Pros And Cons Of Workfare Programs
Pros.Workers could afford to wait for a better job or better wages.People would have the freedom to return to school or stay home to care for a relative.The 'poverty trap' would be removed from traditional welfare programs.Citizens could have simple, straightforward financial assistance that minimizes bureaucracy.The government would spend less to administer the program than with traditional welfare.Payments would help young couples start families in countries with low birth rates.The payments could help stabilize the economy during recessionary periods. Cons.Inflation could be triggered because of the increase in demand for goods and services.There won't be an increased standard of living in the long run because of inflated prices.A reduced program with smaller payments won't make a real difference to poverty-stricken families.Free income may disincentivize people to get jobs, and make work seem optional.Free income could perpetuate the falling labor force participation rate.It would be difficult especially in the US to get legislation passed because of stiff opposition to handouts for the unemployed. In 2017, Finland began a two-year experiment. It gave 2,000 unemployed people 560 euros a month for two years, even if they found work. The recipients said it reduced stress. It also gave them more incentive to find a good job or start their own business.
Pros And Cons Of Workfare Programs 2016
The Finnish government was supposed to extend the trial to employed workers in 2018. Researchers wanted to see if that would help them get better jobs, as well. But the Finnish government scrapped the expansion before it began. It is exploring other social welfare programs instead.