Sweden's way of dealing with the poor

[ribozyme]

The US response to the lowness of wages for unskilled labor has been transfer payments from the gov’t such as the EITC and refundable tax credits rather than reducing the amount of laborers and therefore increasing the wages each laborer can earn.

There are pluses and minuses to this. One minus is that companies that hire labor at low wages essentially get part of the employee’s actual cost paid by the feds. One plus is that by having as many people earning as possible, even if the feds wind up paying some of the freight, the US as a whole benefits from the stuff produced by the workers.

Sweden takes a different approach.

I don’t know that there is a better way. I don’t like the fact that people who are mentally ill tend to be homeless, it seems like there ought to be a better way to deal with it than let them be out on the streets in mortal danger from one another as well as other assorted menaces.

I think the hikikomori approach is much better than the US approach especially when all the jobs for unskilled labor have been shipped overseas.

I do not know about Sweden and Denmark, but I do think their approach might be better than the hikikomori approach.

As for unemployment, the seemingly low numbers in Denmark reflect in fact the same kind of manipulation of statistics that the Swedish government have been using. While official unemployment in Denmark was only 133,500 or 4.8% in March 2006, there were in the fourth quarter (latest available number in Denmark’s statistical data bank )some 117,600 people or 4.2% in so-called “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger(=“labor market political activities”, what in Sweden is refered to as “AMS-åtgärder”)”. This means that Denmark have even more hidden unemployment in that respect than even Sweden, where “only” 3.2% (144,000) were put away in “labor market political activities” .

…

The headline unemployment rate in Sweden is only 5-5.5%, but this number is extremely misleading as it only includes a small number of the people who the government pays not to work. Many unemployed are sent to so-called “labor market political activities” who have no meaningful purpose then to reduce the headline unemployment number. Including them, unemployment is 8%.

Maybe “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” and “AMS-åtgärder” would a better alternative to the US approach. (Another translation for “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” is “labour market policy measures.”)

 

[Oscarthecat]

Yay, I am quitting my job and moving to sweeden. I will teach my kids they do not need to rely on themselves. Sweeden will do it all for them!

That’s a fantastic idea- I’d wish you luck, but with all those government guarantees, who needs luck?

As for me, I’m holding out in the hope that some progressive thinking person will invent personal robots that can take care of our every need. Once they invent those, its just a matter of time before somebody in the government decides that having one is a basic human right.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I think the hikikomori approach is much better than the US approach especially when all the jobs for unskilled labor have been shipped overseas.

I do not know about Sweden and Denmark, but I do think their approach might be better than the hikikomori approach.

Again, hikikomori is not an “approach,” it is a well documented mental illness. But I can’t say I disagree with your statement, taken for what it is, if only for the fact that I think ANYTHING would have been better than the bailouts. So I guess that would include encouraging mental illnesses.

While you’re at it, how about encouraging “obsessive compulsive disorder” among New Yorkers would be a good way to clean up the city.

Maybe “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” and “AMS-åtgärder” would a better alternative to the US approach. (Another translation for “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” is “labour market policy measures.”)

That’s exactly the kind of thing a lexiphant would say.
I think that the government should tax people for being bombastic- your taxes alone would fund universal healthcare.

 

[a_cermak]

We’re seeing one of the big problems with relying on charity right now in a lot of our food pantries in the smaller towns (like Peoria) in IL. The State has started giving money to them. When tough times come, people are less able to give to charity, so in an economic downturn, the time when the assistance is most needed, it just isn’t there in enough quantity.

The other problem with charity is that some organizations use it as a means to proselytize thus putting up barriers to some people receiving the assistance. That’s the organizations’ right, but it gives me pause about making such organizations our de facto social welfare system.

I like the extended unemployment, that’s an entitlement that has been earned by the individual in question, food stamps now that they are less fraud prone our an excellent way of keeping folks out of hunger, TANF which is a temporary system of payments to folks that just can’t get work, Social Security an earned benefit for the elderly and a transfer payment for the disabled (which may have been earned prior to the disablement), Medicare and Medicaid to provide medical care. Those last two are the ones really going bankrupt.,

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear Oscarthecat

I think you make a good point. But I would add that one of the key deficits of the welfare state is that it lacks a proper understanding the nature of human dignity.

The Church teaches that human dignity is proper to all people, in all states of life. It isn’t a quality that can be gained in proportion to what a person has, where they live, whether they are homeless or wealthy.

This common sense of the dignity of all human people is validated by our ability to empathize with one another one another, and we act on this recognition in the form of Charity.

The already present human dignity of a person in need is validated, not given, by the very act of another human person freely choosing to reach out to them out of genuine concern.

Human dignity is made manifest in the commission of charitable acts, which are as much an expression of the dignity of the giver as they are the dignity of the receiver.

But the welfare state robs us of this experience, because it teaches us that individual acts of charity are insufficient and ill advised. We are taught to just pay our taxes and leave actual works of charity to the paid professional bureaucrats assigned the task of “helping people gain a dignified life.”

The very act of the Government providing shelter, food, health care, and all kinds of other “things” is an affront to human dignity because the driving force behind the act is the compliance with some government legislative demand, rather than the individual’s recognition of the dignity of a human person in need, the experience of empathy and compassion which gives rise to charity.

When a government bureaucrat doling out government goods talks about “helping people gain a dignified life,” they aren’t referring to helping the poor, they are simply referring to a filling out particular combination of “check boxes” on some government form. Once they check off the right boxes, by giving the person shelter, food, medicine, or whatever else they need, then the government workers closes that file until the next time that person needs to have another box checked off.

The person “giving” the government goods doesn’t recognize the dignity of the person in need. And after being treated in this manner, it doesn’t take long for the person in need to question their own human dignity, too- they start to believe, like the OP in this thread, that they have nothing to contribute to society, that theirs is a life without value, and so they become content with a life of substance abuse, dependency on others, social ostracism, etc.

The welfare state is as much more than an affront to the dignity of those in need- it erodes the dignity of the entire society.

I do think you have made a very good point about the welfare state, by describing the dehumanizing effect of its bureaucracy. By creating large redistribution programs funded by taxes, you risk taking away any sense of freedom, responsibility and charity. This is true of the people paying the taxes, who in essence have been turned into cash cows, and it is true of the people being helped, whose life is now at the mercy of an uncaring bureaucrat. Everybody is reduced to a number, nobody have control over their own life.

Let me give an example. In Denmark we basically have a completely free education system, as a university I only have to pay for my own books, all of it is funded trough taxes. In a sense that is pretty cool, clearly such a system have its advantages. However it does come with a price, the government is in control. It is the government who decides how to allocate research funds, the purpose of the classes and the way the university is run. So to get an education, you need to play by the governments rules. Among other things, that could mean no traveling after high school. Why, because the government wants its citizens to get an education and start working as fast as possible. After all, we need more cash cows to pay for the system. So what if you disagree with the way the government does these things, and still travel a bit after high school. Well you get penalized and might even loose the chance of getting a university degree, but you still have to pay your taxes to the system. OK a small sacrifice, but it is one among many.

 

[TLDenmark]

Post continued.

However I don’t agree with capitalism either, at least not in its raw form. Yes the welfare stat turns people into a number in a massive bureaucracy, but raw capitalism turns them into consumers and producers. Both systems have a tendency to enslave people, rather than treating human being as if they were created in Gods image. In fact socialism and capitalism have a lot in common, both are based on a materialistic view of man and the needs of man.

I do think you have made a very good point about the welfare state, by describing the dehumanizing effect of its bureaucracy. By creating large redistribution programs funded by taxes, you risk taking away any sense of freedom, responsibility and charity. This is true of the people paying the taxes, who in essence have been turned into cash cows, and it is true of the people being helped, whose life is now at the mercy of an uncaring bureaucrat. Everybody is reduced to a number, nobody have control over their own life.

Let me give an example. In Denmark we basically have a completely free education system, as a university I only have to pay for my own books, all of it is funded trough taxes. In a sense that is pretty cool, clearly such a system have its advantages. However it does come with a price, the government is in control. It is the government who decides how to allocate research funds, the purpose of the classes and the way the university is run. So to get an education, you need to play by the governments rules. Among other things, that could mean no traveling after high school. Why, because the government wants its citizens to get an education and start working as fast as possible. After all, we need more cash cows to pay for the system. So what if you disagree with the way the government does these things, and still travel a bit after high school. Well you get penalized and might even loose the chance of getting a university degree, but you still have to pay your taxes to the system. OK a small sacrifice, but it is one among many such sacrifices.

However I don’t agree with capitalism either, at least not in its raw form. Yes the welfare stat turns people into a number in a massive bureaucracy, but raw capitalism turns them into consumers and producers. Both systems have a tendency to enslave people, rather than treating human being as if they were created in Gods image. In fact socialism and capitalism have a lot in common, both are based on a very similar materialistic view of mankind and its needs.

God bless you
TL

 

[TLDenmark]

Ribozyme have asked me to explain the meaning behind “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger”. The word could refer to a lot of things, but I will give some examples. One such policy measure, would be the reeducation or rehabilitation of people without a job. The government will often subsidize such a thing, even paying them money while they take an education. Other such examples are paid maternal (and paternal) leave, as well as the government subsiding the hiring of people with disabilities or those that have been unemployed for a long time.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribozyme have asked me to explain the meaning behind “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger”. The word could refer to a lot of things, but I will give some examples. One such policy measure, would be the reeducation or rehabilitation of people without a job. The government will often subsidize such a thing, even paying them money while they take an education. Other such examples are paid maternal (and paternal) leave, as well as the government subsiding the hiring of people with disabilities or those that have been unemployed for a long time.

It translates to “labour market policy measures” not “labor market political activities,” right? “foranstaltninger” mean measures if I am correct. But could those measures be used as a way to keep people from being reported as unemployed in the statistics? Well, the person who referred to “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” says that the people who are in “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” were “put away” and should be counted as “unemployed.”

Well, I do like “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” in the way you describe it. I think it is better than hikikomori.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well, I do like “arbejdsmarkedspolitiske foranstaltninger” in the way you describe it. I think it is better than hikikomori.

Why can’t you figure out the two are different?

 

[Man]

Systems such as this greatly reduce health care cost for these people, and usually end up as net positives. Also, many of these people are disabled in some way, and so the situation is still trickier, and in many ways much more just than the US system.

However, there is always room for improvement in such situations. The US needs to reach out more to deal with poverty, whereas this kind of system will, as you say, just let them become idol or give them state work, if it is not also focused on their personal development.

Some of them may be fine working for their Swedish brother in, essentially low level, public service jobs. And that isn’t necessarily bad.

 

[lwestin]

Perhaps the success of the high taxes/conformity/state as parent/ welfare state is reflected in the suicide rate? People without freedom.

 

[rbrooks]

I have an idea. Lets all just push for the utopia of communism and allow the government to make all of our decisions for us! Including our social status, income, and how many children we can have. The we can all be truly happy and not really have to work and be paid out of the fruits of someone who happened to work hard to become financially comfortable.

Wait, we already elected him.

I realize I am a little over the top in this remark, but it is how I feel reading this thread. We have a social welfare system that breads laziness, dependence and criminals. Unless Americans in that system can get self motivated to take advantage of the grea opportunities of our country, there will never be a system that will work in our country.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[johnnydigit]

Jesus didn’t care about advancement of technology or industrialization. i think Sweden’s model is much holier than ours. it gets down to the simple task of caring for the poor, at the sacrifice of advancement (or is it). lazy or not, it accomplishes the higher task of loving neighbor. only then can you advance as a people technologically. we are skipping and leaving people behind in order to advance ourselves, which is wrong.

if it takes a thousand more years stuck in the middle ages to learn humility and compassion, so be it. a child of God can be happy in the stone age.

 

[Opelske]

Working part time as a sales assistant in a store while studying is not remarkable. What area of finance? Did you employ poeple, run a business? No?

He worked, supported himself and went to school to further his education. To improve oneself through work and study is remarkable in itself. It is upward mobility; we all can’t start at the top.

 

[Opelske]

No. they are ways for old people to claim some sort of moral high ground.

Now, old man. Get back to the conversation at hand.

“old people?” “claim moral high ground?” – sounds more like you are doing the claiming.

“…old man …get back to…” - utterly disrespectful comment.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I like how Sweden deals with the poor and unemployed.

SNIP

So what do you think of Sweden’s way of dealing with the poor?

Interesting. A webpage that doesn’t cite its sources and two blogs. Any actual research here?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Man]

I have an idea. Lets all just push for the utopia of communism and allow the government to make all of our decisions for us! Including our social status, income, and how many children we can have. The we can all be truly happy and not really have to work and be paid out of the fruits of someone who happened to work hard to become financially comfortable.

Wait, we already elected him.

I realize I am a little over the top in this remark, but it is how I feel reading this thread. We have a social welfare system that breads laziness, dependence and criminals. Unless Americans in that system can get self motivated to take advantage of the grea opportunities of our country, there will never be a system that will work in our country.

Just my 2 cents.

That sound like a fair minded summary of Swedish society… You’re judgment of the situation blinded by your speculation.

Certainly the US could be justified on walking a reasonable line -toward- socialized health care to determine what works here and what doesn’t. There doesn’t seem to be a need to jump in with both feet as has been done in other countries… for instance. It actually seems to be contradicted.

 

[barjonah1]

I am very confused…what does “putting them away” mean???

 

[Opelske]

Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

I agree. At some point, all welfare systems become corrupted, and no one is helped. There are those who need more help than others for many reasons - orphaned, mentally ill, disillusioned, poverty, ignorance, and on and on it goes. Teach a man to fish and you give him dignity and responsibility. We are all good for some sort of work, and no job is too small for a man with dignity. It’s not that a welfare system is a bad thing, it’s just that a welfare system gone bad and run poorly eventually does more harm than good.

 

[Man]

I am very confused…what does “putting them away” mean???

It means he has a prejudice against giving poor people government jobs, which is equated with institutionalizing people. Which is interesting, because a certain percentage of persons have difficulty holding a job for various reasons, including mental handicaps and so forth, which are undoubtedly included in the number.