The classic situation is for the main breadwinner in a family having been employed a number of years is made redundant. That type of employment in the area has dwindled away due to general reduction of manufacturing, as it goes overseas, or due to a government establishment closing down, or a large company going bust. That person and the family have long established roots in the area and clearly are reluctant to move.
Now the present system is that to continue getting dole money you go on training schemes or educational courses. But these often are just used as interludes between periods on the dole, they cannot solve the problem unless they can provide the skills needed for particular employment which does exist in that area. If there is no employment which can provide adequate income for the breadwinner to keep the family, then it will not solve the problem.
No-one should be entitled to be supported endlessly by society just because they don't want to move.
It obviously costs the government a tremendous amount of money supporting people in this situation. It would be more cost effective for the government to pay for the family to migrate to an area where there is work. Then to provide assistance for the family during the time the breadwinner is learning the required skills needed to get the job that will support the family.
If the family really doesn't want to move, then the breadwinner must work away from home and return at weekends. That is what many do already by commuting to the big cities and staying in basic accomodation during the working week.
Before the advent of the welfare state, if you didn't work you didn't eat. It might seem tough, but why should anyone get a free lunch if they are capable of working?
Toenail
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment