Post by Tamrin on Apr 26, 2009 19:25:40 GMT 10
Do countries with more in terms of welfare and health care systems generally suffer lower living standards? Do countries which don't have such systems suffer higher crime rates, as the destitute struggle to survive one way or another? Is there a link to prison populations? Would it be cheaper to provide income support than to keep a person in prison? Is there a moralistic, punitive element of punishing the victims in countries which withhold such support, despite any case for cost advantages? What are the effects on health, homelessness and families? Are unemployment rates significantly higher in countries with more benefits?
In my job I deal with the long-term unemployed. Among them are the bad, the mad and the sad. Some of them are bludgers (or try to be), in some others I see my own self staring back at me - as if there, but for the grace of god, go I. Even for thewould-be bludgers, who see the welfare safety net as a hammock, I would rather see them in receipt of some benefit because, without it they will, indeed they must, find some way of surviving, at even greater public expence (crime costs the community much more than it raises).
As things stand here, if, after three months of their own efforts, the unemployed are neither earning or learning (or have some medical or other legitimate excuse), they take part in intensive job search and then in Work for the Dole, firstly part-time and then, after another period of intensive job search, full-time thereafter. After three breaches in a twelve month period they are taken off benefits for eight weeks (likewise for every single subsequent breach in the same period). The Dole itself is well below the poverty line. On full-time Work for the Dole recipients get an extra twenty dollars to cover their travel costs to and from their assigned projects. All this and Australia is regarded as being generous in its benefits!?
How does this compare with the U.S. and other models?
In my job I deal with the long-term unemployed. Among them are the bad, the mad and the sad. Some of them are bludgers (or try to be), in some others I see my own self staring back at me - as if there, but for the grace of god, go I. Even for thewould-be bludgers, who see the welfare safety net as a hammock, I would rather see them in receipt of some benefit because, without it they will, indeed they must, find some way of surviving, at even greater public expence (crime costs the community much more than it raises).
As things stand here, if, after three months of their own efforts, the unemployed are neither earning or learning (or have some medical or other legitimate excuse), they take part in intensive job search and then in Work for the Dole, firstly part-time and then, after another period of intensive job search, full-time thereafter. After three breaches in a twelve month period they are taken off benefits for eight weeks (likewise for every single subsequent breach in the same period). The Dole itself is well below the poverty line. On full-time Work for the Dole recipients get an extra twenty dollars to cover their travel costs to and from their assigned projects. All this and Australia is regarded as being generous in its benefits!?
How does this compare with the U.S. and other models?