Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

American Unemployment benefits vs UK furlough scheme?

Which is the best policy to deal with the economic consequence

UK for sure as it maintains a lot more jobs. Obviously some firms will go , but a lot will remain and they will still have their employees due to the furlough. Not to mention the UKs programme is more per month for most as far as i know. Both of these increase spending in the economy and will allow the UK economy to get back on its feet faster, as people can go straight back to work rather than look for a job for months. There are downsides though, like the high taxation in the coming years due to the serious amount of borrowing , which will obviously hold back growth a fair bit.

Reply 2

girlpersonhuman

Original post by edzomac

Hi thank you for replying! I did some research on this, and I might actually disagree with you. I feel like the current furlough scheme is way too expensive people are actually being paid a lot more per month than the need to cover basic necessity costs. Also, people are trapped in this furlough system, in jobs that will inevitable get laid off once the pandemic is over, in this new covid world. People have developed habits during the lockdown, like online shopping, and are more careful with what they spend their money on. These habits will most definitely be permanent. It also does not give people the opportunity to find a more permanent job, which they would've done if they were unemployed. The furlough scheme is delay this process. The rate of unemployment will definitely increase exponentially once the pandemic is over. On the whole, you're right this is expensive and the government will have to pay their debts with tax. The only plus side is delaying the emotional and financial aspect of unemployment and not having to fire and then rehire people in the future.
Although in America, not everyone can get unemployment benefits as the offices are overwhelmed with a lot of unemployed people, I still think this is a lot better than the UK system as most do get enough to pay bills and buy staples and cleaning products.
Hope you don't mind, I am just quoting what I've read whilst doing research on this topic :smile:

but thanks for replying!

Reply 3

Rabbit2

Original post by curiousperson123

Hi thank you for replying! I did some research on this, and I might actually disagree with you. I feel like the current furlough scheme is way too expensive people are actually being paid a lot more per month than the need to cover basic necessity costs. Also, people are trapped in this furlough system, in jobs that will inevitable get laid off once the pandemic is over, in this new covid world. People have developed habits during the lockdown, like online shopping, and are more careful with what they spend their money on. These habits will most definitely be permanent. It also does not give people the opportunity to find a more permanent job, which they would've done if they were unemployed. The furlough scheme is delay this process. The rate of unemployment will definitely increase exponentially once the pandemic is over. On the whole, you're right this is expensive and the government will have to pay their debts with tax. The only plus side is delaying the emotional and financial aspect of unemployment and not having to fire and then rehire people in the future.
Although in America, not everyone can get unemployment benefits as the offices are overwhelmed with a lot of unemployed people, I still ]think this is a lot better than the UK system as most do get enough to pay bills and buy staples and cleaning products.
Hope you don't mind, I am just quoting what I've read whilst doing research on this topic :smile:

but thanks for replying!

ey As i am in the 'target area' [the US], i tend to agree with you. I am about "half retired" now, and occasionally take on consulting jobs to supplement my income. I have worked with people [some of them married couples] who did "job shopping". They would sign on with a company or group that needed specialized technical help for a short period - say 2 or 3 years. They would be taken on for the period, paid overtime (if they had to work any), and usually get normal benefits [with the possible exception of vacation] - what happened on 'vaccy' depended upon their individual contract. Before their contract ran out, they would look through employment listings [there are 'job shopper' listing adverts that allow employers to advertise for these kind of ppl. They would decide where they wanted to live for their next 'tour', and fill out a job application. When i knew them, they had lived in several foreign countries, and all over the USA.

A former colleague said that everyone should have one year's salary set aside - for contingencies - in case you suddenly found yourself jobless. I managed to do that through most of my career - altho at times i would have had to sell some securities that i had purchased as a investment, and take a 'hit' on purchase/resale fees. I have met ppl here, who have told me that they make more money panhandling at subway [underground] stations, than they made working 40 hrs a week in construction. I have a master's degree in engineering, so i don't do those sort of jobs [at least i haven't had to yet].

The 'easy, socialist answer' to paying for things like this is "raise taxes". In reality, what this amounts to is 'debase the currency' - the ancient answer from the times of the Roman empire. Future generations will be much worse off because of this approach. As an example, when i went to D.C. [as in Washington] with my freshly printed bachelor's degree in engineering, i was paying $0.20/US gallon for pump petrol. I was hired [by the US Federal Government for $37,800 pa [which wasn't a bad salary for an electrical engineer in 1969. When i retired from the workforce [left full time employment], i was making about $92,000 pa. Petrol was $2.40/US gallon. Over those years, my salary had increased by 2.566:1, but the price of petrol [and just about everything else] had increased by a ratio of 12:1. Obviously, i was worse off with the higher figures.

Similarly, with Social Security - i "paid in" dues with 'non inflated' dollars, but when i withdraw them (now), i am being paid in devalued 'inflated dollars. To buy petrol, i have to withdraw 12 times as many dollars to buy the same amount of petrol, this reduces my 'buying power' considerably. The only country i have heard of that may not be doing this is Sweden. They got a large 'north sea oil payoff', and - rather than spending it, set up a 'retirement account' for every Swedish citizen. The older people will receive some benefit, but the young ones - who have a much longer time for the money to 'compound' should really reap the benefits. Cheers.

Reply 4

jack456789

The furlough scheme is far better on the individual level.

Reply 5

cyclone777

Original post by curiousperson123

Which is the best policy to deal with the economic consequence

the american unemployment system is ****

i hear that you can never claim something like more than 2 yrs total unemployment over there for the duration of your life. and once you go over that your benefit is essientially stopped and you'll literally become homeless.

and i hear they like to give food stamps instead of money.

lol "foodstamps" ...

Reply 6

welshg1l

Original post by welshg1l

Iwe currently building klels privarte house and deep cleans houuae ckearence windiws sparkle cleans
Michelle 07305546275

29 anbour

Reply 7

Rabbit2

Original post by cyclone777

I don't believe that is true. For one reason, the 'welfare' system is locally administered. How could one state [say Oregon] know whether you had claimed benefits in Florida?? Impossible!! In reality, it is really worse than that. It would require 'Portland, Oregon' to know whether you had claimed benefits in Tampa, Florida. There are so many combinations [recall that the entire Uk, including channel islands, both Irelands, Wales, Shetland, etc, are about 10% smaller than Nevada], that you couldn't possibly cross check everywhere else in the country that could have been paying you benefits.

The homeless people that i have encountered and talked to, clearly had REALLY serious mental problems, to the extent that they would be impossible to 'help' and 'get off the street'. I am male, over 6 feet tall, and in pretty decent physical shape (for my age - i'm over 60), and i would be hesitant to try to share a flat with many of these people [some of them female], because you can't watch them 100% of the time, and it only takes a second to slip a knife into you in some vital spot. Cheers.