Australian Benefits Card

Procrastastudy

I was watching on the news there about the Ausies implementing a new scheme whereby people on social welfare are given a card rather than cash. The scheme has been running for a while but is now being made mandatory.

I wondered what people's thoughts are on this. I'm personally quite in favour of it and would actually go further such as having groceries delivered and see the state taking a more active role in people's lives who are on long term social welfare.

I realise that every system can be got around but simply handing cash to people with obvious issues does seem to be a bit of a cop out.

Thoughts?

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I was watching on the news there about the Ausies implementing a new scheme whereby people on social welfare are given a card rather than cash. The scheme has been running for a while but is now being made mandatory.

I wondered what people's thoughts are on this. I'm personally quite in favour of it and would actually go further such as having groceries delivered and see the state taking a more active role in people's lives who are on long term social welfare.

I realise that every system can be got around but simply handing cash to people with obvious issues does seem to be a bit of a cop out.

Thoughts?

Personally I'd be more in favour of the whole food stamps thing. While people on SW would scoff at this suggestion (and I can see why it would feel degrading), it would save a lot of money going to people who don't need it, or are using it for drugs, holidays or whatever. Can't see anything like that ever being introduced here though.

Procrastastudy

I should have addressed the degrading point - I'm not suggesting that people who have just been unlucky and lost their jobs should be on the scheme. But I do think that a certain amount of humiliation (for want of a better term) is a reasonable trade off to ensuring people get help and that public money is going to the right place.

P. Breathnach

Procrastastudy wrote: »

... I'm not suggesting that people who have just been unlucky and lost their jobs should be on the scheme.

Then who should? What about people who have just been unlucky after leaving school or college, and not yet found jobs?

But I do think that a certain amount of humiliation (for want of a better term) is a reasonable trade off to ensuring people get help and that public money is going to the right place.

You could also require them to wear a pink armband whenever they venture out in public. Then we could all watch out to make sure that they are suitably miserable.

Procrastastudy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Then who should? What about people who have just been unlucky after leaving school or college, and not yet found jobs?

Anyone not on the non-means tested benefit.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You could also require them to wear a pink armband whenever they venture out in public. Then we could all watch out to make sure that they are suitably miserable.

Gave my opinion on this above.

The Corinthian

deccurley wrote: »

Personally I'd be more in favour of the whole food stamps thing.

We tried this, to a limited extent; we had (I think they were phased out) butter vouchers. Problem is that the moment such alternative currencies appear, you get them exchanged on the black market for cash - at least this is what I remember back in the early to mid nineties, when this scheme was in use.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

But I do think that a certain amount of humiliation (for want of a better term) is a reasonable trade off to ensuring people get help and that public money is going to the right place.

If your aim is to 'humiliate' or otherwise encourage people to get a job, then this doesn't work very well. The reason is that those who would be humiliated by something like this are actively looking for jobs, while those who are work shy, often live in areas where being unemployed is a way of life - making use of such currency par for the course.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

If your aim is to 'humiliate' or otherwise encourage people to get a job, then this doesn't work very well. The reason is that those who would be humiliated by something like this are actively looking for jobs, while those who are work shy, often live in areas where being unemployed is a way of life - making use of such currency par for the course.

I think you misunderstand want I am trying to convey. I am not in favour of trying to actively humiliate or shame people. I do think that this scheme would have that side effect, however. That is a trade-off I am stating I would be comfortable with personally.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I think you misunderstand want I am trying to convey. I am not in favour of trying to actively humiliate or shame people. I do think that this scheme would have that side effect, however. That is a trade-off I am stating I would be comfortable with personally.

A trade-off with what? From what I can see the benefits of such a scheme would be negligible and not justify the additional administrative costs.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

A trade-off with what? From what I can see the benefits of such a scheme would be negligible and not justify the additional administrative costs.

Trade-off as in humiliating people is a negative consequence. While I wasn't clear the first time I'm not sure how you've missed this the second unless your assumptions of what I am saying is perhaps clouding judgments of it? I'm not trying to be rude there although it may sound so.

I'm also aware the administrative costs would initially be higher. Overall though I believe it would be of benefit to society. I think investing in making sure people on long term benefit are in the best position to find employment would have a knock on effect in many areas including crime, health and of course getting people off of social welfare.

Of course other things would need to change most notably people should not be worse off working - this is especially prevalent when looking at sigle parent families.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Trade-off as in humiliating people is a negative consequence. While I wasn't clear the first time I'm not sure how you've missed this the second unless your assumptions of what I am saying is perhaps clouding judgments of it? I'm not trying to be rude there although it may sound so.

No, I'm looking at it from a utilitarian viewpoint. If 'humiliating' people encourages people to take up reasonable job offers that they would otherwise voluntarily reject, then that is an acceptable means to an end.

The trade off is the cost of implementing such a policy versus its effectiveness in achieving that end. As I already mooted, I don't believe it will be very effective, but instead will come with a cost. Whether people should be 'humiliated' or not hasn't even entered my calculations here - that's a separate discussion, outside the scope of a utilitarian assessment.

I should note that I have used the caveat of "reasonable job offers". This is because I think we can presume that there does have to be some limit to the job offers people should accept. What should be considered 'reasonable' is another discussion.

I'm also aware the administrative costs would initially be higher.

Actually, while the initial implementation costs will be largely a once-off, they will still remain higher than simply giving them cash, even in the long term. Not that this makes that much of a difference - even if there are no long-term costs, if there's little or no benefit to a policy, then the cost typically outweighs that benefit.

Overall though I believe it would be of benefit to society. I think investing in making sure people on long term benefit are in the best position to find employment would have a knock on effect in many areas including crime, health and of course getting people off of social welfare.

You've not made a case that this would in any way go twoards "making sure people on long term benefit are in the best position to find employment", the only possible benefit is to use negative reinforcement to encourage people to take up reasonable job offers that they would otherwise voluntarily reject.

I say this because there are often tendencies to be emotive on this subject and implement policies that we may feel are 'just' but in reality achieve nothing practical (indeed, they just cost money). If you feel a policy will makes sure the long-term unemployed are not too 'comfortable' and thus causes them to take up reasonable job offers they would otherwise reject, then you need to make a case for it.

If you feel a policy is required simply so that long-term unemployed are not too 'comfortable', without any further purpose then that's not a valid end.

Procrastastudy

I disagree with your assessment but as the system has not been trialled, can of course offer not figures therefore I take your points as a valid opinion.

By investing more money into the administration of the social welfare system I, personally, believe that people with individual problems can be addressed. There is a plethora of issues from serious drug and alcohol problems to simply not being able to put together a CV to pure out and out laziness. I also believe by ensuring the money is spent on what it should be spent on we would cut down on fraud. Your point is taken that any system you implement can be circumvented.

What is your definition of a reasonable job offer? Surely any job offering minimum wage, that meets the criteria of not putting someone into a worse position than they are on state benefits is a reasonable job?

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I disagree with your assessment but as the system has not been trialled, can of course offer not figures therefore I take your points as a valid opinion.

It's not figures you're really missing, it's a practical case. Essentially, you're saying the following:

1. Make being on long term benefits less 'comfortable'.
2. ...
3. People on long term benefit are in the best position to find employment.

You don't really explain the middle step that would link one to the other, so I simply sought to suggest the only possible practical benefit of such a policy and found it wanting. If there are any other possible practical benefits, I'm open to hearing them, but the case has to be made first.

By investing more money into the administration of the social welfare system I, personally, believe that people with individual problems can be addressed. There is a plethora of issues from serious drug and alcohol problems to simply not being able to put together a CV to pure out and out laziness. I also believe by ensuring the money is spent on what it should be spent on we would cut down on fraud. Your point is taken that any system you implement can be circumvented.

You're digressing. This discussion is about one specific policy, and whether it makes sense to implement it. Discussing totally different policies is simply changing the subject.

What is your definition of a reasonable job offer? Surely any job offering minimum wage, that meets the criteria of not putting someone into a worse position than they are on state benefits is a reasonable job?

My definition is irrelevant as I only added the caveat because otherwise extreme scenarios such as the one falsely reported by the Telegraph, whereby a woman in Germany was threatened with loss of benefits if she did not take up a job offer from a brothel, could be argued to be acceptable.

But in itself, such a definition is part of a different discussion, not the present topic.

P. Breathnach

There is no point in the current economic circumstances in putting pressure on welfare dependents to find jobs. There isn't a large pool of unfilled vacancies. So who should employers take on: the relatively work-shy, or those who are keen to get into employment?

The time to tighten up is when an economy is close to full employment

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is no point in the current economic circumstances in putting pressure on welfare dependents to find jobs.

I disagree. The current economic climate may have increased involuntary unemployment, but that does not mean that voluntary unemployment has vanished or not increased (dropping salaries in a recession naturally affects the opportunity cost of abandoning benefits).

The problem, be it in the present economic climate or during a boom, is that we tend to emotively only look at the stick rather than the carrot, and while the stick can be a useful tool to decrease that opportunity cost, the carrot can often be more efficient.

As I said, from a purely utilitarian point of view, I've no problem with a policy that uses negative reinforcement to encourage them to seek and accept employment. But only if it makes sense to do so, not because of some knee-jerk reaction.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not figures you're really missing, it's a practical case. Essentially, you're saying the following:

1. Make being on long term benefits less 'comfortable'.
2. ...
3. People on long term benefit are in the best position to find employment.

You don't really explain the middle step that would link one to the other, so I simply sought to suggest the only possible practical benefit of such a policy and found it wanting. If there are any other possible practical benefits, I'm open to hearing them, but the case has to be made first.

Thats not what I've said

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're digressing. This discussion is about one specific policy, and whether it makes sense to implement it. Discussing totally different policies is simply changing the subject.

Its part of the original suggestion

The Corinthian wrote: »

My definition is irrelevant as I only added the caveat because otherwise extreme scenarios such as the one falsely reported by the Telegraph, whereby a woman in Germany was threatened with loss of benefits if she did not take up a job offer from a brothel, could be argued to be acceptable.

But in itself, such a definition is part of a different discussion, not the present topic.

Prostitution on that scale is not legal in this country.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Thats not what I've said

It's a little difficult to follow what you're saying though. You begin with suggesting that an unemployment card system for benefits transfers, such as that introduced in Australia, is better than simply giving the unemployed cash benefits. Somehow this jumps to it somehow increasing "investing more money into the administration of the social welfare system" - the original idea doesn't really lead to the other unless you're looking to spin the discussion out into a more general one and I only entered the discussion to address the former.

Prostitution on that scale is not legal in this country.

The point I was making is everyone will agree that there are limits to what is a reasonable job offer, and illustrating it by pointing out an extreme example that we would all (hopefully) agree upon, regardless if it is relevant to Ireland or not. Defining what is reasonable would be further widening the discussion which may already be too wide if it's no longer about the Australian policy.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a little difficult to follow what you're saying though. You begin with suggesting that an unemployment card system for benefits transfers, such as that introduced in Australia, is better than simply giving the unemployed cash benefits. Somehow this jumps to it somehow increasing "investing more money into the administration of the social welfare system" - the original idea doesn't really lead to the other unless you're looking to spin the discussion out into a more general one and I only entered the discussion to address the former.

The point I was making is everyone will agree that there are limits to what is a reasonable job offer, and illustrating it by pointing out an extreme example that we would all (hopefully) agree upon, regardless if it is relevant to Ireland or not. Defining what is reasonable would be further widening the discussion which may already be too wide if it's no longer about the Australian policy.

You are the one attempting to spin by continuously trying to limit the conversation. If you've added all you wish to address thanks for the input. Apologies that you didn't understand the point I was trying to convey I'll attempt to make my posts more clear in the future.

The Corinthian

Procrastastudy wrote: »

You are the one attempting to spin by continuously trying to limit the conversation.

No I addressed a point and rather than rebut this you've repeatedly sought to widen the discussion so you don't have to by discussing things that have nothing to do with the point I addressed - it's called digression.

If you've added all you wish to address thanks for the input. Apologies that you didn't understand the point I was trying to convey I'll attempt to make my posts more clear in the future.

Look, even if you want this to be a wider discussion on dealing with long term unemployment, you still need to put some structure on this discussion if you intend to direct it, otherwise it will simply become a meaningless brain storming session where everything is only discussed superficially and without critical analysis.

Procrastastudy

The Corinthian wrote: »

No I addressed a point and rather than rebut this you've repeatedly sought to widen the discussion so you don't have to by discussing things that have nothing to do with the point I addressed - it's called digression.

Look, even if you want this to be a wider discussion on dealing with long term unemployment, you still need to put some structure on this discussion if you intend to direct it, otherwise it will simply become a meaningless brain storming session where everything is only discussed superficially and without critical analysis.

As I have said several times you have misunderstood the direction I was going. As I have also pointed out this is likely my fault. I'm not really wanting to turn this into a back and forth between you and I so I'll leave our dialogue here.

Thanks again for your input.

dvae

Procrastastudy wrote: »

But I do think that a certain amount of humiliation (for want of a better term) is a reasonable trade off to ensuring people get help and that public money is going to the right place.

the current rate of unemployment is at 14.9%. do you think its that high because
nobody wants to work? according to forecasts the future dose not look bright
either, meaning that the majority of that 14% are going to end up long term unemployed through no
fault of there own.

how can you give these people vouchers or have groceries delivered to their
homes to humiliate them despite there being no jobs out there?

sure there are people out there who don't want to work, but there are those who
are going to find them selfs long term unemployed in the next year or two, despite
walking the streets looking for a job.
how will we be able to tell the difference between the two?

Procrastastudy

As I've stated over and over this isn't about that but you raise an interesting point. I walked though the city yesterday - the amount of jobs on offer in cafes, bars and restaurants was staggering. While I relaise its might be different story in other parts of Ireland it seems that, in Dublin at least, some of the 14.9% aren't doing all they might.