问答题

Recently, "workfare" has been developed in some countries to replace the traditional "unemployment welfare". Under "workfare" models, welfare recipients are obliged to perform some work or undergo training in exchange for their welfare payments. Do you think "workfare" models are a sensible choice. The following are the supporters’ and opponents’ opinions. Read carefully the opinions from both sides and write your response in NO LESS THAN 200 words, in which you should first summarize briefly the opinions from both sides and give your view on the issue. Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization, language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.YES Workfare offers the unemployed opportunities to develop skills to work their way out of poverty. Productive work raises the expectations of those involved by increasing their self-respect and provides them with more confidence in their abilities. It also develops skills associated with work, such as time keeping, taking and giving instructions, working in a team, accepting responsibility and prioritising. Such skills may seem mundane, but they are very valuable to employers. Workfare schemes require applicants also to search for work whilst completing the schemes. Moving from a traditional something-for-nothing welfare scheme to a workfare system stops all these individuals from being burdens on the state, cutting welfare rolls very rapidly and allowing the government to concentrate upon assisting the truly needy.NO Workfare is actually a more expensive option than traditional unemployment benefit. The jobless are ultimately given at least the same amount of taxpayers’ money, but the state also has to pay the costs of setting up the schemes, the materials, the wages of supervisors, transport and childcare, etc. In a recession, when the numbers of the unemployed rise substantially, the costs of work-fare schemes could be prohibitive and lead to the collapse of the policy. Furthermore, even if the state wanted to, they couldn’t enroll everyone—given that most people who lose a job find another within six months, there’s no point dragging people into these schemes who will find work anyway given a little more time.