Found this and another below. They do have some guidelines for
recipients, but I cannot exactly assess their specific efficacy. From
later reports, and hinted at in what's below, the system, though having
reduced benefits over-all, has managed to keep increased numbers going,
including students, while eventually situating them in jobs. Most
everyone was employed before in a nation of few industries, therefore
forced employment would likely have been at a minimal. What I found
interesting was that rather than abandon the ever-increasing numbers of
welfare recipients, Iceland supported them and, within a fairly short
time-frame directly helped their economy in so doing, unlike other
nations who did the complete opposite.
*Natalia*
http://www.lehigh.edu/~incntr/publications/documents/Welfare.pdf
<http://www.lehigh.edu/%7Eincntr/publications/documents/Welfare.pdf>
rising unemployment by increasing unemployment
compensation and expanding unemployment
benefits. First in 2009, benefits
increased by close to ten percent. (Ólafsson,
2009, p. 26) Then, in 2010, a temporary measure
extended the right to unemployment compensation
from three years to four. (Ministry
of Economic Affairs, p. 87) As a result, social
security and social welfare expenses rose
sharply, by 28 percent. (Ministry of Economic
Affairs, p. 66)
In order to ensure that individuals benefiting
from unemployment compensation
remain active job seekers, the Directorate of
Labor offers job market--related and
study--related remedies. Job seekers with a study
agreement receive unemployment compensation
when pursuing job-related studies. Similarly,
job market remedies compensate a company
or institution hiring a job seeker for
vocational training, trial employment, or job
rehabilitation. The company directly receives
the individual's base unemployment compensation,
in addition to an eight percent matching
contribution to a pension fund. (Ministry of Economic
Affairs, p. 88) Additional remedies have
also been implemented such as employment for
up to six months in business development
programs, agreements that provide employment
opportunities in entrepreneurial companies, and
temporary intensive projects or volunteer
opportunities for job seekers. (Ministry of Economic
Affairs, p. 88) Taken together, these
extensions confirm the role of the state in
unemployment insurance.
Family care policy has, comparatively, been
minimally affected by the financial crisis. However,
there have been some changes to generous
parental leave policy. The ceiling on parental
leave payments was lowered in July 2009 from
400,000 ISK to 350,000 ISK, and then further
decreased to 300,000 ISK in December 2009.
(Einarsdottir, p. 3) To compensate, the allowable
timeframe for parental leave was extended from
18 months to 36 months. Additionally, payments
have been increased to 80 percent of earnings
for earnings lower than 200,000 ISK and 75 percent
of earnings over 200,000 ISK. (Einarsdottir,
p. 3) Thus policies on family care have
retained their socio-democratic character
despite cuts in government expenditures necessitated
by the economic crisis.
Conclusions
The Icelandic welfare system has been
affected by both the economic situation and the
political orientation of the governing party.
Prior to the mid 1990s, despite its socio-democratic
foundations, the welfare system was
"smaller, less costly, less generous, and less
redistributive than other Scandinavian welfare
systems," (Ólafsson, 2005, p. 214) spending
approximately one-third less on welfare benefits
in proportion to GDP than the Nordic average.
(DataMarket) The divergence from the
Scandinavian welfare model can be largely
attributed to the predominance of right-of-center
politics in Iceland. Nevertheless, the welfare
system was, and is still predominantly, defined
by the general characteristics and fundamental
socio-democratic principles.
That said, between the mid 1990s and early
2000s, the system experienced an unprece-
80
http://rafhladan.is/bitstream/handle/10802/484/0asisp_ANR10_Iceland-1.pdf?sequence=1
Minimum pension guarantee (for disability and old-age pensioners),
unemployment benefit, minimum pay and other benefits in December 2009
compared. Figures are in ISK.
Source: Welfare Surveillance Report December 2009
(http://www.felagsmalaraduneyti.is/).
Overall expenditures on pensions and benefits are rather low in Iceland,
due to the
young average age of the population, extensive income-testing in the
social security
part of the system, and due to late retirement of the elderly population
(OECD 2009).
In the ASISP report for 2009 we showed how the new minimum pension guarantee
was introduced in September 2008 and became higher than ever before in
January
2009, in relation to pay in the labour market. This has been an
important measure to
alleviate poverty amongst pensioners in general. In Table 1 we show a
comparison of
the minimum pension (column 1) to other benefits and social protection
payments,
such as unemployment benefit, minimum bargained pay, social assistance
and to
student loans.
As the table shows the minimum pension guarantee (in this case for a
single disability
pensioner or a single old-age pensioners) is significantly higher than
the minimum
bargained pay in the labour market, it is about 18% higher than the
unemployment
benefit and 55% higher than social assistance allowance. Student loans
are somewhat
higher than the social assistance allowance, which in many cases
functions as a
supplement to other payments which low income earners receive, often due
to special
family conditions. The table also shows the effects of direct taxes on
the sums, still
leaving the pensioners in an advantaged position.
Those who have children to support receive significantly higher sums
when child
benefits are included, and in some cases (such as for disability
pensioners and
students) they are tax-free. On the whole one can say that the
unemployed are likely
to be the most vulnerable group in the present crisis situation (see
also Eydal 2009).
On 21/08/2012 6:56 PM, Viggo Andersen wrote:
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 island's
approach to its rescue led to a "surprisingly" strong recovery, the
International Monetary Fund's mission chief to the country said.
Iceland's 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 island's
subsequent decision to shield itself from a capital outflow by restricting
currency movements allowed the government to ward off a speculative attack,
cauterizing the economy's 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 krona's 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,
Iceland's recovery has been impressive."
Iceland, which the IMF estimates was the world's 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.
Iceland's 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 region's debt crisis deepens.
Thirty-nine of the Reykjavik-based parliament's 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 it's 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 it's 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 we've 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
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
