[flagged]
I really don't know much about it, I'd have assumed it follows a similar model to the Swedish one: you can be on benefits while searching for a job, there's even a government agency tasked with finding positions you might qualify, you are required to apply to X jobs a month, and if you get offered a job you need to take it or you will get benefits cut.
Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions, you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments. Also to have decent unemployment you need to have contributed to an unemployment fund, there's a national one available to all citizens which doesn't pay much, otherwise you need to have funded the one provided by your union.
As always, it depends on your definition and situation. If you're a highly skilled, ambitious worker, with a desire for a high standard of living, then no.
If you're unskilled and unscrupulous and willing to game the system every step of the way(like some people I met), then being on welfare definitely pays better than doing unskilled labor, with the advantage you don't come home every day smelly and tired having to wake up early the next day for a long commute to go through this grind every day.
>you will eventually run the clock out on the unemployment payments.
You can prolong this indefinitely by destroying your mind and body with drugs and alcohol so you can go on disability benefits, and not worry about job interviews ever again, because nobody will hire you.
>Of course, there are ways to prolong it but it's definitely not enough to create major distortions
Yeah, NO, it definitely does major distortions. If welfare turns from a temporary safety net only used by a few and paid by many, to a system now many rely on long term and paid only by a few, then it ends up distorting everything: the tax system, the labor market, the rental market, government spending and debt, etc. all of which negatively affect a nation's economic competitiveness.
My point was entirely focused on the Swedish model which doesn't create major distortions due to how it works, you cannot be on welfare for an undetermined amount of time unless you are disabled.
For your points, I believe we need real hard data, I cannot determine if what you say about Germany is actually true without looking at it. How many people in Germany are living only on welfare for long periods (at least 12 months, what proportion stays for 24+ months)? What is the proportion between people temporarily on welfare vs long-term ones (excluding disabilities that remove someone from the labour pool)? What percentage of Germany's budget go to service welfare costs for the issue you brought up (people living on welfare instead of working)?
I'm asking for hard data because it smells very much like the "welfare queens" trope used in the USA by Reagan which was absolute bullshit.
Education and everything else related for the youth is free(taxpayer funded and government provided) in Europe. Whose responsibility is it to make ends meet other than your own? If you end up doing doordash after being provided all those generous opportunities in your youth, maybe some self reflection is needed.
Should we keep taxing small business entrepreneurs and higher earners more, to subsidize the lower earners so adults can sit at home instead of doing doordash, while having food delivery service jobs be done by a parallel society comprised of desperate migrants and refugees, which need to be brought it endlessly to keep this ponzi scheme going, because the locals feel like it's below them. Is this better for Europe?
we don't live in an age where we must struggle continously...
if there's 1000 positions but 3000 people looking for jobs, do you suggest 2000 people are put out there to figure it out themselves?
hopefully you get my idea here.