Its clearly the right time to slash the social safety net

[rah]

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.

[DinoDoc]

well, fortunately in the US there are plenty of guns, so if you were smart you got one for safety before you are broke.

If you were smart, you wouldn't be broke.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

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.

[kentonio]

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.

If they just wanted to tighten up the checks and conditions then that would seem perfectly reasonable, its something I've thought they needed to do more in the UK for years too despite the existing checks, but putting a cutoff date seems to just seems to leave those who genuinely can't find work hanging out to dry. The problem with relying on charities and suchlike to provide that last line of support is that them it becomes completely location based as to whether you get that support and the standard of it. Also if its a charity or private organization they can presumably apply whatever conditions or criteria they like to it? Can a christian charity only agree to help christians?

[rah]

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.

[rah]

If they just wanted to tighten up the checks and conditions then that would seem perfectly reasonable, its something I've thought they needed to do more in the UK for years too despite the existing checks, but putting a cutoff date seems to just seems to leave those who genuinely can't find work hanging out to dry. The problem with relying on charities and suchlike to provide that last line of support is that them it becomes completely location based as to whether you get that support and the standard of it. Also if its a charity or private organization they can presumably apply whatever conditions or criteria they like to it? Can a christian charity only agree to help christians?

Again it's a fine line. You tighten it up too much and legitimate people will get kicked from the system. And with no cutoff date, it just makes the incentive for scamming the system higher. While I've heard an occasional story of restrictions on receiving charity, it is not the norm and most charities help whomever.
A quasi permanent Government dole is never good for a society.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

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.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

here is one brief experience on English

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatlife/8112531/Life-on-the-dole-in-Switzerland.html

So all was well, or so I thought, but I still had to present myself at the local unemployment office.

Most people affected by redundancy in the area were foreign seasonal workers in the building or tourist trade. However, I was told that my two new jobs (I had a third as my former company still wanted me to do translations for them) might not provide sufficient income. I therefore had to apply, and prove that I had applied, for nine further jobs per month (and only those for which I was suitably qualified) before any unemployment benefit, currently four-fifths of my previous salary, would come my way, if at all.

basically, your search for work needs to become your "current occupation", until you find one and you are on benefits until that happens. Helps a lot I am sure in getting people to actually find jobs or keep being on benefits. If you add some manual help for those who may be looking for jobs so actively for more than 6 months or a year and try to train them in addition, if state take a look into what makes them "unemployable", you have a decent solution on your hands.

[rah]

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.

[kentonio]

Why does scale matter? You also have an equivilently bigger number of people/money to pay for it. It's just accepting that its a worthwhile use of funding.

[rah]

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.

[Kidlicious]

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.

It keeps them off the street. You're even slower than usual today.

[Hauldren Collider]

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

[rah]

It keeps them off the street. You're even slower than usual today.

And you're being a bigger moron than usual today. And that's quite a feat for you.

[Hauldren Collider]

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