has been the opposite. When I have a job time blurs togethor. I stop drawing, and exercising and learning math. Pressure builds. Eventually I finsh and that stage ends and a rennaissance begins. I am only a clear deep thinker when unemployed. When I am captured by the salient sense of daily responsibility and income, mental exercise is a…

[deleted]

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#125

Post by AStonesThrow »

drewcoo wrote: post #113
AStonesThrow wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of structure, schedule and discipline can really tear people up psychologically. My last job, 2020-2024, was 100% WFH. My first role was on an exact schedule, 3 days a week. I found myself falling asleep during work and I was caught, too. Then I transitioned to a role with a flexible schedule. They paid lip service to shift schedules, but in reality, I clocked in/out whenever I could, and as long as work was don…

> Mental hospitals and other rehab facilities impose rigid structures and schedules on the residents So do schools. So does the military. Those are structures of control. There are a variety of opinions pro and con on control and well-being. > But even agrarian societies clung to their timepieces Agriculture doesn't require timepieces. For thousands of years we farmed without them. Timepieces originated with religiou…

You certainly have a negative attitude towards discipline and obedience.

Yes, it can be described as "control" from the authority's viewpoint. Is this always bad and wrong? If control is manipulative, if it is oppressive, if it tramples on rights or freedoms and fails to serve the interests of the controls, then control is bad.

But discipline and obedience to legitimate authorities are virtues. Discipline is what drives exploration and discovery. Timepieces were crucial in helping navigators find their way across the open seas. Perhaps Columbus was religiously controlled, perhaps Captain Cook was controlled by the British Empire, perhaps Magellan was controlled by his chain of command, but their ability to discern the structure of the natural world and subdue it was due to their discipline and the structure of their very small crews aboard isolated vessels.

If you are not a "good little worker" aboard a ship, or in an Army unit, then you are dead and your battle is lost. Perhaps you conflate control with unity--whether it was Joshua instructing his troops to shout, or everyone showing up at Stonehenge on time for the fertility rituals, or Romeo and Juliet checking the time for a pre-arranged tryst, having people all do something at the same time is incredibly useful even for atheists and pagans.

I don't know if freight and passenger trains are religiously controlled, but they're the ones who gave us modern timekeeping and as a consumer, I hope you'd agree that it's important that freight shipments are picked up and delivered according to a schedule, and if you had trouble getting pasta or toilet paper during COVID-19, then you were a victim of a lack of control in regards to the world's vital supply chains.

If you are not a "good little worker" for your startup of 10 employees then you're bankrupt and you're unemployed and you're sitting around, posting on Hacker News instead of applying for jobs. I honestly do not see the trouble in doing the will of teachers in school or parents at home, provided that those leaders love their charges and want what's best for them. Many of them do, and it's important to recognize that "control" and discipline is usually oriented to the common good and even the individual's good.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#126

Post by guitarbill »

room4 wrote: post #123
kelnos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a little bit of time responding to each of your questions with why I think they're much less harmful to an employer than pretty much anything an employer can do to their employees. But I realized none of that point-by-point stuff really matters, and deleted it all. An employer can systematically destroy an employee's life and finances if they pull the right levers. In places like the US, employees are often t…

> In places like the US, employees are often terrified of getting fired or laid off because they'll lose their health insurance This is a common misunderstanding. If an American loses their job for any reason, they can always keep their current insurance through COBRA. In fact, they don't even need to take any immediate action. If they need healthcare in the month of, or month after, their loss of job, they can go ge…

> If an American loses their job for any reason

This is incorrect, it's "for limited periods of time under certain circumstances" [0] (and citizenship is not required).

> they can always keep their current insurance through COBRA. [...] needs to pay the full premium

This is true but vastly underplays the cost. It isn't unusual for "the full premium" to be over a thousand dollars per month [1] (!). They even get to charge you an "administrative fee". Oh, and there's also tax implications.

> For people who don't want to stay on their previous employer's plan, the loss of the job is a "qualifying event" which allows them to immediately do things like join their spouse's plan or sign up for an individual "Obamacare" plan through healthcare.gov.

More likely for people who can't stay on their previous plan because it would bankrupt them. Or if their spouse is not working. What happens if the employee has children/dependents on the plan? Etc, etc.

None of this is easy. Switching insurance changes which doctors are "in network", so at minimum it's significant hassle. At worst, their or a family member's current treatment is only partially or not at all covered.

So, in practice, parent's description is accurate enough.

[0] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/cobra-insurance-cost-7486539

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#127

Post by AStonesThrow »

purple-leafy wrote: post #100
AStonesThrow wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of structure, schedule and discipline can really tear people up psychologically. My last job, 2020-2024, was 100% WFH. My first role was on an exact schedule, 3 days a week. I found myself falling asleep during work and I was caught, too. Then I transitioned to a role with a flexible schedule. They paid lip service to shift schedules, but in reality, I clocked in/out whenever I could, and as long as work was don…

I think modern work-life tears people up psychologically, to a point where they think wanting to sleep during the day, eat during the day, and not wanting to work and not wanting to sit at a desk. I argue all the above is natural tendencies! Though I entertain that certain schedules can be healthy - rising and sleeping with the sun, sorting hygiene upon waking. I really question the modern way of working since moving…

Regularly-timed sleep and regularly-timed, appropriate meals are two of the most important factors, along with proper exercise, in mood and feelings of well-being.

If someone follows the passions of their flesh, day in and day out, they will feel unfulfilled and lose pleasure; their mood could become depressed; they will be out of touch with the world's cycles and rhythms.

If you can count on waking up regularly (whether based on sidereal or railroad time zones) and count on meals at appointed times, and you dress for the day and don't lounge in your pajamas, and you get to the gym or have a walk, and you keep up your physical appearance and hygiene, then I guarantee that your mood and pleasurable experiences will benefit from that. And an unemployed person at risk of depression needs that regularity and discipline all the more.

And yes, if none of this comes naturally, then we gotta fight our inherent tendencies to fall apart, we need to establish structures that are reasonable and achievable, and we need to strive for adherence, hour by hour, day by day. For other people, chilling out and letting go is more important, and relaxation is always beneficial--recreation should be built into any structured, disciplined schedule and not neglected by any means.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#128

Post by WalterBright »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #103
WalterBright wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've seen this debated at length numerous times here. If that is your opinion, you shouldn't object to productivity monitoring software installed on your work laptop. After all, you're being paid for your time.

You’re being paid for your labor. Your time is a proxy for that labor. If an employee can do two jobs at once, then let them without intrusive monitoring. If the intrusive monitoring is the only means of determining their output, then fine, but I’m gonna go ahead and guess that there’s less orwellian metrics, and that the primary motive for their introduction is to force more work out of already productive employees…

For many jobs (like programming) measuring productivity is nearly impossible. But if a programmer is being paid for 40 hours of work, and he only does 20, then the employer is going to feel cheated, because the employer is only getting half of the productivity the programmer promised him.

The impracticality of measuring the productivity is irrelevant.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#129

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

em-bee wrote: post #119
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you measure their performance? If so, I assume you expect a certain volume of work from your employees. If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention, why is that your problem? If they aren’t doing their jobs it’s a completely different story, and I don’t blame you for your worry, but frankly what business of yours is it how they get the job done IF they do it to your desired standard? I’m…

If they keep up with that volume without paying their full attention some work is not about volume but about quality. and exactly the fact that the work can not be measured is the problem. some work can not be done effectively when you are tired, and some work is even dangerous. driving for example. paying attention to safety and security requires you to be a wake and able to focus. as a programmer i have good days a…

I’m not trying to make arguments about work where the output isn’t measurable; Of course businesses are going to err on the side of caution and try to weed out employees with second jobs in that case. I am also very pro labor protections and want far more here in the US. My issue is with businesses that seem to see their employees as their property and over-scrutinize their lives outside of work, even in cases where the quality of that work can be clearly measured to be adequate.

Re: Long-term unemployment leads to disengagement and apathy

#130

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

WalterBright wrote: post #128
BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re being paid for your labor. Your time is a proxy for that labor. If an employee can do two jobs at once, then let them without intrusive monitoring. If the intrusive monitoring is the only means of determining their output, then fine, but I’m gonna go ahead and guess that there’s less orwellian metrics, and that the primary motive for their introduction is to force more work out of already productive employees…

For many jobs (like programming) measuring productivity is nearly impossible. But if a programmer is being paid for 40 hours of work, and he only does 20, then the employer is going to feel cheated, because the employer is only getting half of the productivity the programmer promised him. The impracticality of measuring the productivity is irrelevant.

I would argue that if what the employer expects to be done in 40 hours can be done in 20 by a skilled employee, then it’s not exactly the employee’s job to tell them to allocate more work on his/her plate for the same amount of pay. That business needs to do a better job of understanding the work they need done. This, of course, won’t apply to a job like a call center or something where the time on the job is itself the labor being done, only in cases where the output is measurable. But in those cases, the employer’s feeling cheated by not being able to waste the time of/underpay that skilled employee doesn’t exactly sadden me.
Post reply on HN