For decades now, the PAP govt have been lecturing us that welfare is bad for nation becos it encourages disincentive to work, thereby creating a nation of loafers out to bleed the country, as quoted by Ho Geok Choo. Now this survey had surfaced which prove that the Govt is wrong about welfare, and 66.6% have been conned into believing what they are spinning.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13032515&source=hptextfeature
Economist.com, 28 Jan 2009
Attitudes to work - Can't? Or won't?
THAT mythical beast, homo economicus, is utterly clear about the purpose of work: to get paid. He is keener on leisure than on work, and if money can be got without effort, he downs tools. If real people feel the same, then bountiful out-of-work benefits should be found in the same places as work-shy citizens.
Yet a cross-country comparison of benefits and attitudes to work published on January 28th finds precisely the opposite pattern. Researchers ranked 13 countries according to their generosity (measured by comparing typical benefits to those out of work with the average wage of a production worker) and their citizens’ commitment to work (gauged by asking whether they would work if they did not need the cash, and whether they regarded a job as merely a way to earn a living). The more generous a state is, the keener on work its people are, they found (see chart). Britons, whose benefits were the stingiest after those that Americans get, were least keen of all on work.
One reason may be the skills make-up of the British workforce. The researchers found, logically enough, that professionals and graduates were more positive about work than the unskilled and non-graduates. Fewer Britons than Norwegians (who came top on work commitment) have professional jobs or degrees. But this does not entirely explain their comparative immunity to the attractions of toil: Britons of every social class and level of education were less keen on work than their counterparts elsewhere.
Could the “dependency culture” currently exercising British politicians be solved by raising benefits? Unlikely, says Alison Park, editor of the annual British Social Attitudes Report, in which the study appeared: attitudes to work vary from country to country for many reasons. The lavishness of what the report terms “encompassing” states, all Nordic with Lutheran traditions, may have been made possible by a strong work ethic, rather than a stronger commitment to work having emerged as a result of it.
And work incentives are affected by features of welfare systems other than overall generosity: “corporatist” states such as Germany, which pay higher benefits to those with a longer work history, may be encouraging positive attitudes to work by such conditionality. Britain’s meagre benefits, by contrast, are largely independent of previous employment, which may mean they are seen as an alternative to work, rather than as one of the good things that flow from it.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13032515&source=hptextfeature
Economist.com, 28 Jan 2009
Attitudes to work - Can't? Or won't?
THAT mythical beast, homo economicus, is utterly clear about the purpose of work: to get paid. He is keener on leisure than on work, and if money can be got without effort, he downs tools. If real people feel the same, then bountiful out-of-work benefits should be found in the same places as work-shy citizens.
Yet a cross-country comparison of benefits and attitudes to work published on January 28th finds precisely the opposite pattern. Researchers ranked 13 countries according to their generosity (measured by comparing typical benefits to those out of work with the average wage of a production worker) and their citizens’ commitment to work (gauged by asking whether they would work if they did not need the cash, and whether they regarded a job as merely a way to earn a living). The more generous a state is, the keener on work its people are, they found (see chart). Britons, whose benefits were the stingiest after those that Americans get, were least keen of all on work.
One reason may be the skills make-up of the British workforce. The researchers found, logically enough, that professionals and graduates were more positive about work than the unskilled and non-graduates. Fewer Britons than Norwegians (who came top on work commitment) have professional jobs or degrees. But this does not entirely explain their comparative immunity to the attractions of toil: Britons of every social class and level of education were less keen on work than their counterparts elsewhere.
Could the “dependency culture” currently exercising British politicians be solved by raising benefits? Unlikely, says Alison Park, editor of the annual British Social Attitudes Report, in which the study appeared: attitudes to work vary from country to country for many reasons. The lavishness of what the report terms “encompassing” states, all Nordic with Lutheran traditions, may have been made possible by a strong work ethic, rather than a stronger commitment to work having emerged as a result of it.
And work incentives are affected by features of welfare systems other than overall generosity: “corporatist” states such as Germany, which pay higher benefits to those with a longer work history, may be encouraging positive attitudes to work by such conditionality. Britain’s meagre benefits, by contrast, are largely independent of previous employment, which may mean they are seen as an alternative to work, rather than as one of the good things that flow from it.
