[Magdalen] A Busy Day Plus

[ROGER STOKES]

That is true elsewhere than the US. In the UK if you are undertaking some form of self-directed education or training then you are "not available for work" and so could have benefits cut.  Recently I heard of someone volunteering short-term to help run an event which was not a registered charity (actually a beer festival) who was told she had to stop or risk losing her benefits.  What was that about encouraging the work ethic? 

You are right also about the mobility of labour.  Some years ago a UK government minister said that when his father faced unemployment he moved to where the work was.  Now even if you are in rented social housing it can be almost impossible to transfer to a different area of the country and private landlords want to know you have a regular income before they will rent to you.

Roger




________________________________
 From: Jim Guthrie <jguthrie at pipeline.com>
To: magdalen at herberthouse.org 
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] A Busy Day Plus
 

From: ROGER STOKES


> It is an important (but generally neglected) point that those on unemployment benefit need to be able to afford to update their skills to be employable >again.  That is in the interests of everybody.

It's typical in the U.S. that benefits are cut for people going back to school -- but that's generally not for true retraining purposes.

One of the legacies of the fast disappearing "Job for life" that was so typical of the manufacturing economy is that people got out of the habit of moving on when times got tough -- like American Blacks in the South and the great migration northward in the 1930s-40s, or the Okies to California and the like. Government policies in housing encouraged people to put down "roots" by subsidizing all home purchases, leaving people with far less flexibility when the factories close.

I also find the politicos who say they'll "bring back manufacturing jobs" to be pandering and ignorant as to the realities of the modern economy. Prof.. Aghions talk reinforced that idea, at least for me. He had some interesting thoughts on the situation in France (which has a lot of similarities) vs Sweden and Finland which have worked out many of these modern economy issues (free tuition through grad school anyone?).

Don’t tell the Republicans, but Sweden actually increased tax revenues by lowering the top rate from 80% to 57%. OTOH, nearly everyone pays the 57% <g>. It appears to be almost a "flat tax."

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie