In the executive summary of the report on delivering full employment that Howard Reed and I have written for the CLASS think tank we argue that there are at least five good reasons for tackling unemployment and seeking full employment:
There is no doubt that Beveridge saw idleness as the curse of unemployment that had afflicted so many in the 1930s. The cure to idleness was work, and Beveridge believed that the state should make sure work was available for all who wanted it. His thinking was clearly a product of his era. Writing in 1942 he was influenced by the war, but he was also heavily influenced by the thinking of Keynes. Beveridge accepted Keynes' logic and believed that a government could and should tackle this issue to ensure full employment was achieved.
A Social State for 2015 has to be built upon a series of assumptions:
1. That those who would wish to work and who are denied the opportunity to do so are prejudiced against as a result;
2. Leaving people unemployed when they could be and want to be working is economically irresponsible;
3. The vast majority of people who are unemployed have to be fed, housed, clothed, educated and be provided with health care and other services when unemployed. As such unemployment has a double cost to society; the unemployed person is maintained and yet makes no direct contribution to economic well being within the economy whilst society suffers the social consequences of the idleness it has imposed;
4. The inequality of economic treatment between those in and out of work imposes a social cost both on those suffering the impact of that inequality directly and on society at large;
5. Unemployment denies people the chance to fulfil their potential, at least part of which is realised for most people through the process of work. This imposes costs beyond the lost value of economic output.
For these reasons we believe it makes economic, environmental, social and medical sense to tackle unemployment whilst equity, justice and social harmony are also enhanced.
We believe these are sufficient rasons in themselves for a policy of full employment for all who want it to be the highest priority for any government.
The rest of the paper explains how we think that can be delivered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Those five reasons should be shouted from the rooftops, but this will not be heard be the tin ears of those that really run the UK. They have reneged on the social contract established after WW2 and have no intention of reinstating it.
What a timely post !! I was actually thinking (worrying) about problems with future employment levels yesterday. Not for the reasons you identify in your document (although I have only just started reading it so you might cover it) but from a wider perspective.
If we continue providing services and products in ever increasing more efficient and automated ways i.e. we can satisfy the human demand by utilising less human resource then un-employement can only get far worse.
I’m thinking 50 years ahead for it to probably be really noticable, it was just a visit to the local supermarket yesterday where I managed to do the shopping with out any intervention from staff (e.g. electronic checkout) that got me thinking on this.
That path leads us to Mutually Assured Destruction of the Economy
Nearly 40 years ago (And longtime contributor to this blog Howard Reed will confirm this) a young English writer, John Wagner started a Boys comics known as 2000AD. Arguably its most famous character was a futuristic lawman known as ‘Judge Dredd’ – a strip set in a dystopian, post apocalyptic future where democracy in America had collapsed following a nuclear holocaust and the government was in the hands of the Judges, futuristic law enforcers, empowered as judge, jury and executioner. In it, the fictitious territory of ‘Mega City One’ (Basically a megalopolis encompassing New York, Boston and Philadelphia) was a society with Employment at 8%, most jobs mechanized or automated out and an idle population, the result was sky high crime rates, which only a well empowered Judge caste (it was believed) could control. The strip is still going strong today – 36 years on. The reason for this digression, is that whilst that is a work of fiction, it does illustrate probably the first problem with using the Beveridge report as a Blueprint for action today – the pace and speed of technological change, which is increasing exponentially.
Even taking aside the Second World War and using its implementation in 1945/46, the technological advances and massive change in population make that kind of programme a high risk investment today. That said, I agree we cannot sit by and do nothing as a generation is blighted. As a contributor to the blog of the co-author of the CLASS piece, I’ll put some more thoughts in a post there, but I think whilst you have focused on the taxation and benefit system (which I would agree is a crucial piece of the puzzle), it might be worth outlining how the Section ‘how to implement a fiscal policy to tackle idleness’ or at least the practical measures you advocate in terms of promoting employment are going to work – I appreciate the paper is of a finite size and cannot cover everything (A point Mr.Reed made in my comments on your other post), but until the specifics are laid out, you’re laying yourself open to hostile criticism.
I confess I am not sure what you are suggesting or asking
Sorry – the response was to the previous post as well as yours so best to disaggregate the two – can you be more specific over the logistics of the projects you have to deliver full employment? All three suggested in the paper appear to focus primarily on construction, but seem light on specifics – until you have that, I think you’re laying yourself open to a charge of putting the cart before the horse?
Of course they’re light on specifics
This is not a business plan for the UK – just a small part of it
Read Compass Plan B
But surely pursuit of full employment (to the exclusion of other economic imperatives) was what led to the disasters of the 1970s? (massive inflation in particular)?
Just asking….
why?
Remember an oil crisis?
And a banking crisis?