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

Post by beardyw » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 6:17 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #7

toss1 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 pres…

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 benefi…

Post by AuthAuth » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 7:37 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #2

> 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…

Post by oldestofsports » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 8:30 PM UTC

Post by onraglanroad » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #13

beardyw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

,> 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 lik…

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).

Post by sokoloff » Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 8:40 PM UTC

bena wrote: post #17

LorenPechtel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 i…