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

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

scottsantens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

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

#51

Post by seanmcdirmid »

phil21 wrote: post #22
sokoloff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 imag…

Medicaid is a form of welfare, Medicare is an entitlement. Where is Medicare means tested?

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

#52

Post by nineplay »

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.

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

#53

Post by smallstepforman »

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.

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

#55

Post by parpfish »

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…

Wouldnt it be easier to just give everybody $1000/mo but then use the yearly tax bill to get high earners to pay it back rather than having graduated payouts?

That ensures that everybody gets prompt payouts and feels that there’s a safety net, but no complex means testing and bureaucracy. And the same net cost, although the timing of the payouts will shift a bit

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

#56

Post by blell »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #11
koliber wrote: post #8

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.

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…

>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.

Or maybe they consider getting money you can live on without working to be a success. I know I would.

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

#57

Post by oytis »

pavlov wrote: post #50
bko wrote: post #10

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 o…

> I'm sure a lot of things are linked to "poor mental health" like having to go to work So you think unemployed people are in better mental health than those with jobs? I guess this is part of the reason why we need these studies: because people's default assumptions are often wildly off.

"Unemployed" implies having no or very little money. Having enough so that you don't have to work would definitely improve mental well-being for the vast majority of people I think

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

#58

Post by forks »

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?

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

#59

Post by card_zero »

unmole wrote: post #39
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…

> patriarchal bureaucracy My sides.

Paternalistic was perhaps the intended word.

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

#60

Post by mgerdts »

thewebguyd wrote: post #31
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…

> 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. This is very much a problem in the US. I've lived it myself before I was making 6+ figures, and I've known many people that lived through it as well. I had a higher quality of life working very part time minimum wage + benefits (SNAP, free healthcare, subsidized…

This article is a great read explaining how this trap happens.

https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/part-1-my-life-is-a-lie

Post reply on HN