For the sake of the children

“If you really want to do something “for the sake of the children” then get their parents employed.”

This comes from Macdoctor who does his usual thorough analysis of stats showing more children were admitted to hospital during the recession.

Lindsay Mitchell comes to a similar conclusion:

Children in families with work do better than children with families on benefits despite both being on low incomes.

Children in families that work suffer the least abuse or neglect.

Children in families that work grow up with similar expectations for themselves.

The first aim of welfare reform must be to get people who can work into work. It is best for them, their children, society and the economy.

A caring society has a responsibility to look after those who can’t look after themselves. But a caring society must also help those who can help themselves to do so.

This could well be more expensive than just giving people benefits in the short term but it is the only way to halt  benefit dependence and the vicious circle of deprivation it leads to.

4 Responses to For the sake of the children

  1. Bearhunter says:

    “The first aim of welfare reform must be to get people who can work into work.”

    Hard to argue with that, but it’s pretty tough to get people into work when there aren’t any jobs. this country seems physically incapable of creating jobs.

    Like

  2. homepaddock says:

    “it’s pretty tough to get people into work when there aren’t any jobs”

    Granted but there are some jobs which people might be able to do if their literacy, numeracy and other basic work skills were improved.

    “this country seems physically incapable of creating jobs.”

    We’ve employed three extra people this year. That’s not a lot by itself when there are so many unemployed, but one or two here, and a few there across many employers makes a difference.

    Like

  3. JC says:

    “this country seems physically incapable of creating jobs.”

    It might seem like that, but the OECD data shows we have an extremely high proportion of 15-65 years olds in work, in round figures its 75% compared to the OECD average of 65% (2005), plus we our unemployment rate is 2 percentage points better than the OECD average as well.

    JC

    Like

  4. Simfarmer says:

    Have a look at the number of oversea’s workers on dairyfarms throughout Canterbury. There are plenty of jobs out there in the rural sector just not people with skills for them OR more likely people from town would prefer to sit on there arse than get out and do whatever is required to make a living. It may not be ‘attractive’ work but its work nonetheless and you shouldn’t be able to choose to be on the benefit as people obviously do.
    On the other hand of course these people might be to hopeless to even cup up cows…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: