Don’t quarrel with me because I also think it is rubbish. So by this PAP logic giving out unemployment aid during the good times is a no-no. Giving temporary aid during a recession, if there are no other arguments against it, can be acceptable. Of course, the govt can invent other arguments against this but at least it has one less argument not to give.

Ah, now the KTM sees what you’re driving at.

In any case, this is how the KTM would like to frame the problem: suppose people are not choosy and they lose their jobs through no fault of theirs, should we still have unemployment benefits? Fair enough:?

Minimally, the KTM is glad we agree that the question of whether to give unemployment benefits should be recession-independent.

Since you have great thoughts and ideas that you have no time to expound, we can only wait.

What great thoughts? Great thoughts dun have; greasy thoughts got some. You want? But have to wait though .. business has been busy. KTM is hoping to tie up the loose ends on the JCS debate and take a little break to tend to his KT. Maybe write about this when the KT is more under control.

This issue about unemployment benefits is really not simple and will require some time and effort to think through and articulate.

::::This I think is rubbish. So you mean that out of a recession, people are jobless because “it’s their fault”? ::::

Goodness you have missed my logic completely.

It is the govt itself that says that there are jobs since there is net job created and the jobless people are choosy. In a recession jobs are lost, it is illogical to say that. The argument that jobless people are “choosy” in good times is the PAP’s and not mine.
Don’t quarrel with me because I also think it is rubbish. So by this PAP logic giving out unemployment aid during the good times is a no-no. Giving temporary aid during a recession, if there are no other arguments against it, can be acceptable. Of course, the govt can invent other arguments against this but at least it has one less argument not to give.

:::the KTM has given a considerable amount of thought to unemployment insurance ::::
Since you have great thoughts and ideas that you have no time to expound, we can only wait.

Hur hur.. I wasn’t expecting you to buy the argument logically. I expected your rational thinking, which is something not everyone understands. The government do things also need a bit of excuse so that it doesn’t look as if it is contradicting itself. A recession would be the best excuse for a jobless aid scheme that will last beyond the recession.

Anyway, I am looking forward to a nicely written piece on unemployment insurance. It’s a nice, romantic idea that needs some deconstruction (I am not completely against the idea but I think there are things I don’t know of and have not thought of) for better discussion.

I would say give it to the unemployed – recession or no recession.

Excellent. This would be a consistent position.

However, in a recession, the argument can be made that most people are out of their jobs through no fault of their own….that would have pacify the PAP’s perpetual imaginary fear of abuse.

This I think is rubbish. So you mean that out of a recession, people are jobless because “it’s their fault”?

Believe it or not, the KTM has given a considerable amount of thought to unemployment insurance and he has come to the conclusion that it’s the wrong thing. The KTM however hor, likes to think in knots and explaining exactly how he came to this conclusion will take more time than he can afford at the moment. Perhaps the KTM will explain in a couple of weeks when he’s more free. The KTM dunno how you can find the time to keep up with blogging at your intensity.

The point that needs to be highlighted here is that talking about “helping the unemployed” in the context of the Recession will serve nothing more than conflate issues. The Recession only means that more a unemployed and really doesn’t change the price of pork re: how best to help them.

@Aaron,

What is the probability do you think that the KTM will buy your “victim of circumstances” argument?

At the meantime, you can try to think a little harder and deeper. When the KTM has the time, he maybe will explain. Akan datang.

You see the problem with KTM and myself is I’m blind in the right eye and KTM is blind on the left eye . What is blatantly obvious to KTM is not obvious to me and vice-versa. We are both here because you appear to be able to have 2 functioning eyes.

When the right eye looks at jobless aid, like what the MM Lee said two thirds of the goods/services are imported so giving each person $300 is not very stimulating to the economy. When the left eye looks at it, the logic goes like this if someone knows there is some aid when he becomes jobless, he will be more confident spending his income and overall there will be stimulative effects to the economy. That was why Roosvelt put in place social safety nets when he became president to limit the downside of a recession.

I just checked my blog and found Lucky Tan answering the same way I would have answered. A recession is not any more special than ordinary times for people who are unemployed, just that in a recession, as Lucky Tan pointed out, it is easier to implement such as scheme because people are victims of circumstance. I would like to see this Job Seeker Allowance system work in tandem with Workfare because it plugs a small gap in that system.

I would say give it to the unemployed – recession or no recession.
Howver, in a recession, the argument can be made that most people are out of their jobs through no fault of their own….that would have pacify the PAP’s perpetual imaginary fear of abuse.
.
I’m totally disappointed with Sylvia for bowing to the concerns of the PAP and asking for relief only during recessions.

This whole thing is not just about jobs alone. It is about good jobs – slave also have jobs. There is great waste in our society if there is under-employment. Highly skilled workers simply taking a job that require low skills for the sake of it solves nothing except to satisfy the mistaken notion that more people working is better than less people working regardless of pay and quality of life.

What makes the unemployed people during a Recession more special than the unemployed people out of a recession?

I’m sure you will disagree but long story short, I think the government should provide short term assistance to unemployed job seekers, although with stringent criteria attached. For example, if the unemployed job seeker is the sole breadwinner, single mother etc, the government should provide interim assistance if these people are keen to help themselves in the long term by seeking jobs.

You might argue the government has no business in the private lives of people and I agree with that, to a certain extent. Under some circumstances some form of ‘welfarism’ might actually be productive by prevent acts of desperation. At least for me, the devil is in the details, not the idea. There must be safeguards in place to prevent free lunches.