Excellent initiation and description of “evil, cold economists” Mr. Glenn Loury, and an interesting conversation with Mr. Steven Rhoads.
I also agree with you that the proper use of the economy, considers all the variables. One of these variables is of course, human labor and it is logical that everything related to the human being becomes part of the equation. The economy may sound cold and dry, but behind all those numbers are human beings. In the first part, you talk about unemployment benefits. I live in Sweden and the system is, in short terms like this:
Both the employed and the unemployed can pay a certain amount to the unemployment fund. In case of losing a job, the person is entitled to unemployment benefits for 300 days. That deadline can be extended, meeting certain conditions, for the next 150 days. After that deadline, there are various programs through the employment service. This would be the shortest version.
The second part is about people receiving welfare. Most of them are immigrants, but there are also a domicile population. Immigrants have various education programs, learning the Swedish language, and try to decide what kind of further education would suit them as individuals. Everything happens through the system, and they get help from various sides. Of course, education counselors are involved, teachers and so on…The truth is, all this exists, and it seemingly sounds very good.
However, this is where we come to "good intentions" and the right goals, in my opinion.
All these processes are quite complicated, changes are often made in the way of collaborating with immigrants, etc.
I take as an example a family that receives financial aid, 4 members, mom dad and two children.
Children receive financial aid up to 18 years of age. If one of the parents gets a job, it is enough for the other parent to lose the right to financial aid. It is difficult and unusual for both to find the job at the same time. They also lose the right to financial aid related to the rent for the apartment. That one salary is at best, just a little more than the amount they received while they were not working. I believe most people want to work, but experiences say a little differently.
Most end up asking a Shakespearean question: “To work or not to work”?
So, with unemployment rising, we have many people who have not yet reached the labor market. This is of course a very simplified and very brief explanation of the situation in Sweden.
I know you are busy and if you happen to read this, I would be really interested in your opinion on the following:
In this way, the left wing of the political sphere creates a future and current army of voters. It doesn't matter to them whether and when these people will reach the labor market, because everything is paid from the state treasury, and we know who fills the same state treasury.
The right wing of the political sphere is persistent in insisting that financial aid be abolished or reduced. Whether this request is correct or not, such an attitude strengthens the will of people who depend on financial aid to vote for the left side of the political sphere.
These two settings are quite similar in Sweden and the USA.
It is a small paradox that nothing significant changes even when the right side of the political sphere is in power.
Is the right path to a possible solution to these problems, insisting on reducing the state apparatus, and not on reducing financial aid, which is quite short-term and more of a respite than a solution?
Excellent initiation and description of “evil, cold economists” Mr. Glenn Loury, and an interesting conversation with Mr. Steven Rhoads.
I also agree with you that the proper use of the economy, considers all the variables. One of these variables is of course, human labor and it is logical that everything related to the human being becomes part of the equation. The economy may sound cold and dry, but behind all those numbers are human beings. In the first part, you talk about unemployment benefits. I live in Sweden and the system is, in short terms like this:
Both the employed and the unemployed can pay a certain amount to the unemployment fund. In case of losing a job, the person is entitled to unemployment benefits for 300 days. That deadline can be extended, meeting certain conditions, for the next 150 days. After that deadline, there are various programs through the employment service. This would be the shortest version.
The second part is about people receiving welfare. Most of them are immigrants, but there are also a domicile population. Immigrants have various education programs, learning the Swedish language, and try to decide what kind of further education would suit them as individuals. Everything happens through the system, and they get help from various sides. Of course, education counselors are involved, teachers and so on…The truth is, all this exists, and it seemingly sounds very good.
However, this is where we come to "good intentions" and the right goals, in my opinion.
All these processes are quite complicated, changes are often made in the way of collaborating with immigrants, etc.
I take as an example a family that receives financial aid, 4 members, mom dad and two children.
Children receive financial aid up to 18 years of age. If one of the parents gets a job, it is enough for the other parent to lose the right to financial aid. It is difficult and unusual for both to find the job at the same time. They also lose the right to financial aid related to the rent for the apartment. That one salary is at best, just a little more than the amount they received while they were not working. I believe most people want to work, but experiences say a little differently.
Most end up asking a Shakespearean question: “To work or not to work”?
So, with unemployment rising, we have many people who have not yet reached the labor market. This is of course a very simplified and very brief explanation of the situation in Sweden.
I know you are busy and if you happen to read this, I would be really interested in your opinion on the following:
In this way, the left wing of the political sphere creates a future and current army of voters. It doesn't matter to them whether and when these people will reach the labor market, because everything is paid from the state treasury, and we know who fills the same state treasury.
The right wing of the political sphere is persistent in insisting that financial aid be abolished or reduced. Whether this request is correct or not, such an attitude strengthens the will of people who depend on financial aid to vote for the left side of the political sphere.
These two settings are quite similar in Sweden and the USA.
It is a small paradox that nothing significant changes even when the right side of the political sphere is in power.
Is the right path to a possible solution to these problems, insisting on reducing the state apparatus, and not on reducing financial aid, which is quite short-term and more of a respite than a solution?
With regards from Sweden