“Dole” Not What It May Seem

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 40, 10 May 1927, Page 14

“Dole” Not What It May Seem

POPULAR MISCONCEPTION DR. BELSHAW’S EXPLANATION “It is my object to correct the view that the “dole” is an unmitigated evil,” said Dr. H. Belshaw, Professor of Economics in the Auckland University College, in an address to the Auckland Rotary Club. He wished to do so by describing the essential feature of compulsory insurance against unemployment. “Further, while I am not at all sure that a similar scheme is necessary in New Zealand, it is my opinion that a careful and systematic inquiry should be made Into the problem of unemployment and its alleviation,” he continued. “Unemployment insurance began toward the middle of last century when certain trade unions in Britain and Belgium agreed to pay allowances to unemployed members, though other forms of relief are of earlier date.”

GROWTH OF UNEMPLOYMENT “The existence of unemployment is rightly regarded ,as one of the most serious weaknesses of modern industrial society. During the period 1894 to 1913 there were never less than two per cent, of trade unionists in the United Kingdom unemployed, while the figure rose to eight per cent, on occasions. The normal condition is a4?out four per cent, unemployment. Since the war the percentage of unemployed has seldom been below 10 per cent., and in 1921 reached the collossal total of 20 per cent. We may generalise by putting the average number of unemployed persons of recent years at over one million.

“The principle of compulsory unemployment insurance of workers was first adopted in the National Insurance Act of 1911. The original act applied only to certain industries and covered some two million workers. The scope of the Act was extended in 1916 and again in 1920. The present Act covers some 12 million workers. “The essential feature of the scheme is its contributory nature, the present rates per week being:—Employer, man, 8d; woman, 7d. Employee, man, 7d; woman, Gd. State, man, 8d; woman, 6d. “The rates of benefit are: Men, 18s a week; women, 15s a week, with additional benefits for children and wives not engaged in industry. The scheme is therefore a form of insurance and is in no sense to be confused with charity or poor relief. VIEWS OF ECONOMISTS

“The criticism levelled against, the Act, especially by such journals the the ‘Daily Mail,’ is based on the citation of a comparatively small number of cases of fraud; but even if 10,000 workers were guilty of exploiting the Act this would represent only about one per cent, of the average number of employed during the past few years. While it may be admitted that the scheme has imposed some slight additional burden on industry by indirectly retarding the fall in wages, the real burden on industry has very small and economic and social arguments could readily be advanced in its support. Time permits only to state that few if any economists of repute would advocate its abandonment.”