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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think there's a big cultural split on morality here.
A lot of people think that a supermarket with self-check out would probably be empty within the day, with people trucking off their goods in every which direction. Maybe in some places that's actually still how it works. This supposes that morality is mostly extrinsic (low trust society).
Throughout quite a bit of the West, Europe , Finland we're dealing with high trust societies these days. In these countries, all said and done self checkout is actually netto cheaper to run than manned checkout, and that includes shrinkage. (Above some point) every penny spent on checkout counter operators is wasted. So -at least in Finland-, morality is mostly intrinsic (high trust society).
If you tell this story to a person from a low trust society, they'll think you're pulling their leg. Every man, woman, and child to themselves, right?
Meanwhile, in high trust societies like Finland, it's just Tuesday: 'Bleep... bleep'.
Now when it comes to people with intrinsic morality: Making them go through extra procedures might actually slow them down; Hiring extra people to keep an eye on them can go negative yield.
There's more to be said on this, but the key intuition is that much of western thinking on morality is still calibrated on extrinsic morality, while many westerners are now actually being raised with intrinsic morality. It's a slow cultural change.
,> 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?
You keep claiming there is a moral problem with giving people enough of a basic stipend to actually live out of the gutter.
In the richest most affluent society in the history of the planet.
In a society where it is organized so a handful of people control more than 50% of the society's wealth, and it is also organized so the minimum wage has stripped is no longer even sufficient to work FULL TIME and get above the poverty line. In a society where a family owns the largest employer in the country and sits on $Billions of wealth while they pay so little that a substantial number of their employees qualify for food assistance.
Who is freeloading, the billionaire owners taking massive tax breaks and paying less than their office workers, or the minimum-wage laborer who must "take" government assistance in addition to his pay merely in order to not starve?
A society can rightly be judged by how it treats it's lowest members.
A moral affluent society would organize itself so every single person has a minimum of food, housing, healthcare, and education, even if a few were freeloading.
Instead, you attempt to justify refusing to feed and house people because a few might freeload. Or, if not refusing, to implement massive government bureaucracies, which 1) are both costly and 2) are proven to make worse outcomes and 3) are even more easily defrauded, merely to make sure all the lowly workers who cannot get a leg up are suitably shamed and monitored, lest they receive just a little too much.
And do not start on how some will waste UBI it on alcohol or drugs. The rich also waste their lives in the same way.
While you stand on your moral high-horse, you argue for the most immoral actions.
They’re absolutely right, and you’re wrong. In the moral sense.
You’re treating it as a moral imperative that (to be charitable) all able-bodied adults in a society must be somehow self-supporting, and using that as justification to either browbeat the recipients of minimum-quality-of-life benefits in order to continue receiving them, or to deny such benefits entirely after some point.
Given the relative wealth of our society, it’s immoral to cut off minimum-quality-or-life benefits when doing so would result in people becoming homeless, hungry, or sick. Even from a strictly utilitarian perspective, that will in the end impose higher costs on society than just distributing benefits.
Similarly, if what you actually care about is the cost to society in a utilitarian sense, the cost of the administrative overhead of browbeating benefits recipients and doing the necessary tracking to ensure benefits are cut off when they reach their endpoint and stay that way will be higher than just distributing them.
So what is your actual moral argument? It comes down to “everyone should have to work.” And, well, why? Some people can’t work and I hope you don’t begrudge them being cared for by society. Similarly there are the young and elderly who society should care for, rather than rely just on family to care for. So why is an able-bodied adult different to you?
If the argument is that you have to work so others should too, well, under the proposed scheme you actually don’t! If you want to just hang out all day every day on minimum benefits, I wouldn’t begrudge you that. Sooner or later you’ll probably work anyway just to get more than is possible at the very bottom. Or maybe you’ll create art and contribute to society that way. Or maybe you’d avoid being a drag on a workplace that’d be a bad fit for you, and contribute in that way. Or maybe you’d be able to devote your time to raising a child so they can contribute much better than if you weren’t there because you were working.
A morality that treats work as virtuous for its own sake is too simplistic to survive contact with the real world.
"Plaintiff argues the subject smart TV included a statement in the “License List” menu that it “may contain executable codes and libraries that are subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL),
GNU Lesser General License (LGPL) … and other open source licenses. VIZIO offers to provide applicable source code upon request for a processing fee covering the cost of fulfilling the distribution….” (Motion, p. 8.) Plaintiff contends its representative accepted such offer by requesting the applicable source code in a live chat with a Vizio representative. (p. 9; UMFs 8-11.) "
I don't know the details history of the system's development, however I notice that with Kunrei everything spelling is neatly 2 characters while with Hepburn it may be 2 or 3 characters:
Kunrei: ki si ti ni hi mi
Hepburn: ki shi chi ni hi mi
The politics of the issue is obviously that Hepburn is older and an American system while Nihon and Kunrei are very purposely domestic (Nihon "is much more regular than Hepburn romanization, and unlike Hepburn's system, it makes no effort to make itself easier to pronounce for English-speakers" [1]). Apparently, Hepburn was later imposed by US occupying forces in 1945.
Perhaps 80 years is long enough and suitable to effect the change officially with no loss of face.
"Better" depends on what you care about. _konniti-wa_ (which is the Kunrei-siki romanization of こんにちは, _konniti-ha_ is Nihon-shiki form that preserves the irregular use of は as topic-marking /wa/) and _susi-o_ (again, Kunrei-siki ignores a native script orthographic irregularity and romanizes を as _o_ not _wo_ ) are more consistent with the native phonological system of Japanese. In Japanese coronal consonants like /t/ and /s/ are regularly palatalized to /tS/ and /S/ before the vowel /i/, and there's no reason to treat _chi_ and _ti_ as meaningfully different sequences of sounds. Linguists writing about Japanese phonology use it instead of Hepburn for good reason.
Obviously, being more transparent to English-readers is also a reasonable goal a romanization system might have, and if that's your goal the Hepburn is a better system. I don't have a strong opinion about which system the Japanese government should treat as official, and realistically neither one is going to go away. But it's simply not the case that Hepburn is a better romanization scheme for every purpose.
I don't see how kunrei-shiki is useful at all. If I want to write Japanese words so non-Japanese speakers can pronounce them approximately, then Hepburn is the way to go. If I want to write Japanese words so Japanese speakers can read them best, I'll write them in actual Japanese. This isn't 1975, and computers are perfectly able to render hiragana, katakana, and kanji. What do I need kunrei-shiki for? I've been living in Japan for years now, and have never found a use for it.
But it's a reality that English is the primary (if not sole) focus, for historical reasons and as the global lingua franca. English is taught (poorly, from what I hear) in schools, played on train announcements, is the only Western language available on ticket machines, and is the assumed language of non-Asian visitors to the country. I was even on a couple of domestic flights a few days ago and the captain / FAs made announcements in English. It is not "arbitrary" at all.
Do you think Japanese people actually read and write in kunrei-shiki? No, they write using their own letters.
Romanization is an approximation that exists primarily for two purposes: 1. to express Japanese terms in other languages and 2. to enable typing Japanese on a computer. It’s silly to enforce kunrei-shiki, a system rarely used in practice, in the name of "accuracy" based on arbitrary criteria. Romanized spellings will never be accurate for obvious reasons.
Given the purpose of romanization, it’s more practical to choose a system that allows non-Japanese speakers to pronounce words more closely aligned with the correct pronunciation.
What I’m complaining about is that the romanization is based specifically on English, arbitrarily chosen from all languages that natively use the Latin alphabet. For example, what’s transcribed as “shi” is only “aligned with the correct pronunciation” for English speakers. In other languages it would be more accurately transcribed as “ši”, “szi“, “chi”, “schi” or even “si”.
If French didn't use the Roman alphabet natively, you might have a point.
At some point you might as well use Roman characters the way the Cherokee alphabet does - which is to say, uses some of the shapes without paying attention to what sounds they made in English.
And the way English generally uses the Roman alphabet (obviously excluding the zillions of irregularities) isn't that far off from how most European languages use the Roman alphabet.
I'd expect that Spanish, German and French speakers would benefit just as much as English speakers from these changes.
> And the way English generally uses the Roman alphabet (obviously excluding the zillions of irregularities) isn't that far off from how most European languages use the Roman alphabet.
Its not far off from the union of how all other European languages use the Roman alphabet, would be closer to accurate.
Sure, but the point is this isn't really making romanized Japanese more English-like. It's making it more similar to how just about every other language already uses the Roman alphabet. This isn't an Anglo-centric thing, it's just good common sense - unless your goal is to make it harder to pronounce your language properly, which seems like an obvious own-goal.
About 30% of people worldwide use a language that's not written in Roman alphabet.
Additionally, being written in Roman alphabet doesn't neccessarily mean it's clear how to pronounce it. Hungarians calls their country "Magyarország", but unless you know Hungarian, you will be surprised with how it's pronounced. Same as "Chenonceaux", "Tekirdağ" or "Crkvina".
Those are especially pathological cases, and not especially relevant to this discussion, as the romanization rules are explicitly designed to be consistent.
We're not talking about words like worcestershire. I'm talking about words like "bat" "monkey" "chimichanga". Those that follow the rules. There can't possibly be irregular spellings using the romanizations we're talking about!
> It's making it more similar to how just about every other language already uses the Roman alphabet.
There is no way "every other language already uses the Roman alphabet."
Many languages are internally consistent in how they use it, but those that are aren't consistent with each other. And then there is English, which does pretty much everything any other language which uses the Roman alphabet does somewhere, and probably a few that none of the other extant languages normally using that alphabet do with it, on top.
"The colonial government used the Control of Publications Consolidation Ordinance (1951) to regulate publications and suppress freedom of the press. One notable case resulted in the suppression of the newspaper Ta Kung Pao for six months (later reduced to 12 days) for its criticism of the colonial government's deportation of the Federation of Trade Unions-backed fire relief organisation officials and use of live fire against protestors. Deportation was also used as a method to control politics in education. Lo Tong, a principal at a pro-Beijing, patriotic middle school, had been deported in 1950 for raising the People's Republic of China (PRC) flag and singing the national anthem at his school." [1]
Now of course we'd all prefer Western-style freedoms but the narrative on HK is highly skewed and hypocritical, with HK used as a pawn in the broader anti-China narrative.
Even Singapore isn't exactly rosy but it is a friend of the West so it's fine.
The Chinese were obviously always opposed to British imperalism and it was a major victory to finally get HK back, including in HK, and even acknowledged in Taiwan. There is a large body of quite nationalistic and anti-European/British films in HK cinema from British times.
However, this does not mean that there is no domestic politics with pro and anti communist party, but daily life hasn't changed in HK except from the larger influx of "mainlanders".
The narrative on HK in the West is simplistic and, frankly a little racist. European imperialism and colonialism has long been rejected except somehow for the so great thing it did in HK, conveniently forgetting that the British never had any democracy in HK and acquired HK by pretty nasty means.
And you're conviently forgetting that the British wanted to have full democracy in Hong Kong as they had in places like Canada, Australia and New Zealand but couldn't for fear of upsetting the balance with China.
It was the same thing with British Overseas passports. Britain wanted to issue full passports to Hong Kong citiezens but couldn't because China was heavily against it and so a compromise was sort.
Britain wouldn't make Hong Kong a full democracy and China would stick to one country two systems. That worked well until one side broke its promise.
Wait until jingoistic EU nationalism emerges... we're there.
> luckily thanks to internet and social networks kids does not really develop sense of nationalism to their country as they can tell no difference between somebody from Albania, France or Niger...
That's both incorrect, younger generations do develop a strong sense of patriotism, it is even actually on the rise in Europe, and a ludicrous and very sinister rejection of culture ("few obscure traditions of their ancestors"... sounds like New China or the USSR...)
In fact, in the current international context what the article describes is the rise of a pan-European nationalism.
India is a lot like Europe (many traditionally separate cultures which were historically separate) and yet managed to have a nationalist movement. Part of that is attributable to colonialism, but I think that shows it's entirely possible to create a nation when there was none.
Germany benefited a lot from China. It used to be that most cars in China were German brands, for instance.
I think Germany has overly thought itself "superior" so to speak: perhaps Germany thought that China was a market to exploit forever because German products were, obviously, superior and China was, obviously, not able to produce many or to compete.
It seems to me that this "symbiotic partnership" is an euphemism for knowing your place...
This is not what the people asked for, wanted, or were told, though. The issue is the insiduous nature of the "ever closer union" that advances by stealth, deception, manufacturing consent over time, and sometimes by just ignoring what the people have said.
And then, now and then the people suddenly realise, too late, that on an ever growing range of issues their country has become powerless because a change of policy is either no longer within the country's power and is banned under EU law and treaties... and the web is being woven tighter and tigher little by little.
There is no support in member states for leaving the EU or dismantling the EU. "Eurosceptimism" is by and large only wanting to loosen and restrict EU oversight of member states(which again has been the main debate for decades) but even that is anathema and "far right", which should really raise red flags in people's minds even without going full conspirationist.
You are not the people and you do not speak for them. You are one person, just as I am. I want this, and I was told this - clearly, it's in the founding charta!
Right wing populists always pull this parlor trick of framing their views as the views of the people. The people have many different views, you do not speak for us.
There was no EU wide vote, so you cannot claim "the people" want or do not want things.
It hasn't just been communicated in the founding charta, but communicated and confirmed over and over and over again. [0]. If you have a problem with what member states do, then I actually agree - that's why we need to get rid of that layer!
I never claimed your opinion didn't exist, I just called you out for trying to frame your opinion as the one of "the people".
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.
reply