Yesterday John Key delivered the National Party’s new plan for youth. I leave commenting on the many social issues related to the plan to others with who are better equipped to discuss whether his ideas will work. The thing that bothered me was when I was watching the news last night and they mentioned that opponents are labeling John Key’s plan for 16 and 17 year olds to not be able to receive a benefit if they are not working or attending a course that the government will pay for.
I don’t see what’s wrong with this. I’m not old enough to know what went wrong with the working for the dole scheme and why it has such dirty connotations in New Zealand, but on the face of it I don’t have problem with the idea. I have absolutely no problem with a welfare system, but it’s a safety net. It is there for people who can’t work for various reasons and people who are transitioning between jobs. Maybe it’s just my terrible upbringing where my parents told me that if you want something in life you have to work for it combined with that gem of a saying in economics that there is no free lunch, but I have no issue with people taking courses to receive their benefit. My sister was once dating a guy who was 18 and on the dole. He was making absolutely no effort to do anything with his life, he just played American football and thought it was perfectly normal for him to cruise along doing nothing while the government supported him. I realize (and hope) that he doesn’t represent all young people on the dole and I don’t want to stigmatize the welfare system, I just don’t see what the problem is with requiring people who are able to, to give something back to society in return for the support they receive from it?
Again, I wasn’t around when New Zealand had a work for the dole scheme so maybe I’m missing something here, I just don’t understand why there is a stigma being attached to requiring young people who can, to contribute if they are going to receive welfare.
Apologies for the rant 🙂