"Despite the generosity of its benefits, the country maintains a low rate of unemployed and underemployed workers."
vs. France:
"Unfortunately, because the French workforce is so cushy, it can be a very tough club to join. France has astronomically high rates of unemployment among youths -- up to 40 percent in some areas -- who’ve never held jobs and therefore do not qualify for benefits."
and Luxembourg:
"The government of Luxembourg, however, has recently grown fed up with wastrel youths applying for unemployment benefits while still living with their parents."
So, is this just a cultural difference, or can a government provide generous benefits while still incentivizing full employment? The Luxembourg solution:
"Anyone applying for social benefits now has to take minimum-wage government jobs or attend subsidized vocational training instead."
seems to make sense. Economic support, but with a requirement to work or get training of some sort. One trick is for the government to successfully predict which vocations will actually be in demand. Or just let the unemployed decide what to train in, with a flat cash amount to spend? You would still need checks to prevent abuse.
Of course the big Hacker News question: is any or all of this compatible with entrepreneurship? Should a government allow people to start a business venture while collecting benefits, instead of accepting the first employment opportunity?
Interesting to see Milton Friedman cited as an advocate of Basic Income. I think he championed the Earned Income Tax Credit, maybe they are referring to that?
"Despite the generosity of its benefits, the country maintains a low rate of unemployed and underemployed workers."
vs. France:
"Unfortunately, because the French workforce is so cushy, it can be a very tough club to join. France has astronomically high rates of unemployment among youths -- up to 40 percent in some areas -- who’ve never held jobs and therefore do not qualify for benefits."
and Luxembourg:
"The government of Luxembourg, however, has recently grown fed up with wastrel youths applying for unemployment benefits while still living with their parents."
So, is this just a cultural difference, or can a government provide generous benefits while still incentivizing full employment? The Luxembourg solution:
"Anyone applying for social benefits now has to take minimum-wage government jobs or attend subsidized vocational training instead."
seems to make sense. Economic support, but with a requirement to work or get training of some sort. One trick is for the government to successfully predict which vocations will actually be in demand. Or just let the unemployed decide what to train in, with a flat cash amount to spend? You would still need checks to prevent abuse.
Of course the big Hacker News question: is any or all of this compatible with entrepreneurship? Should a government allow people to start a business venture while collecting benefits, instead of accepting the first employment opportunity?