Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwillgoesfast | Hacker News Reader

Hmm, this is really interesting. Have any other communities experimented with this?

Australia currently pays unemployed people $492.60 every two weeks ($12,800 yearly) and up to another $121 every two weeks ($3,146 yearly) to help with rent.

Everyone qualifies, forever.

[1] http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/16/dole-around-the-world-ho...

Nice link. The same article points out that greater benefits are available in some parts of the US (Massachusetts being cited). The thing in the US isn't so much the lack of such benefits, but the difficulty in obtaining them.

The unemployment benefits available in the US aren't comparable.

The most significant difference is that in the US unemployment benefits are generally limited to a maximum of 26 weeks, while in Australia you can collect benefits for decades.

The "greater benefits" available in some states (e.g., Massachusetts) are only available to people who have been recently working in a high-income job. Your unemployment benefit in MA = 50% of the bi-weekly pay rate you had when you were working, up to a certain maximum. And, again, you can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 26 weeks.

You're referring to unemployment insurance, which is not the only equivalent to the Australian "dole". There's also "welfare" which (as of "welfare reform") is limited to 5y in a lifetime. (Getting welfare, as far as I can tell, is a major pain in the ass; so is collecting unemployment insurance -- getting unemployment benefits in Australia is -- or was when I did it -- by comparison, trivial.)

I don't know how the Australian laws have changed, but you can't just collect unemployment benefits forever without doing anything, but it is pretty close. I'd guess that the amount of crap the Australian system puts you through in a lifetime is probably about with the US puts you through in a year.

The article says they have to be looking for paid work. I assume that means keeping a log of where you went and applied?

I know a lot of people who just wouldn't work if they could draw benefits like that. Hell, I might retire myself.

Yep, you must keep a log, and submit x number of job applications per month.

I know of houses full of 20 somethings who intentionally fill out applications left handed with spelling mistakes so they never get a job and can surf all day.

The amount of money is enough to live on, but you won't be really doing any leisure activities, so it gets old pretty fast for anyone that's motivated. For the unmotivated, it keeps them fed, clothed and sheltered, and stops them resorting to crime, so I think it's a good thing.

Norway does more or less the same. I like the system. A living wage would be more fair, but it's still a very nice way of preventing that people fall outside the system.

The challenge is that, after a certain period, additional training becomes a requirement of continued payment. So, if you're 20-something and been out of work for 6 months, they'll require you receive training and qualifications if you want payments to continue. A "Certificate 3\4 in Business administration", for example.

The training is a covered cost, so its not out-of-pocket for the unemployed. I think it is a good method of helping reduce structural unemployment, as most of the cyclical unemployed are likely to find work before the training requirement kicks in anyway.

Norway and Sweden both give you a check for having kids and I believe Norway gives you part of the oil money.

You don't get given the oil money, the whole idea is to invest it for when the oil runs out.

Meaning they give you your own money back to you for doing something they like. How generous.

Is there a problem with that? Taxes are there to benefit the society, not the individual. In Norway's case, it definitely seems to be a benefit for society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com