Its clearly the right time to slash the social safety net
 

The least you could do was make a direct connection. Lazy dumb ass.

Rah is a supply sider. He doesn't need glasses.

Why thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

Which is fair enough, it always comes back to the economy in the end.

Over here they last until someone gets a job, but those people have to show on a fortnightly basis that they have been looking for work and provide evidence of that. After they have been unemployed for something like 6 months they then enter schemes designed to retrain or find placements for them. Its not a perfect system, but its a lot better than just cutting it off at a set date. If you're unemployed and honestly can't find a new job, what are you supposed to do when suddenly your last financial support is gone?

Even here you're required to show that you're looking for work but it is easily scammed. There are many people that do this. Also you're not required to take a job that is beneath what you were doing in order to stay qualified. So executives that are laid off with no obvious skills can stay on the dole until the benefits run out before they have to take a lesser job. Extending their benefits makes no sense to me. I don't think it's governments role to guarantee that everyone has a good paying job.

Get a gun and take it from those who have the money http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

edit: or die trying :rip:

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the reason it makes sense to me is because unemployed people with no money or way to support themselves are a horrible negative effect on society as a whole. Personally I also have strong emotional feelings about not letting people suffer needlessly, but even from just an economic point of view those people don't just disappear from society. One way or another they have to feed themselves and live somewhere, and unless you want to see a big rise in crime and a general breakdown in social conditions, society needs to provide some form of support for the most needy.

Kentonio, I don't have a problem with supporting the most needy. I support many organizations that do that. But I personally know many people that have abused the system. (by not really looking for work until their benefits run out) So there's a fine line there. Giving unlimited benefits isn't the best way to go in my book. A lot of these people don't resort to crime, they just finally get a job.

We act as if making an effective system is impossible. It sure is not, but most governments have not made one where there is a clear way out of unemployment and back into work. British system is also pretty poor at it.

In all fairness, this can be difficult when the jobs just aren't there. Or not the right jobs.

as usual a good start would be to take a look at someone who does it better than you

links employement seekers with companies, and offers services in term of position opportunities,
pays an allowance to unemployed people
helps companies with difficulties (partial unemployment) and companies with bad credits,
protects workers in public services,
helps employers who must make redundancy plans to comply with the legal requirements and to find preventive solutions. This is a list what the unemployment office does in Geneva (Switzerland)... but unemployment issues are very much political and looking outside for better solution may seem as political suicide, but at least an awareness should exist that it can be better. Right now Switzerland has unemployment of 2.9%. Sure this is also the result of so many other things that they do right in their society, but the work of their unemployment offices is just another example that the world should copy, if it cared to look for better examples which are already implemented elsewhere.

That would probably be an issue of scale. 2.9% of the Swiss is a tiny number of people to administer compared to 10% of the US population.

Why does scale matter? The amount of resources needed to police it and the cost of the benefit. And Again, I don't think the purpose of government is to guarantee a job or the equivalent in dole payments.

Kentonio's article reminds me of all the moronic doomsdaying from the left when Clinton passed welfare reform...

Just put him on ignore. He's a useless moron.

This is what the idiots believe; that if you cut out everything like unemployment everyone would have jobs tomorrow. Morons.

My mom's husband has basically been out of work for 3 years. He had what turned out to be a temporary job for a few months earlier this year. He had some 'consulting' (really part time for his former boss) last year?

He was making ~100k a year as an architect before 2008.

I think that he would be glad for a job making 30k right now (I don't think he and my mom can afford for him to make less than that, they have pretty much run out of all their savings/retirement/etc and have a lot of debt which they didn't 2 years ago even).

He wouldn't even be on unemployment if it was extended, just putting out the type of situation that people are in today.

JM

The benefits of youth, education, and potential??????

It is a far different situation for older workers out of work. I have been told by more than one source in the employment industry that if you are 49 or less than you can get a job. At 50, you are toast. So much for anti dicrimination laws....

You are seriously clueless.

Are you sure?