The Dole

KCross

Joe prim wrote: »

A point often missed in the great (and interminable) "workfare" debate is that people on the dole, i.e all the forms of welfare available in a modern western state like our own, already have a job. They are consumers, boosting activity in the economy and recycling workers tax money. As a modern consumer society needs consumers to flourish and grow, they are providing a service, regardless of how annoying some members of the "productive" sector may find them, and provided they do not constitute too high a proportion of society, there is really no great need to force them to displace low-level service jobs in the paid economy.

Thats really weird logic. So their job is to recycle my tax money! No thanks.
I'd rather my tax money be spent on providing services.

But I do agree that they shouldnt be forced to do "random" work for it.

The dole should only be a safety net for those who find themselves out of work. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

KCross

Speedwell wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of why the dole is set at the rate it is. If the country thought it would be possible to set it lower and still provide adequately for the needs of someone out of work, it would already be set lower. If you lower the rate of benefit to less than the current benefit, it will create suffering, not employment. Taking away people's ability to pay the rent, the heat, the groceries, and the bus fare or car fuel will not help them get jobs. Job creation creates employment; starvation doesn't. Why not propose to cut government incentives for businesses until they create the badly needed jobs, instead?

I think you misunderstand human nature.

I'm not proposing to set it lower. It can stay the same but it reduces IF you show no intentions to get back to work. That initial reduction(which is a sliding gradual scale over 3 years!!!) is the incentive to do something about your situation.

If you know that the dole will remain and you can survive on it at the 100% rate you have no incentive to retrain or accept jobs that are available.

Of course its not as simple as that in practice. There will be hardship situations and we need to have empathy here but a system that incentivises you stay on the dole is not the way to go either.

Speedwell

KCross wrote: »

I think you misunderstand human nature.

I'm not proposing to set it lower. It can stay the same but it reduces IF you show no intentions to get back to work. That initial reduction(which is a sliding gradual scale over 3 years!!!) is the incentive to do something about your situation.

If you know that the dole will remain and you can survive on it at the 100% rate you have no incentive to retrain or accept jobs that are available.

Of course its not as simple as that in practice. There will be hardship situations and we need to have empathy here but a system that incentivises you stay on the dole is not the way to go either.

If you think that making people suffer is the way to incentivise them to become better people, I think you are the one who misunderstands human nature.

KCross

Speedwell wrote: »

If you think that making people suffer is the way to incentivise them to become better people, I think you are the one who misunderstands human nature.

I'd rather you didnt put words in my mouth. Im not talking about making them better people or making them suffer.

I'm talking about incentives.

Whats wrong with giving someone full dole for a year and then reducing it slowly if they have shown no intention of contributing to society?

Upfront the person on the dole knows that if they do nothing for the next year that they will receive less money the following year so thats their incentive to do something(retrain, find another job). If they decide to do nothing then that is their decision. Its not making them suffer. They decided that for themselves.

Speedwell

KCross wrote: »

I'd rather you didnt put words in my mouth. Im not talking about making them better people or making them suffer.

I'm talking about incentives.

Then you are indeed talking about punishing people until they behave better. Calling it "incentives" instead of "punishment" does not change that fact. Forcing people to live on reduced benefits is punishing them, and punishments are intended to make people suffer until they reform.

dr.fuzzenstein

KCross wrote: »

Thats really weird logic. So their job is to recycle my tax money! No thanks.
I'd rather my tax money be spent on providing services.

But I do agree that they shouldnt be forced to do "random" work for it.

The dole should only be a safety net for those who find themselves out of work. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

This phrase pisses me the fcuk off.
A person I know was made redundant after the crash. That person had difficulties finding work (office admin), because at first there were no jobs (question from a naive person, how does it work if there are more people looking for work than jobs?) and now that person has been unemployed for several years, absolutely no one will now hire that person.
So the problem with long term unemployed is that companies take one look at a CV, read as far as "out of work for >1year" and at that point the CV immediately gets balled up unread and thrown in the bin or deleted from the Inbox as it were.
HR people only look for that one line, they look no further and if that person also happens to be nearing 50, that's already 2 criteria were your CV will immediately gets binned without even reading the rest of it.
So, a few years out of work and nearing 50 are 2 immediate red cards that will mean that person will not ever get a job again. Lifestyle choice my hole. I personally work, so I'm not talking about me, but I know people in that situation. They would jump at any chance to do a job, but they are simply not getting hired by anyone.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

Do you have a plan to provide a supply of such low wage/skill jobs sufficient to offer one to each recipient? People with chronic issues that make them unemployable, well, to put it bluntly, make very poor employees. Without services that make them employable, this is a bad plan.

You define people as unemployable and ask me if I have a plan to employ them. I can't help thinking you're just being a contrarian

Speedwell wrote:

If the jobs need to be done, they are worth paying a market rate for. Glamour doesn't have anything to do with it.

Not a always. The dole is supposed to sustain people while they're between jobs. It's not supposed to be a career option. This would allow the unemployed person to do some work in exchange for their unemployment benefits. Its not supposed to be a long term solution.

Speedwell wrote:

That isn't an excuse for wage theft. A job is a job. If you employ them, they are employed, and should no longer be regarded as being on the dole (assuming they are in full employment). Pay in exchange for work is a wage, not a social welfare payment.

Of course its not wage theft any more than receiving money for being unemployed is theft from the state.

You seen to have missed that I'm proposing this precisely as work in exchange for social welfare benefits.

On a separate point, it isn't always a bad idea to make up jobs for people. People with learning disabilities can be out competed in the jobs market and are susceptible to becoming dependant on others. It's a great idea for the government to employ people in jobs that are 'nice to have' rather than absolutely necessary jobs. I used street sweeping and aesthetic maintenance s examples if jobs that always need to be done.

Those jobs at ideal jobs to invent to occupy people with learning disabilities or unemployed people on exchange for receiving welfares benefits.

KCross

Speedwell wrote: »

Then you are indeed talking about punishing people until they behave better. Calling it "incentives" instead of "punishment" does not change that fact. Forcing people to live on reduced benefits is punishing them, and punishments are intended to make people suffer until they reform.

hmm. I still think you are twisting my words.

You think the current system is better? Pay full rate even if someone decides they dont want to work?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You define people as unemployable and ask me if I have a plan to employ them. I can't help thinking you're just being a contrarian

You're the one who proposes to employ them, not me.

Not a always. The dole is supposed to sustain people while they're between jobs. It's not supposed to be a career option. This would allow the unemployed person to do some work in exchange for their unemployment benefits. Its not supposed to be a long term solution.

If a job needs to be done, then it's a job, short term or long. Jobs are paid at market rate. Requiring someone to work at a discounted rate is taking advantage of them.

Of course its not wage theft any more than receiving money for being unemployed is theft from the state. You seen to have missed that I'm proposing this precisely as work in exchange for social welfare benefits.

I didn't miss that at all. There is no magic formula whereby doing a job for the state is less valuable than doing the same job for someone else, or whereby an employed jobseeker is worth paying a market rate where an unemployed jobseeker isn't.

On a separate point, it isn't always a bad idea to make up jobs for people. People with learning disabilities can be out competed in the jobs market and are susceptible to becoming dependant on others. It's a great idea for the government to employ people in jobs that are 'nice to have' rather than absolutely necessary jobs. I used street sweeping and aesthetic maintenance s examples if jobs that always need to be done.

Those jobs at ideal jobs to invent to occupy people with learning disabilities or unemployed people on exchange for receiving welfares benefits.

Makework for learning-disabled people is makework only if the job wasn't something that needed doing, or if the learning-disabled person is unable to do the job competently. Otherwise it is a normal job being performed by someone who is capable of doing it.

Godge

Speedwell wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of why the dole is set at the rate it is. If the country thought it would be possible to set it lower and still provide adequately for the needs of someone out of work, it would already be set lower. If you lower the rate of benefit to less than the current benefit, it will create suffering, not employment. Taking away people's ability to pay the rent, the heat, the groceries, and the bus fare or car fuel will not help them get jobs. Job creation creates employment; starvation doesn't. Why not propose to cut government incentives for businesses until they create the badly needed jobs, instead?

Except that isn't how the rate is set. It is set through a politcial process.

KCross

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This phrase pisses me the fcuk off.
A person I know was made redundant after the crash. That person had difficulties finding work (office admin), because at first there were no jobs (question from a naive person, how does it work if there are more people looking for work than jobs?) and now that person has been unemployed for several years, absolutely no one will now hire that person.
So the problem with long term unemployed is that companies take one look at a CV, read as far as "out of work for >1year" and at that point the CV immediately gets balled up unread and thrown in the bin or deleted from the Inbox as it were.
HR people only look for that one line, they look no further and if that person also happens to be nearing 50, that's already 2 criteria were your CV will immediately gets binned without even reading the rest of it.
So, a few years out of work and nearing 50 are 2 immediate red cards that will mean that person will not ever get a job again. Lifestyle choice my hole. I personally work, so I'm not talking about me, but I know people in that situation. They would jump at any chance to do a job, but they are simply not getting hired by anyone.

So obviously that person didnt make a lifestyle choice to be on the dole. I'm not tarring everyone on the dole with that brush.

That person you know is interacting with the state and actively looking for a job so I would fully support that person getting the full dole.

My suggestion of sliding scale would need to allow for that somehow. I'm not a government minister with fully fleshed out plans. There are obviously caveats that have to be dealt with.

Im just putting forward something different to the current system. Of course its not perfect, nor is the current system.

Speedwell

Godge wrote: »

Except that isn't how the rate is set. It is set through a politcial process.

Yes, yes, the country sets the rate through a political process at the minimum rate it can get away with and still be able to look like it's doing its job of taking care of the poor. And?

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

You're the one who proposes to employ them, not me.

I can see you're going out of your way to misunderstand almost everything I said.

What would you propose as a solution to the OP?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can see you're going out of your way to misunderstand almost everything I said.

What would you propose as a solution to the OP?

Did the OP (in this thread) request a solution? If so, I didn't notice such a request. All I see is a bid for agreement with a policy that I have been demonstrating is a false solution to a complaint that unemployed people aren't employed, but still receive money from the state, and the OP finds that objectionable.

LeBash

Speedwell wrote: »

If the job needs to be done, it is a real job worth a monetary value, and the community needs to pay someone its value (job creation), or they are taking real work out of the hands of real workers who need real jobs. That means that if you are requiring someone on the dole to do that work, you are employing them. If you assign a job to someone regardless of whether they can do the job or want to, that is a bad HR practice. If the job doesn't need to be done, then you don't need to yank someone off the dole to do it.

I pass through Finglas everyday. There is a huge amount of graffiti in the area and it has been there years.

Taking a few people and half a day with a graffiti spray and a bit of water would clean up something the councils are not doing and saving the tax payer.

I'm not for screwing people on the dole, but long term unemployment if not tackled is stealing a good livelihood from someone.

I'd like to see the same with prisoners. They should have to do some simple task and pay for part of their stay between 9-5 5 days a week. It would build a routine in the prisoner that they will likely try to keep up when they get out if they see a reward for it.

As it stands in both cases, we hand the people a living with no fixed plan to end the hand outs. It doesn't matter the cost of getting people to work as in the long term it will be saved in payouts, tax income and let's be honest, anti social behaviour should ease up with.

Speedwell

LeBash wrote: »

I pass through Finglas everyday. There is a huge amount of graffiti in the area and it has been there years.

Taking a few people and half a day with a graffiti spray and a bit of water would clean up something the councils are not doing and saving the tax payer.

I'm not for screwing people on the dole, but long term unemployment if not tackled is stealing a good livelihood from someone.

I'd like to see the same with prisoners. They should have to do some simple task and pay for part of their stay between 9-5 5 days a week. It would build a routine in the prisoner that they will likely try to keep up when they get out if they see a reward for it.

As it stands in both cases, we hand the people a living with no fixed plan to end the hand outs. It doesn't matter the cost of getting people to work as in the long term it will be saved in payouts, tax income and let's be honest, anti social behaviour should ease up with.

I know it must be frustrating and irritating to think of all those people having the time of their lives, at the expense of virtuous taxpayers, sitting in prison cells and in front of the TV. But if those jobs need to be done, then maybe the community could, you know, hire people to do them (and maybe some of those people could be, you know, former dole recipients).

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

Did the OP (in this thread) request a solution? If so, I didn't notice such a request. All I see is a bid for agreement with a policy that I have been demonstrating is a false solution to a complaint that unemployed people aren't employed, but still receive money from the state, and the OP finds that objectionable.

No solution at all then?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No solution at all then?

The OP wasn't asking for one.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, a policy of job creation would provide the jobs that a policy of dole recipient punishment would not provide, and a policy of drafting dole recipients at a fraction of the going rate for their employment would not provide.

KCross

Speedwell wrote: »

The OP wasn't asking for one.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, a policy of job creation would provide the jobs that a policy of dole recipient punishment would not provide, and a policy of drafting dole recipients at a fraction of the going rate for their employment would not provide.

You're playing it very safe. No one is going to argue with a job creation policy. Sure everyone wants that and not what the OP is about.

Ultimately the dole is still required even with "full employment" in the country. You wont put forward any dole related policies because its too contentious and you know someone will knock it.

Your dole policy seems to be leave it as is and pay it at full rate regardless.... i'd say if it were up to you you'd raise the dole? Am I wrong?

Speedwell

KCross wrote: »

You're playing it very safe. No one is going to argue with a job creation policy. Sure everyone wants that and not what the OP is about.

Ultimately the dole is still required even with "full employment" in the country. You wont put forward any dole related policies because its too contentious and you know someone will knock it.

Your dole policy seems to be leave it as is and pay it at full rate regardless.... i'd say if it were up to you you'd raise the dole? Am I wrong?

Nobody is going to argue with a job creation policy because they know it's the right thing to do. Being risky is not a virtue when you're playing with people's human rights.

The dole is required because we live in a society, and the job of a society is to take care of its members and make sure they are safe, healthy, and in a position to participate fully in the community.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the idea of whether people should be paid for their work even if they are recipients of public benefits. I put it to you that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in Ireland who does not benefit from public services in one way or another, whether it be the dole or some other thing provided to them by the state. I'm happy to pay my fair share.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, a policy of job creation would provide the jobs that a policy of dole recipient punishment would not provide, and a policy of drafting dole recipients at a fraction of the going rate for their employment would not provide.

Sure wasn't I just talking about job creation?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure wasn't I just talking about job creation?

We both were. I think the jobs I was talking about, however, were legitimate, meaningful jobs that the community actually needed people to do, and that could be given to dole recipients who were looking for and suited to such jobs, so that both the community and the newly employed would benefit. Hiring people to do work for which they are unsuited and at which they would not be competent, or to perform tasks that are demeaning because they are useless makework or paid at a fraction of the going rate, is a net burden on the community and not a benefit to the recipient.

Joe prim

KCross wrote: »

Thats really weird logic. So their job is to recycle my tax money! No thanks.
I'd rather my tax money be spent on providing services.

But I do agree that they shouldnt be forced to do "random" work for it.

The dole should only be a safety net for those who find themselves out of work. It should not be a lifestyle choice.

It's not really weird logic, it's actually basic economics (the multiplier), the more money circulating in the economy, the more economic activity there is and the more jobs there are , or at least that's how it used to work. New technology , robotics etc. will probably set a new challenge, i.e how to adjust to un- or chronic underemployment for most people. Maybe the long-term welfaristas will be able to set up as consultants to the rest of us, teaching us how to fill in the long lazy days.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

We both were. I think the jobs I was talking about, however, were legitimate, meaningful jobs that the community actually needed people to do, and that could be given to dole recipients who were looking for and suited to such jobs, so that both the community and the newly employed would benefit. Hiring people to do work for which they are unsuited and at which they would not be competent, or to perform tasks that are demeaning because they are useless makework or paid at a fraction of the going rate, is a net burden on the community and not a benefit to the recipient.

You're talking about the Government 'creating' a lot of jobs at market rate. If those jobs were actually necessary st market rates, wouldn't the market have already created them?

Are you talking about the Government matching people to jobs like a job agency or actually creating jobs?

Speedwell

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're talking about the Government 'creating' a lot of jobs at market rate. If those jobs were actually necessary st market rates, wouldn't the market have already created them?

Are you talking about the Government matching people to jobs like a job agency or actually creating jobs?

I used to be a libertarian and a member of the Von Mises Institute, as a matter of fact, so I am not ignorant of the "free market" arguments... or of their weaknesses. In brief, the so-called "free market" is a useless, reductionist artifact of the popularisation of economic concepts that are in reality quite difficult and interdependent and not well-understood even by experts in the field. In simpler words, "it doesn't work how you think".

Someone (whether state or private entities) needs to create jobs and actually offer them to jobseekers at a rate that jobseekers will accept for the jobs to be meaningful in the economy. If you propose that dole recipients work, you have to create economically meaningful jobs for them to do that meet their needs both in income and in suitability. I also propose that dole recipients accept economically meaningful jobs that they can keep and succeed in. That's called "becoming gainfully employed".

If the market hasn't created such jobs, it is not because the unfettered invisible hand of Adam Smith refused to create them, but because of asymmetrical information tipping the balance toward certain vested interests, and because of interventionist policies that need to be re-examined in light of current events and social requirements. Perhaps less regulation is needed in one area; perhaps more in another.

Someone upthread referred to graffiti removal as a possible community job. The community in question, like some communities in Los Angeles, might have decided to keep the graffiti as street art, or they might already have a contractor whose job it is to remove it and that contractor hasn't started the job yet, or they may not choose to expend the funds to do the work. If the first, then the community thinks that the graffiti itself has a value worth preserving, and no job will be created to remove it. If the second, the job in question has already been created and a community member has filled it. If the third, then a job will be created once the community decides it is worth paying someone to do it. At that time they can, if they choose, give or even reserve the job to an applicant who receives the dole.

But when I refer to the Government creating jobs, I really mean not that the community should find public works jobs for everyone on the dole (though there's nothing wrong with doing it as far as practical), but that policies should encourage job creation. I think Ireland is doing much better than the US in this regard, and much worse than certain other European countries. Part of the reason for this is cultural, and whereas some of those cultural habits are legitimately Irish and worth preserving, others of those cultural habits are indefensible and divisive and inequitable. We can all open a newspaper and find examples of favoritism, corruption, and fraud among the top ranks of business and government. It's those people we should be fighting, not each other.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote:

I used to be a libertarian and a member of the Von Mises Institute, as a matter of fact, so I am not ignorant of the "free market" arguments... or of their weaknesses. In brief, the so-called "free market" is a useless, reductionist artifact of the popularisation of economic concepts that are in reality quite difficult and interdependent and not well-understood even by experts in the field. In simpler words, "it doesn't work how you think".

Well colour me impressed that you used to be a member of a society you didn't understand.

Speedwell wrote:

Someone (whether state or private entities) needs to create jobs and actually offer them to jobseekers at a rate that jobseekers will accept for the jobs to be meaningful in the economy. If you propose that dole recipients work, you have to create economically meaningful jobs for them to do that meet their needs both in income and in suitability. I also propose that dole recipients accept economically meaningful jobs that they can keep and succeed in. That's called "becoming gainfully employed".

Job seekers will accept social security benefits rate. As long as it's enough to live on then it's set sum except that society gets a service it wants. Maybe where you live is perfect but let's assume there's a service that your area needs and you have the imagination to think of that service.

The Government can't go around employing everyone at their desired salary. If they did that, there wouldn't be any point talking about the market value because people could go on unemployment benefits and get their desired job at their desired salary. Why bother to try harder?

Speedwell wrote:

If the market hasn't created such jobs, it is not because the unfettered invisible hand of Adam Smith refused to create them, but because of asymmetrical information tipping the balance toward certain vested interests, and because of interventionist policies that need to be re-examined in light of current events and social requirements. Perhaps less regulation is needed in one area; perhaps more in another.

I'm not sure this is English. Is it code for something? Would you share the code with me?

Speedwell wrote:

Someone upthread referred to graffiti removal as a possible community job. The community in question, like some communities in Los Angeles, might have decided to keep the graffiti as street art, or they might already have a contractor whose job it is to remove it and that contractor hasn't started the job yet, or they may not choose to expend the funds to do the work. If the first, then the community thinks that the graffiti itself has a value worth preserving, and no job will be created to remove it. If the second, the job in question has already been created and a community member has filled it. If the third, then a job will be created once the community decides it is worth paying someone to do it. At that time they can, if they choose, give or even reserve the job to an applicant who receives the dole.

Assume the graffiti needs to be removed even if just to provide a blank canvas for the next street artist.

If the council doesn't have money to hire to a contractor to remove graffiti but is giving money to able bodied people to live and not work whilst unemployed then those people should get together. The unemployed person can give some labour in exchange for their unemployment benefit. I understand you think that would be wage theft but I think it's simple quid pro quo. It's a short term deal and it's not an unreasonable arrangement.

Speedwell wrote:

But when I refer to the Government creating jobs, I really mean not that the community should find public works jobs for everyone on the dole (though there's nothing wrong with doing it as far as practical.

So now you're making my argument for me? Like, I'm flattered but why all the protest up to now?

Speedwell wrote:

but that policies should encourage job creation. I think Ireland is doing much better than the US in this regard, and much worse than certain other European countries. Part of the reason for this is cultural, and whereas some of those cultural habits are legitimately Irish and worth preserving, others of those cultural habits are indefensible and divisive and inequitable. We can all open a newspaper and find examples of favoritism, corruption, and fraud among the top ranks of business and government. It's those people we should be fighting, not each other.

No problem with this but it's a separate issue.

Godge

Speedwell wrote: »

Yes, yes, the country sets the rate through a political process at the minimum rate it can get away with and still be able to look like it's doing its job of taking care of the poor. And?

That assumes an efficient market determining the rate of the dole.

In actuality it is an inefficient process controlled by special interests. So how do we know it is the "minimum rate it can get away with". It may well be far above that rate.

Speedwell

Yeah, if after four pages of this you are still arguing that someone who works in a job should get paid something other than a proper wage for that job, I wash my hands of you.

El_Duderino 09

Speedwell wrote: »

Yeah, if after four pages of this you are still arguing that someone who works in a job should get paid something other than a proper wage for that job, I wash my hands of you.

I think unemployed people should be given the means to live while unemployed. We both agree that the government should create jobs to occupy people while they look for a job. I think it should run beside the dole, you think the governemtn should be employing database designers and doctors, lawyers and CEOs at their market rate.

'Hello social welfare, I'm an unemployed Formula 1 driver. The going rate is 10m a year for my job.'
'No problem sir. The first payment will be in your bank on Tuesday'

In the long term you're talking about the government creating jobs and paying full wages for people who become unemployed. Should that go on indefinitely? Should the Government establish public building contractor businesses to employ the unemployed tradesmen from the recession and compete with private business or would the government place people in existing private companies? When would this job finish? Why on earth would an employer hire new staff at their own expense if they could just get the government to pay their staff's wages at the market rate? You're talking about a job bridge scheme that would pay the market rate and potentially go on for ever (why bother to look for a job if the government will create a job for you and pay you whatever the going rate is?). You must have found the money tree because this would be astronomically expensive to run, even in the short-medium term

Sense, it does not make.

People on the dole given jobs to occupy them and keep them sharp while looking for a job, giving something back to the community while living on public money. Social welfare is one of the marks of a civilized society but giving money to people indefinitely and expecting nothing in return is crazy business.

Anyone with a sense of fair play would be happy to give something back in exchange for their dole.

ancapailldorcha

El_Duderino_09, please post in a more civil manner or not at all. Thanks.