The second in the series of seven myth busters being published jointly by the Tax Justice Network and New Economics Foundation is out. It shatters the myth of strivers v skivers.
Read it in full here, and in a shortened version in the Guardian here.
And, as with other issues addressed in the series, the claims made are, of course a myth. As the summary says:
The division between "strivers" and "skivers" is a false one. The majority of jobless people are out of work because they are disabled, have caring responsibilities or simply cannot find a job. All of us depend throughout our life on others' hard work. Some of that work attracts a wage, but that doesn't make it any more valuable. Much of it is unpaid, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. We need a benefits system that respects and supports this interdependence — not one that fosters division, competition and looking after "number one".
I buy that.
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:
Most claimants are actually IN work, not out of work. Also, amongst the smallest proportion of the welfare budget goes on the unemployed. Most goes towards the elderly, according to the figures.
The amount spent on housing benefit could be solved partly with rent controls and the building of social housing.
The amount of benefit “fiddled” is less than 1 percent, too.
We just need to make sure everybody has work to do and is paid at a living wage for it.
If you work, you are contributing and are receiving payment for your efforts. It recognises the task you are undertaking, the importance of it and its value.
The problem is the term ‘benefits’ and the narrow profit-centred definition of the term ‘work’.
These people are working, are retired, or are too sick to work. That means they should get paid a wage or a pension.
Neil makes a good point. I feel we need to define what is ‘work.’ Something that someone pays you to do is not good enough. There needs to be an inherent element of ‘worthwhileness’ to it. Capitalism as it now is does not guarantee this, as ‘jobs’ are governed by what the market will allow you to do. Years ago I was inspired by the radical Italian lawyer Danilo Dolci, who, in the impoverished and unemployed Sicily of the 50’s, created the concept of the ‘reverse strike’, that is, people deciding to band together to do worthwhile things whether or not the market had created that opportunity. Not all work is a real contribution; indeed there are many ‘jobs’ that one would make a better contribution to society by turning them down. Many on benefits who do voluntary work feel more satisfied this way. We now see many people hating their jobs and envying those who are unemployed. This ‘envy’ is turned into resentment and the real cause disguised. I think job satisfaction is at an all time low. In my former profession, teaching, it is said that 80% of teachers feel demoralised. Many do not know what they are working for and the Government is using this dissatisfaction for its own nefarious purposes. Things are very, very, sick. It all needs to be looked at. The culture, at present, favours narcisistic, machiavellian types who lack empathy (as Oliver James points out) and it is these types who are in control.
I think Neil’s comment is important. We need to redefine ‘work’. Work, for many is feeling less and less worthwhile. Yet it is this inherent sense of ‘worthwhileness’ that is vital for mental well-being. Since being on benefits I have done much worthwhile voluntary work that the market would never have paid me to do. I remember being inspire by a book by the radical Italian lawyer Danilo Dolci who, in the impoverished Sicily of the 50’s, created the ‘reverse strike’ where people got together to do something that they felt needed to be done regardless of the market ‘allowing it’.
The more I read, the more it becomes apparent that the biggest problem for the UK is not wage level or benefit levels, but rather the cost of living, especially housing. If companies actually paid a living wage (esp in London) it is doubtful that they would be competitive on a global basis. We need brave politician that will address the cost of living by curtailing non-resident ownership of houses, building more social housing and curtailing immigration (and I say this as an immigrant)
Immigration is of clear economic benefit
I agree no social housing