Bigger welfare payouts make people want a job more

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bigger welfare payouts make people want a job more

Generous welfare benefits make people more likely to want to work, not less

Date:
March 31, 2015

Source:
SAGE Publications

Summary:
Generous welfare benefit levels make people who are not in employment more likely to want to work rather than less, new research suggests. "Many scholars and commentators fear that generous social benefits threaten the sustainability of the welfare state due to work norm erosion, disincentives to work and dependency cultures," the researchers say. "This article concludes that there are few signs that groups with traditionally weaker bonds to the labor market are less motivated to work if they live in generous and activating welfare states."

Exerpt:
Survey responses from 19,000 people in 18 European countries, including the UK, showed that "the notion that big welfare states are associated with widespread cultures of dependency, or other adverse consequences of poor short term incentives to work, receives little support."
Sociologists Dr Kjetil van der Wel and Dr Knut Halvorsen examined responses to the statement 'I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need the money' put to the interviewees for the European Social Survey in 2010.
In a paper published in the journal Work, Employment and Society they compare this response with the amount the country spent on welfare benefits and employment schemes, while taking into account the population differences between states.
The researchers, of Oslo and Akershus University College, Norway, found that the more a country paid to the unemployed or sick, and invested in employment schemes, the more its likely people were likely to agree with the statement, whether employed or not.
They found that almost 80% of people in Norway, which pays the highest benefits of the 18 countries, agreed with the statement. By contrast in Estonia, one of least generous, only around 40% did.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150331074345.htm

lol another conservative lie goes down in flames.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I'd like to see the

 I'd like to see the average level of education of the people for those countries.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how that would

I don't see how that would be relevant. If the average education level is less in one country than another, then so to will be the demand for a higher level of education.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't see how

Vastet wrote:
I don't see how that would be relevant. If the average education level is less in one country than another, then so to will be the demand for a higher level of education.

I can't imagine that giving more benefits to people in America would help things. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That assumes the majority of

That assumes the majority of people on assistance have always been and will always be on assistance. I've never seen any data to suggest that is even remotely true. I'm sure there are lots of people who fit into that category, but I'm equally certain that most people are only on assistance as long as they need to be. Especially in the US, where being on assistance carries with it a stigma that makes one a pariah with a good 50% of the population.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I don't see how that would be relevant. If the average education level is less in one country than another, then so to will be the demand for a higher level of education.

I can't imagine that giving more benefits to people in America would help things. 

IMO the largest problem with welfare benefits in the US is that they decrease if you work. If you are going to help someone, it needs to be enough to cover the basics and enough to cover expenses to find a job or start your own work. If you immediately lose that support because you made a dollar, it actively discourages trying. Of course, government is a shitty way to assist people anyway. Direct peer to peer assistance, where the giver takes an active interest in making sure the person has the means as well as the support to get whatever education, funding or other aid to become self supportive is far superior at making sure the aid is sufficient, as well as making sure it isn't simply being abused. We should encourage more personal level charity, instead our system punishes it and in some cases outlaws it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I don't see how that would be relevant. If the average education level is less in one country than another, then so to will be the demand for a higher level of education.

I can't imagine that giving more benefits to people in America would help things. 

IMO the largest problem with welfare benefits in the US is that they decrease if you work. If you are going to help someone, it needs to be enough to cover the basics and enough to cover expenses to find a job or start your own work. If you immediately lose that support because you made a dollar, it actively discourages trying. Of course, government is a shitty way to assist people anyway. Direct peer to peer assistance, where the giver takes an active interest in making sure the person has the means as well as the support to get whatever education, funding or other aid to become self supportive is far superior at making sure the aid is sufficient, as well as making sure it isn't simply being abused. We should encourage more personal level charity, instead our system punishes it and in some cases outlaws it.

Personal charity, I'm quite sure, would be much more effective than a bureaucracy in cases where there is a willing charitable person who truly wishes to help someone get on their feet; but I don't see it functioning well on a large scale. Stupid considerations like attractiveness would weigh heavily, whereas a bureaucracy doesn't have such a bias. Even if you do happen to get a case worker who treats you poorly and assists as little as possible, you have options to get a new one. Case workers are also rotated frequently to prevent both good and bad bias' towards those seeking help to get back on their feet.
There would be no such protections in place if the system depended completely on voluntary participation from the public.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.