So like a job? If it pays decently and teaches them marketable skills it could work well enough.
I would think that it's possible to create a jobs retraining program that doesn't coerce people into working.
Obviously if they would like to work, employment opportunities should be available.
But what if they're severely disabled, or a stay-at-home parent, or are suffering from a mental health problem that inhibits their ability to work? What if they are ultimately unable to find work due to discrimination, or a lack of demand for their skills? Should they be condemned to poverty?
Pshh, you grossly underestimate the populist anti-immigrant sentiments of the succs, have you learned nothing of our xenophobic ways?
Did you know, for instance, that the succs created an entire term to describe the concept of immigrant laborforce competition that they use to campaign with? They call it “social dumping” and is widely accepted discourse and has acted as a basis for lawmaking!
Pinged members of DEN group.
About & group list | Subscribe to this group | Unsubscribe from this group | Unsubscribe from all groups
It's almost as if you need people contributing to the society in exchange for welfare benefits.
Social Democratic welfare regimes like those of the Nordics have historically achieved this though.
Except it's through policies like generous childcare provisions and retraining (good), rather than coercing people into labour market participation (bad).
What research is this decision based on?
The plan says it aims to integrate 20 000 people by pushing them to find some form of work, through local government offices.
"It could be a job on the beach picking up cigarette butts or plastic... (or) helping to solve various tasks within a company," employment minister Peter Hummelgaard said.
"The most important thing for us is that people get out of their homes," he added.
Doesn't sound too bad, except you're going to be creating a lot of useless jobs.
What research is this decision based on?
It's FMA research
Doesn't sound too bad, except you're going to be creating a lot of useless jobs.
Except it won't even do that. The government thinks it will create 250 jobs in total. And the people impacted by this will still count as unemployed or out of the work force
Doesn't sound too bad, except you're going to be creating a lot of useless jobs.
I wish my municipality hired people to pick up cigarette butts.
This actually seems like a pretty good way to help desegregate Danish society. Too bad they're still pandering to nativist morons with the zero asylum applications policy.
Is there any evidence that the Danish segregation is not systemic like its American counterpart?
City-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains
If you have the time, go read the study. If you don't, here's the abstract:
We study the city-wide effects of new, centrally-located market-rate housing supply using geo-coded total population register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run. Market-rate supply is likely to improve affordability outside the sub-markets where new construction occurs and to benefit low-income people.
And the conclusion:
We have analyzed the city-wide effects of new market-rate construction using geo-coded register data from the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. We show that even when new market-rate units get occupied by high-income households, they also benefit middle- and low-income households through a moving chain mechanism.
These results are important for the policy debate in many cities about the merits of increasing the supply of market-rate housing. As, for example, Been et al. (2019) argue, skepticism surrounding the connection between housing supply and affordability has been growing and one of the main concerns is that market-rate supply benefits only the better-off. Our results, together with the results by Mast (2021) for US cities, should alleviate the concerns of these skeptics. As geo-coded register data become available in other countries, replication of our study and comparing the results to ours and to those by Mast (2021) will help to further shed light on the type of contexts where new market-rate supply is most likely to benefit lower-income households.
Finally, we stress that while market-rate housing supply seems to have wide-ranging beneficial effects, it is not a panacea for all housing market problems. Some people may get discriminated out from the housing market and for some others even the cheapest housing in the city may not be affordable. Housing allowance or voucher programs, as well as social housing are important complements to market-rate supply. These programs, if well-designed, may also be helpful in preventing residential segregation (e.g., Collinson and Ganong 2018 and Davis et al. 2021).
advisors to Governor Polis
online now