The article doesn't TELL anything about their welfare system. And I have never seen a word on the net about welfare in Iceland, so I can't tell anything either.
I found the actual source for what I read on a Danish site. David Cameron, a speech June 25th: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9354163/David-Camerons-welfare-speech-in-full.html This asshole of a prime minister pretends that the same hasn't been going on in the UK for at least 15 years with benefit cuts and still more and more harsh conditions for welfare eligibility. As to Iceland, now that you have brought it up, I would like to know how life on welfare has been there over the years, but it would have to be in Danish, Swedish, Norwegian or English, otherwise I won't know what the heck I'm reading! I can manage German too, if I have to, but that's the least likely language for something like that about Iceland. Viggo. At 17:57 21-08-2012 -0700, you wrote: >Have you followed Iceland's progress, not only with respect to nailing the >bankers, but insisting on maintaining a strong, supportive welfare program for >the increased numbers of unemployed? The article below praises success for >both. > >Natalia > ><http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-12/imf-says-bailouts-iceland-style-hold-lessons-for-crisis-nations>http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-12/imf-says-bailouts-iceland-style-hold-lessons-for-crisis-nations > > > > >IMF Says Bailouts Iceland-Style Hold Lessons in Crisis Times > > > > > >By Omar R. Valdimarsson on August 13, 2012 > > >Iceland holds some key lessons for nations trying to survive bailouts after >the islands approach to its rescue led to a surprisingly strong recovery, >the International Monetary Funds mission chief to the country said. > >Icelands commitment to its program, a decision to push losses on to >bondholders instead of taxpayers and the safeguarding of a welfare system that >shielded the unemployed from penury helped propel the nation from collapse >toward recovery, according to the Washington-based fund. > >Iceland has made significant achievements since the crisis, Daria V. >Zakharova, IMF mission chief to the island, said in an interview. We have a >very positive outlook on growth, especially for this year and next year >because it appears to us that the growth is broad based. > >Iceland refused to protect creditors in its banks, which failed in 2008 after >their debts bloated to 10 times the size of the economy. The islands >subsequent decision to shield itself from a capital outflow by restricting >currency movements allowed the government to ward off a speculative attack, >cauterizing the economys hemorrhaging. That helped the authorities focus on >supporting households and businesses. > >The fact that Iceland managed to preserve the social welfare system in the >face of a very sizeable fiscal consolidation is one of the major achievements >under the program and of the Icelandic government, Zakharova said. The >program benefited from strong implementation, reflecting ownership on the >part of the authorities, she said. > > > >Euro Aid > > > > > >As of March this year, the IMF had program arrangements with 11 European >countries, representing about 65 percent of its funds, according to its >website. Governments inside the euro zone have struggled to comply with the >austerity terms prescribed in joint aid packages provided by the IMF and the >European Union, leading to revised terms and extended deadlines for nations >such as Greece. > >At the same time, bond markets have reflected a lack of confidence in recovery >programs, sending debt yields higher and adding to pressure on government >finances. Countries inside the euro area or with pegged currencies such as >Latvia have relied on wage cuts and reduced welfare services as a means toward >delivering on bailout goals. > >In Iceland, the kronas 80 percent plunge against the euro offshore in 2008 >helped turn a trade deficit into a surplus by the end of the same year. >Unemployment, which jumped nine-fold between 2007 and 2010, eased to 4.8 >percent in June from a peak of 9.3 percent two years ago. > > > >Impressive > > > > > >Each program is different and responds to a different situation so one cannot >compare them directly, Zakharova said. Of course, considering the depth of >the crisis in late 2008, Icelands recovery has been impressive. > >Iceland, which the IMF estimates was the worlds third- richest nation per >capita in 2005 before slumping to rank 20th by 2010, ended its 33-month >program in August last year. The $13 billion economy will expand 2.4 percent >this year, the IMF said April 17. That compares with an estimated 0.3 percent >contraction in the 17-member euro area. > >Icelands growth is driven by private consumption, investment has picked up >strongly and even though, when you look at net exports, those have a negative >contribution to growth, it is mainly because imports have been strong, >reflecting strong consumption and an increase in income and the healthy >expectations of households, Zakharova said. Still, exports have been >increasing very strongly. Last year was a banner year for tourism. These are >all really positive things. > > > >Key Challenge > > > > > >Iceland, which started EU membership talks in 2010 with euro-area membership >an ultimate goal, is starting to question whether accession to the trade and >currency bloc is the right way forward as the regions debt crisis deepens. >Thirty-nine of the Reykjavik-based parliaments 63 lawmakers oppose continuing >EU membership talks and may push to have the process shelved before elections >next year, newspaper Morgunbladid said today. > >The island still needs to show it can unwind its capital controls >successfully, Zakharova said. About $8 billion in offshore kronur are locked >behind the restrictions. The central bank has said the plan to ease controls >is likely to be completed by the end of 2015. The law allowing the government >to maintain the controls expires next year, requiring a parliamentary >extension. Former Economy Minister Arni Pall Arnason said in a September >interview that Iceland has no plans to return to a free floating currency >before entering the euro. > > > >Krona Gains > > > > > >The krona has gained about 15 percent against the euro since a March 28 low >and was trading little changed at 147.27 per single currency as of 12 noon in >Reykjavik today. > >The lifting of the capital controls is a key challenge for Iceland and its >not an easy task, she said. At the same time, the government has regained >access to international capital markets; the cleaning up of the balance sheet >of banks has been proceeding at good speed. So going forward its important >that the gains are sustained and consolidated, she said. > >As the central bank prepares to ease capital controls, policy makers are also >raising interest rates in part to protect the krona from any weakening that >might ensue. The bank increased its benchmark rate a quarter or a percentage >point on June 13, bringing it to 5.75 percent. It was the fifth interest- rate >increase since August last year. > >Further monetary tightening is needed, over the next few quarters, in order >for Iceland to get to the target, Zakharova said. But weve also seen that >the central bank has made strong statements about a hawkish monetary policy >stance, indicating that the monetary policy will be tightened over time. So we >think that the stance is appropriate at this point. > >To contact the reporter on this story: Omar R. Valdimarsson in Reykjavik ><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] > >To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonas Bergman at ><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] > >On 21/08/2012 2:26 PM, Viggo Andersen wrote: >> >> >>Keith, as to your "Mismatches along the way will have to be made up >>with welfare payments from governments": That kind of welfare won't >>exist in the future. It barely exists now. The US has a 2-5 year >>lifetime limit on welfare eligibility since Clinton, and no way is any >>American President and Congress going to reverse that in the most >>anti-welfare-and-welfare-hating country in the Western world. >> >>Welfare as social safety net is being eliminated. Workfare is used to >>force people to work for benefits without any of the rights that you >>have in a job or to deter them from applying for welfare in the first >>place by making it worse than the most shitty job you could find. And >>it is used to get rid of employees hired on normal labor market >>conditions. >> >>If not workfare, then job-related activity is used as mandatory >>requirements for eligibility. (What jobs? The ones we will have, when >>everything has turned back to normal just as in the past! I'm not >>expressing my opinion, I'm just saying how it is viewed everywhere.) >>This can here in Denmark include a course for people with years of job >>experience about how to write a job application or a resume, or it >>can be psychological bullshit about "finding your inner bird" i.e. >>figuring out which bird describes your psychological profile! You also >>have to be POOR first! You can't own a house or an apartment, you >>can't have any savings, and if you have a spouse that earns enough to >>support you, then that is enough to keep you off welfare. >> >>More than ever welfare has become another word for harshness, abuse, >>exploitation, punishments and no rights. You wouldn't have wanted to >>be on welfare here in Denmark instead of me 1988-97; *I* wouldn't want >>to be on welfare here back then and even less now! >> >>What was it I read about the UK recently on a Danish newspaper site, >>was it Gordon Brown that had told the unemployed that they had no >>rights, or that their "culture of entitlements" was over? I've >>completely forgotten the details, but I know that whoever it was he is >>up against a large number of groups of unemployed and social activists >>all over the UK. The first of them that I ever heard about in 1998 was >>Brighton Against Benefit Cuts. A Nottingham Claimants Action site has >>a lot of links to groups, events and info: >> >><http://www.afed.org.uk/nottingham/claimants/>http://www.afed.org.uk/nottingham/claimants/ >> >>- which continues at a "Notts Save Our Services" site: >> >><http://nottssos.org.uk/2010/11/08/nottingham-claimants-union-formed/>http://nottssos.org.uk/2010/11/08/nottingham-claimants-union-formed/ >> >>(I really ought to get something done about my own links page! It is >>horribly outdated by now.) >> >>Viggo. >> >>P.S. This is something I wrote yesterday. >> >>Here's an idea: Why don't we the government reduce welfare for young >>people with no other problems than unemployment to the level of SU >>(student benefits)? Yes, we know, SU is not meant to fully cover >>living expenses, which is why students have the right to supplement >>with work income. No, there is no such right on welfare, but we don't >>care! We don't care so much that we won't even say a word about it! >>(This idea was supported by the head of the Danish association of >>social workers, out of which many are employed as welfare >>caseworkers!) >> >>At the last count (2010) 126.000 Danish welfare recipients in a single >>year (4 times as many as in 2007) had been sanctioned with reduced >>benefits or none at all. 1/3 of these were unlawful, because the >>recipients had not received a forewarning and guidance such as the law >>prescribes! Actually the number of persons is lower, because some >>municipalities have had more sanctions than people on welfare! >>However, it is still equivalent to 50% of all recipients in the >>country being sanctioned. (In 2007 the percentage was 16.) >> >>The Ministry of Social Affairs has a webpage, where welfare recipients >>are divided into a long list of "social categories" with the exact >>amount it will cost people in each of these to be hit with a sanction. >>It goes like this: "Not married, handicapped, 2 children: xxxx DKK"! >> >>One municipality justifies it like this, and it is a translated exact >>quote: "We follow the law there is." [Yeah, right. How many >>lawbreaking sanctions can that asshole count to!] "In the law is >>stated that the unemployed has to have a sanction for not showing up >>for an appointment or an offer." [Yeah, right, an offer you can't >>refuse. That's not the definition of an offer!] "When you don't show >>up at a workplace it also has consequences. The same goes for >>activation." [You don't show up at work for an "appointment" or an >>"offer", but to do the work for which you are hired and paid, and to >>which you have CONSENTED! If you don't do it you are not SANCTIONED >>i.e. PUNISHED as a consequence, but FIRED! Or maybe you are not. >>That's at the discretion of the employer, he is not obliged to fire >>you, and there is no law about it!] >> >>A job you can quit or get fired from with the right to compensation >>for lack of work income, but this is turned into activation or work >>for the benefits from day one, and if you quit you have no income! In >>other words, and this asshole doesn't say so: The social safety net is >>gone, it's abolished, it doesn't exist anymore! Furthermore, if you >>are required to work for benefits you have none of the rights you have >>in a job: the right to union membership, to negotiate work conditions >>and pay, to strike, collective bargaining wages, safety regulations >>and equipment as needed, earning worktime to qualify for unemployment >>benefits, pension fund savings and more. In other words, activation or >>workfare whatever they call it is not acknowledged as work, it is >>social policy, it has nothing to do with the labor market or labor >>policy. But then what is it? It is work as punishment, and when you >>refuse you are punished again. >> >>It is understandable that rough states and murderous dictators around >>the world are sanctioned, but people on welfare in a welfare state?? >>Then it is not a welfare state anymore, it's a social politically >>rough state with the mentality of a dictatorship itself! "We don't >>shoot people here, we just try to starve them into submission, what's >>the problem? It's their own fault, they're not obeying us, so if they >>will just do that there won't be a problem!" >> >> >>At 06:59 20-08-2012 +0100, you wrote: >>> >>> >>>The article that Sally referred us to ("Skilled Work, Without the Worker", >>>John Markoff, NYT, 19 August 12) was eloquent on job destruction but only >>>hinted at another, equally significant by-product of the increasing use of >>>robotics. This is that robots are becoming increasingly versatile. If >>>suitably programmed, they can be instantly switched from one job to another. >>>(Mention was made of one robot which could switch between four distinctly >>>different operations.) Items can be custom-made. The mass consumer goods and >>>services market will also be destroyed in due course. >>> >>>Which, from the point of view of the very rich and the supportive >>>specialisms around them (what I call the 20-class), is just as well. Mass >>>production of standard goods and services is becoming increasingly risky. >>>Competition between ever-larger corporations in every field is not only >>>becoming fiercer, profit margins (the future source of investment finance) >>>are becoming narrower. The Apple iPhone4S might well have a profit margin of >>>50% or so at the present time but, within five years or so, we can be >>>certain that competition from Samsung, Matsushita, Google and others will >>>drive it well below 10%, perhaps nearer to the 1-2% profit margins of most >>>personal computer manufacturers. Given an innovative tweak by another >>>manufacturer to its own smartphone and Apple could easily go out of >>>existence, much as threatens Nokia at the present time. >>> >>>Being a more mature industry, what's happening to cars at the present time >>>is an even more instructive pointer to the future. On the one hand, we have >>>the mass production of cars by no more than about a dozen large >>>manufacturers in the world with, at best, only modest profit margins of >>>around 5-7%, more usually 2-3%, and sometimes 0% (being kept alive by >>>government subsidies). On the other hand, we have the recent burgeoning of >>>many luxury types of cars (for the 20-class) which are either brand new in >>>design (e.g. Tesla, McLaren) or are revivals of some of the hand-made brands >>>of the past (e.g. Porsche, Aston Martin). They are made in surgically clean >>>workshops with robots dancing up and down the line and with hardly a worker >>>to be seen. There are more than 20 luxury car-makers already and undoubtedly >>>there'll be many more. But they won't be competing on price, only on >>>customers' personal tastes. Later, they'll be competing on the basis of how >>>versatile their robots can b! e ! >> >> >> programmed, even down to making customers' own designs as well as their own >> brand. >>> >>> >>> >>>One question will be raised immediately: "If robots are to take over, and >>>there's to be no future for mass production then there'll be no future for >>>jobs for most of the population." Exactly! But most of the populations of >>>advanced countries are declining anyway. For the past two generations, ever >>>since the post-WWII baby-bulge, families have decreased to much less than >>>replacement sizes. Within two generations from now, populations will be >>>halved; within three generations, populations will be less than a quarter; >>>within four generations there'll only be remnants. But, with any luck, the >>>bulk of the population (what I term the 80-class) will decline pari passu >>>with the onslaught of the robot. Mismatches along the way will have to be >>>made up with welfare payments from governments. >>> >>>The other questions will be: "If there's no labour (80-class) for the >>>20-class to exploit where will profits (for future investment) come from? >>>How will an economy exist at all?" The answer is that economic development >>>has never come from labour as such. Slave labour never gave way to paid >>>labour solely because of the sentiments of William Wilberforce or the >>>Quakers, but because the energy of paid labour was more efficient than slave >>>labour. Paid labour is giving way to robotics because the energy of robots >>>is more efficiently expended than the muscular (or mental) energy of the >>>routine jobs of humans. The future economy of a 20-class is perfectly viable >>>so long as efficiency savings are made between one generation of robots and >>>the next. >>> >>>Keith >>> >>>Keith Hudson, Saltford, England >>><http://allisstatus.wordpress.com>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Futurework mailing list >>><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Futurework mailing list >><mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
