Hacker News Reader

Comment by bko | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

I knew someone who was getting significant public assistance to help get out of homelessness.

The requirements were a nightmare. Your employer had to fill out regular forms, the office administering the program had to fill out regular forms, when they made mistakes they'd threaten to take away your housing (and the office frequently made mistakes). If you were employed there were perverse incentives... they would reduce your benefits my MORE than you earned so it only made sense to get a job if the pay would completely disqualify you from the program. It really was torture.

'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.

> 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.

Honestly, that is not how employment works in most of the (civilized) world. In the US, sure, but elsewhere we do have labor laws that matter.

Yes, both of those scenarios involve a power imbalance when none need exist. That's what labor organization is for.

Can't say I disagree!

> 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

"Retired" sounds like a more accurate word for that particular circumstance.

The original comment being responded to used the words "having to go to work". It was a reply that introduced the term unemployment and drew conclusions based on it.

It's plausible that being in poor mental health might make someone more likely to be unemployed, but that employment can still worsen someone's mental health. Even if unemployment is net better for someone's mental health than working we might see a trend where on average mental health is worse for unemployment due to the fact that employment (of a lack of it) might not cause as of an effect as other factors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com