No, rock3r was advancing the case for implementing a Danish model. In the event of unemployment you may claim benefit that is the same as your previous wage for a fixed period of time.
I must have missed that. I thought they were arguing why is so hard to get if you have a good work history, and a history of very few if any claims?
No, rock3r was advancing the case for implementing a Danish model. In the event of unemployment you may claim benefit that is the same as your previous wage for a fixed period of time.
Ah now I'm with it. Seems like a great idea to me, but I can see how as you're suggesting it would be open to abuse.
I didn't read anything on google about Denmark giving all workers a percentage of their actual employment income, meaning an ex-CEO on the dole would get six figures. I read it as saying it pays a percentage of the average or median wage, for a short period of time, and presumably several other caveats to prevent abuse. Did you see that?
This, apparently, is the "Danish model" as regards unemployment benefits, which I have already talked about on this thread:
"Unemployment Benefits:
90% of average earnings of the previous 12 weeks, up to 3,205 kroner a week."
The reason I think it's vastly superior is that there's no more than 8% of the population living in relative poverty in Denmark.
Yes, and Denmark scores over 50% better than Ireland on those criteria you listed. Thus, they're 50% superior.
What is ‘at risk of poverty’?
The ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator identifies all those (households or people) who fall below a certain income threshold, which in the EU has been set at 60% of the median income. Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal parts, half of people having incomes above the median and half having incomes below the median. This measure is the best known and quoted indicator as it affords some comparisons with other countries. It does not, however, measure poverty as such, but rather the proportion of people below a certain income threshold who may be ‘at risk of poverty’. Whether persons below the 60 per cent threshold are actually experiencing poverty will depend on a number of factors. These include:
* The degree to which income is below the relevant thresholds;
* The length of time on this relatively low income – a long such period can lead to real deprivation, as a person’s assets run down and cannot be fully maintained or replaced;
* Possession and use of other assets, especially one’s own home.
The ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator has particular limitations as a measure of poverty in the case of Ireland in recent years. It takes no account of overall living standards and fails to reflect the fact that the 60% median income threshold increased by 88% from €102.44 in 1997 to €192.74 in 2005. Over the same period, prices (CPI) increased by just 30.6%, average industrial earnings increased by 56.4% and basic social welfare payments increased by 79.1%. The high levels of economic growth led to an increase in the number of women in the workforce and, consequently, in the number of two income households. Incomes in these cases outpaced the incomes of those who were not in the workforce and of some single income families. All groups in society have benefited from economic growth, therefore the main value of the indicator is in identifying particular groups which may have difficulty keeping pace with living standards generally. It has also been acknowledged that the ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator is not suited to making comparisons between countries at different stages of economic development. The problems inherent in using the ‘at risk of poverty’ indicator for international comparisons were restated in an article last year in the UN Development Programme journal “Development and Transition”, which concluded that:
* The results too often belie common sense;
* The ‘at risk of poverty’ label sends the wrong signal to the public and policy makers;
* The ‘risk of poverty’ logic does not lead to effective national policy.