Have you ever received unemployment benefits?

[Arwon]

It's one of the forms of welfare that's the hardest to argue against, simply for the fact it covers those dealt bad cards by fate, and has little to do with one's personal qualities of laziness, hard work, etc. I consider it to be one of the better forms of welfare, as it actually seems reasonable - caring for those who are down on their luck - rather than being based on insane concepts like "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps(when you can't afford the bootstraps to begin with!)", or "give people everything", or "it's part of human rights."

What are the forms of welfare that are "easy" to argue against? I'm actually genuinely curious because in this country, "dole bludgers" cop plenty of flack despite being only 6% of the welfare budget (the biggest are disability, pensions and veterans, in that order).

 

[Tani Coyote]

What are the forms of welfare that are "easy" to argue against? I'm actually genuinely curious because in this country, "dole bludgers" cop plenty of flack despite being only 6% of the welfare budget (the biggest are disability, pensions and veterans, in that order).

Free pre-college schooling regardless of a person's willingness to learn is a pretty damned good one to argue against(I call this welfare since it is a form of redistribution by allowing access to services regardless of ability to pay). I think you should only be allowed to get free schooling if you actually want to learn. Otherwise, go work at 7/11 or whatever.

Getting the parents to actually give a rat's ass about educating their children is also one way to minimise this issue. Welfare reform should be just as much about the people receiving it as it is about the program itself.



Universal healthcare for people who purposely harm their health is also a good form of welfare to argue against. If you eat a burger a day or routinely smoke cigarettes, you shouldn't have any coverage for obesity-related issues and cancer(provided the cancer can be linked to the product, anyway), respectively.



How about foodstamps being able to be used for anything besides the most basic, healthy of foods? I want to see bread, vegetables, fruits, milk, etc. on a food stamp family's table. Not a single damned ounce of chocolate or sugar. If you want sweets, that should be paid for out of pocket. The government should not subsidise bad habits, and eating unhealthy food is one of them.



How about - on the other side of the coin - the practical welfare the wealthiest of the wealthy get, through bailouts and massive unconditional tax cuts, instead of tax cuts for actually fostering growth? While some may defend bailouts on the principle that many people will go unemployed without the existence of the big companies, would it not make more sense to bailout small businesses instead, who provide more jobs altogether than the individual massive companies?



Those are just a few of the welfare policies that are "Does. Not. Compute." with me.

 

[JollyRoger]

Paupers' graves are the ones that get me. On the dole for eternity. Lazy bums.

 

[Arwon]

Ah ok. This is obviously gonna be a rather Australia/rest of the developed world-centric response because I don't have much idea about these aspects of the US system, but here goes.

Seems like you have a rather funny idea of "easy to argue against" because those first two are, compared to any concievable welfare payment, harder to argue against. In most countries which can afford welfare systems, those things are never seriously disputed by anybody mainstream and they're not generally considered a welfare program but investment in a public good with demonstrable returns that work best when every single person has access for a number of reasons.

Foodstamps... I can't think of an Australian analogue. I think most people would see them as pretty patronising and paternalistic in their current form, without imposing more conditionality on them. Then again, we have a high enough minimum wage and benefits payments that virtually nobody is structurally both employed and unable to feed themselves, so maybe foodstamps just don't make sense in that context.

I'd also point out that that unhealthy crap is frequently cheaper, more convenient and more available to people than healthy food, that eating habits are conditioned by upbringing, and that healthy food is also frequently more difficult to prepare. It's actually a little unfair to take such a one-dimensionally blame-laying and choice-restricting approach, making life harder for recipients doesn't actually change the set of conditions they face. The relationship between crappy eating habits and poverty in the developed world is well established and the solution is just not as simple as "deny choice to people". Structures of food subsidy, supply, marketing and retail all play their role.

Also, there's an error in your argument about subsidising bad habits. If the government is doing it with a reduced-liquidity form of payment like foodstamps (they're essentially income supplements which can only be used on certain things), then the government is subsidising bad habits every time it gives people any payment with absolute liquidity (ie, cash as an income supplement), whether it's a pension, a disability payment, unemployment benefits, student support benefits, anything. People could, and do, spend those payments on anything!* Even if it's something like rent vouchers or fuel subsidies, that reduced expenditure in another area just frees up other income to be spent recklessly.

For reference, I think the unsupportable welfare programs are the things which don't actually properly target the needy - things like an electricity or fuel subsidy for everyone, or a family payment that goes to all families, or a rebate on stuff that only middle class people and above ever buy (private health insurance, for instance), or student benefits that kids living with their parents manage to get.

*actually there's a psychology/behavioural economics argument called "hyperbolic discounting" which explains how people stay poor in the rich world not because of moral flaws but because of a simple problem with time preferences - a relative weighting of short and long term incentives that leads to catastrophically bad decision-making. It is an argument for why it wouldn't be paternalistic but empowering to implement many more reduced-liquidity payments like vouchers and foodstamps. It's also an argument that, to some degree, we just have to accept that some people just make some terrible decisions they can't help but make, and it keeps them poor, but we should support them anyway because that's what a functioning society does.

But that's a bit of a distraction here!

 

[warpus]

I got welfare for a bit less than a year, right after I graduated from University.

It REALLY helped.. all my credit cards were maxed out (I was using them to buy books, pay rent, etc.), I had no income, and the lease on my apartment in Waterloo wasn't up yet (had to sign a year long lease)

It was HARD to find a job, and this really helped me get through a rough patch.. without it I would have been SCREWED.

 

[IglooDame]

I've never been on unemployment insurance or whatever we're calling it, I've been actually unemployed for about two months at one point and chose not to collect any. Though a few of you might consider a decade in the Navy as "living on the dole" I suppose.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

No why should I? I have two arms and two legs. I've been unemployed though, but didn't feel like I should take from the state when I could just work if I wanted money. Eventually, I ran out of money and got a new job, but I never even considdered taking from those who worked.

Perhaps your system works differently, but here you pay a portion of your wage/salary into a mandatory employment insurance program. You are entitled to that for having "purchased" the insurance. It is like refusing the money from the insurance company after getting in a car accident. Kinda silly.

@warpus. Your case is a good argument for the system.

 

[warpus]

I will add that I was forced to attend bi-weekly (or weekly? I forget) meetings with other people who were on welfare. On one hand it made me feel pathetic, but on the other the people running the show really did make me feel like they were trying to help me find a job.

I also had to prove that I was looking for work, on a regular basis.

I can see how some people might still find ways to abuse such a system, but we kinda need it.

 

[REDY]

I am milking my state by getting scholarship. Its problem of system, not mine.

 

[illram]

Free pre-college schooling regardless of a person's willingness to learn is a pretty damned good one to argue against(I call this welfare since it is a form of redistribution by allowing access to services regardless of ability to pay). I think you should only be allowed to get free schooling if you actually want to learn. Otherwise, go work at 7/11 or whatever.

...


Universal healthcare for people who purposely harm their health is also a good form of welfare to argue against. If you eat a burger a day or routinely smoke cigarettes, you shouldn't have any coverage for obesity-related issues and cancer(provided the cancer can be linked to the product, anyway), respectively.

You would wind up paying more for these people if they weren't provided these resources.

 

[otago]

Are there any American conservatives ? chatting to a bloke when I was in the states a while back we got onto the subject of welfare, he was from North/ South Dakota.
I asked him if he was against corporate welfare he said he was, then I mentioned farm subsidies, damn it was funny, he jerked up stating but they are needed by farmers, of course I mentioned that the poor getting welfare believed they needed it as well.

It does make one wonder if there are any conservatives left when they all seem happy to take handouts they have not earned.
Compared to NZ farmers too many American ones are screaming socialists.

 

[Masada]

Foodstamps... I can't think of an Australian analogue. I think most people would see them as pretty patronising and paternalistic in their current form, without imposing more conditionality on them.

Basics cards?

I asked him if he was against corporate welfare he said he was, then I mentioned farm subsidies, damn it was funny, he jerked up stating but they are needed by farmers, of course I mentioned that the poor getting welfare believed they needed it as well.

Really, no-one in the Antipodes can laugh about corporate welfare or make jokes about it with a straight face.

Compared to NZ farmers too many American ones are screaming socialists.

Ours were as well. 50% tariffs, minimum prices, quotas, import bans and subsidized government purchases were all in force not thirty years ago.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah you're completely right. Though most people will never have run into Basics Cards, they're a NT only thing aren't they?

 

[sanabas]

Foodstamps... I can't think of an Australian analogue. I think most people would see them as pretty patronising and paternalistic in their current form, without imposing more conditionality on them. Then again, we have a high enough minimum wage and benefits payments that virtually nobody is structurally both employed and unable to feed themselves, so maybe foodstamps just don't make sense in that context.

The closest analogue I've encountered is the Salvos giving out $70 Woolies/Safeway cards. Think it's a max of one every two months, it can't be used for ciggies or grog (but it can pay for groceries and then let you use the grocery money on ciggies or grog), there's no other restrictions in terms of what you can buy. I got one last year when I was newly homeless, trying to avoid another hospital trip and had some unexpected bills for moving the remainder of my stuff from old house to storage. I was not a fan of getting it, but was persuaded by case worker that yes, I did deserve this sort of help.

For reference, I think the unsupportable welfare programs are the things which don't actually properly target the needy - things like an electricity or fuel subsidy for everyone, or a family payment that goes to all families, or a rebate on stuff that only middle class people and above ever buy (private health insurance, for instance), or student benefits that kids living with their parents manage to get.

Yep. The health insurance rebate is ridiculous. When Howard introduced it, all the providers jacked up their prices and started advertising how they were now cheaper*, with the * small print reading (with 30% govt rebate). There was virtually no increase in the number of people taking it up.

My own personal peeve is the payrise for having a kid, particularly the first one. It's hard to remove, because there's genuine cases that would be severely impacted. But I have known a few people who have looked at being unemployed and being forced to make the effort to pretend to look for work vs being on a single parent pension and being free to not bother, and figured that's a great deal. Extra ciggy money, rellos can look after the kid, no more filling in jobseeker forms, etc.

Some of the people I saw qualifying for first home buyer grants boggled my mind a bit too. Also the money that *everyone* received if their house had gone in the 2003? Canberra bushfires. Even if they had lost a $2 million house, still had another couple of houses they rented out, and all of it insured to buggery. Or if it was the 4th rental house that they lost, they got handed a couple of grand. It was 12 months after our house had burnt down in a non-bushfire related fire, we'd lost virtually everything, and the sum total of assistance we received was some free stuff from the recycling/2nd hand place at the tip. And that was because we got yelled at for being barefoot, and explained why, so they didn't charge us for the $50 worth of furniture we got.


Personally, I have briefly received unemployment stuff, in the time between losing both jobs because the going nuts was getting out of control, and beginning to receive disability stuff. Stuff needs to be policed better, it is probably too easy to get disability, and it is certainly too easy to remain on the dole long term/too easy to scam centrelink. The way they treat part time/casual work, particularly for those on disability, has improved in recent years. But IMO there is still too much disincentive to work. Lowering the disincentive would cost more short term because payments to part-time/casual workers would rise, but long term I think it helps more people move off benefits and back to the workforce.

 

[Arwon]

I'd accept the private healthcare rebate if it was means tested.

 

[Masada]

Yeah you're completely right. Though most people will never have run into Basics Cards, they're a NT only thing aren't they?

There's a push by the Feds. to roll it out Australia wide. I think its an inevitability. The Australian psyche when dealing with the unemployed is essentially dualistic. One the one hand, Australians tend to deeply sympathise with the genuine unemployed drawing benefits as a means of bridging the gap between the jobs. These are the people that the system was originally designed to support and most continue to see it as an essential function of the state. Conversely, Australians loathe dole bludgers, people who abuse the intent and spirit of the system and in doing so cost both the state and the taxpayer money and undermine the, albeit frayed, social compact. Australia isn't unique in this. The Basics Card does two things very well. It assuages the they're buying LCD TV and stuff on welfare while we can't sentiment by forcing the unemployed to purchase essentials. Whilst retaining, in large part, the over-all integrity of the system. It also feeds rather nicely into a really paternalistic sense that most Australians tend to walk around with and which the government tends to like to tap into (even if it doesn't do much more than make hollow gestures with it).

But I have known a few people who have looked at being unemployed and being forced to make the effort to pretend to look for work vs being on a single parent pension and being free to not bother, and figured that's a great deal. Extra ciggy money, rellos can look after the kid, no more filling in jobseeker forms, etc.

Imagine a story like that on A Current Affair. There would be indignation across the nation. Now, imagine if the average Australian worker could make sure that things like that couldn't happen. Enter welfare quarantining.

Stuff needs to be policed better, it is probably too easy to get disability, and it is certainly too easy to remain on the dole long term/too easy to scam centrelink.

Disability is also a source of rage for many, fortunately it is somewhat insulated by the dole bludgers dynamic. Once that falls of the radar courtesy of welfare quarantining I expect to see that become another fixture of the popular Australian political landscape.

The way they treat part time/casual work, particularly for those on disability, has improved in recent years. But IMO there is still too much disincentive to work. Lowering the disincentive would cost more short term because payments to part-time/casual workers would rise, but long term I think it helps more people move off benefits and back to the workforce.

I hope that will happen. I suspect however that like most Australian government initiatives of the past 20 years it won't. The far more likely result is a cathartic assault against those drawing disabilities payments, with a few show trials, some minor practical modification of the laws and a whole lot of puff. Rudd's health reform redux.

 

[Hakim]

Have you ever received unemployment benefits? Whatever you want to call it - The Dole, jobseekers allowance etc. - have you ever received it?

I'm interested in people's attitudes to it in different countries. How do people view those ''on the dole'' in your country? How do you feel about it? How do we stop people abusing the system? Should there even be a system?

I have, for a full year, after six years of employment. Then I got a job in another city for four years and was "kicked" from that right before Christmas last year (technically I'm still employed for a few days more) and so I will soon live on unemployment benefits again.

I don't think the system is that much abused here, at least I have not seen any newspaper bring it up. If unemployed don't apply for jobs they loose the benefit. If they go to an interview and don't make reasonable effort to get the job they'll loose it as well. This is checked by simply calling the employer and ask about the interview, if the applicant seemed interested and serious (BTW the case where a Bosnian immigrant didn't get a job because he refused to shake hands with a women was an example of this. The issue was actually not about the company not hiring him for this, it was about the way he immediately got cut off from unemployment benefits when it was found out, that's what was brought to court).

One positive side of having unemployment benefits is that it removes some of the pressure for politicians to save companies from going down. While it's never good that lots of people loose their job for social reasons, it can't be argued that they will fare ill economically to any large degree. This was tested recently here when SAAB was about to go bust. All to the end, the government could resist demands to save the company by some generous loan or other aid. I think that governments in countries that are tough on unemployment often end up saving companies and industries by loans, subsidies and various protectionist measures.

 

[Mise]

It's off topic, but I saw a nice little chart comparing the relative level of farm subsidies given by the government vs the food pyramid recommended by the government...

Spoiler :

(I think this is the original source: http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html )

 

[kosiosko 1]

on the food cards it should be noted that in Australia they are given out by charities, salvos, St Vinnie's etc, a dozen different religious groups do them , plus food parcels , emergency accommodation cheques, gas payments etc. and free meals programs, all on top of the government Cash payment. But if you look at their client base its mostly people on disability pensions,( mental illness or long term drug and alcohol abuse etc.) most people on unemployment would tend to use them once or twice then stop, Families tend to use them for a while when their cash runs out shortly after being retrenched but don't make up long term lists. About 20 years ago the institutions were closed in favour of community based care programs.(for mental illness/drug and alcohol) unfortunately they closed the institutions first , only now are suitable housing and support groups finally being put in place in the community, and their resources are stretched to the limit. People typical go through 3-4 programs before breaking the cycle, such as in youth homelessness/drug/alcohol problems. It appears a band aid solution but all the NGOs have very good long term programmes in place, and out reach aimed towards long term solutions. Many long term unemployed are now referred to intensive programs to help them get job ready(whilst continuing to receive payments)The funding for these religious based groups,mostly, comes from government, by competitive tender processes.

 

[Tani Coyote]

You would wind up paying more for these people if they weren't provided these resources.

How so?