Quote:
|
Trouble with the Welfare State of the Anglo-European description is that it isn't about doing anything to lift anybody on Government Assistance -- consumption of wealth, not producing greater, or a surplus, of wealth -- off of it.
|
Not true. Benefits for the unemployed in the UK are tied to jobseeker programmes. Those programmes offer assistance in gaining employment and are underscored by stringent sanctions for anyone who does not comply with the requirements to actively seek work. If someone has been unemployed for more than a year they go onto a work programe - this includes mandatory reskilling courses and short period work experience placements to increase employability.
Most benefits though are paid to people in work - as a response to the low wages that many employers pay their workforce. People who work full time at minimum wage and are still too poor to feed their children. That is a disgrace. But withdrawing that support will simply lead to more poverty - and indeed has done where that support has been cut. Calls to institute a legal requirement for a living wage are seen as illiberal and anti-free market. If the government cannot or will not enforce fair wages, then the choice is to accept a tranch ofte population starving (foodbank use for example is through the roof at the moment) or step in to the breach left by private industry.
There is no evidence that removing assistance from the unemployed forces people out of poverty - it just increases the available labour pool and drives down wages, thereby increasing the need for in work benefits and creating a low wage economy.