Excellent article. What strikes me as under-discussed (because we fear the discussion will let lazy people off the hook) is this - "We talk about incentivising work, but this doesn’t often mean making work seem more attractive. Rather the focus is on making not working much worse."
From the 1970s onwards, a diminishing section of the British workforce could find secure, well paying unskilled or semi skilled jobs. By well-paying I mean sufficient to pay rent, and with one wage able to support a family (a second wage was often needed for the extras, like holidays and nicer clothes). The destruction of industries across the country threw millions of working class men and women into a job market with a much poorer offer. No local jobs, or low paid service jobs, that's what replaced factory jobs. The subsequent growth of the public sector and financial services was mostly in white-collar work, so didn't address the problem.
So within a generation the adults made redundant, and young people coming out of school, were in the same boat. Work was much less financially rewarding (no more paying the rent from wages, housing benefit had to be claimed) it did not offer future prospects (no more apprenticeships, retail work had no progression, and manual council jobs were being privatised with lower wages and worse terms).
This was the experience of everyone I grew up with, in a one-industry town that lost that industry. I got out, because I was academic - and because mobility was still possible then, as housing costs elsewhere were affordable.
My question is this - if society does not provide, through the free market or with government intervention, sufficient jobs for its adult working-class population, where they can earn enough to have a family life, some hope of advancement through work, and security and dignity in work (no zero hours, or fake self-employment) - then is that society really in a position to criticise people who don't want to do the work on offer?
I'm astonished individuals ever come off benefits to eg work 60 hours plus driving as "self-employed" for Amazon, peeing in a bottle to meet the company's time demands. I understand entirely why people might say they simply cannot do that work. And that doesn't take account of the people with health problems or caring responsibilities, wo just don't fit in this job market anymore.
I know we can't pay benefits from a magic money tree. Indeed I have been working many hours for years, in part to keep others on benefits (my taxes go to the benefits pot). But I don't feel like moralising about the "benefits of work" to the people who now are faced with job conditions I never had to deal with.
There is also group 5: those with responsibilities, usually caring for others, which are more important and squeeze out the space to take on paid work. These people need welfare support that allows them to do their important work - and perhaps help in shouldering that burden which they do with bravery and determination. Ideally the system can provide such support that allows the carers to also find rewarding work as well, but it feels we are an awfully long way away from that. Whether it is children, older relatives, disabled family members and friends, we have a long way to go.
Excellent post. No one seems able to comment on why the UK is such an outlier in terms of not returning to pre pandemic levels of joblessness etc. I imagine it is because there is no one single explanation - rather it’s a complex web of factors: economic, social, cultural etc. But unless we better understand the underlying reasons it’ll be hard to get people back to work (or indeed into work for the first time).
But clearly the system needs reform. The level of spending on welfare is completely unsustainable if extrapolated out at current rates of uptake. The left of the Labour Party seems incapable and/or unwilling to grapple with that though. One Labour MP the other day said on tv she thought the system needed to be left as it is. That’s plain daft. But it’s a position basically many on the left hold. Oh and everything can always be solved through a nebulous, never defined ‘wealth tax’ (the left wing populist equivalent to the right’s equally simplistic idea that cutting taxes is the answer to everything and anything).
I think Starmer needs to go very easy on the framing as it risks sounding un-Labour in tone. I think they’ve done it in a clumsy way so far (their comms in general on everything varies from heavy handed to lacklustre to timid). Overall, I admire the fact Labour is trying to tackle this issue head on but huge risks lie ahead especially with populists lurking to tap into fears and resentment.
Pensioners are not on benefits- it is a state pension which has been paid for by National Insurance - the clue is in the word - insurance - that guarantees people who have reached retirement age a bare minimum on which to live out their lives. If you like you could say that farmers are on state benefits but no-one ever says that!
Most benefits claimants have likewise paid into the system at one or more point of their lives, and the large number who are on in-work benefits continue to pay into it.
Excellent analysis! Referencing David Graeber's idea of bullshit jobs, are you really going to jack in benefits for an insecure, poorly paid job where you're treated like shit knowing that afterwards you won't be able to claim benefits on such generous terms? Is this the reason why UK has more long term ill than comparative countries?
In your list you have to err towards either 1 or 4 – do you prioritise economic costs or universalist ethics? If you want to target dole bludgers, people in 2 and 3 will be unfairly treated, whereas if you prioritise 1 some people will game the system. Do we ape americans or europeans? Are we neoliberals or social democrats (looking at you Reeves)? Pays your money takes your choice.
Finally, gilts as ubi for indolent rich? Or bailing out Thames water share holders? Surely targeting these undeserving welfare queens is something we could all get behind!
I think that you hit the nail on the head fairly early on, in that the government's approach seems to be mainly stick and very little carrot.
This is - obviously - because all of the solutions cost money. People need more support for mental health conditions (money). Support for long COVID (money). Disabled people need businesses to make provisions for them (money). The lower paid need a better incentive to work in the form of an increased minimum wage (money).
Moreover, people don't want to perform soul destroying, menial tasks for a pittance. But making jobs more bearable (better staffing levels, training, tools, conditions, prospects) all cost money.
As ever, though, it's the person suffering who ends up having to solve the problem. Most of this doesn't have COVID at its roots, or mental health or anything else. It's the systematic removal or running down of the safety nets and supports that were in place pre austerity. COVID just finally brought them all to the surface.
I can see all the logic to the argument, problem that I see from my world is that slowly society and community have been destroyed and these are the building blocks that gave me the grounding that I received. In my 20's I had severe anxiety and depression and the anxiety never goes away, but I got help on the NHS from a wonderful clinical psychologist who helped me ti understand what was going on. Slowly I sorted out how to live with my condition and built a decent enough career. Also I had friends, access to decent training, leisure opportunities near to home, youth clubs, all these things are essential, worked as a finance manager for homeless and youth charities for almost 30 years now, many things were improving before 2010, since the lack of investment has made life way harder for people with this problems, so the government needs to sort that shit out first, Reeves needs to reform taxation properly and fairly so that investment can take place to empower people and communities, so far this government is weak, totally out of touch with the reality of these issues, I know a number of people who will suffer because of the new proposals, I can't think of why jobs nearby that they could do and as with Osborne the bill will rise unless a genuine structure is put in place and that will cost a lot more money so they need to tax some wealth, reform council tax, land tax and do whatever they can to collect tax off the big avoiders and invest it in ordinary people, otherwise they are simply pissing in the wind ( sorry for that but it's the closest thing I can think of) x
I'm inclined to agree with you that some kind of work is part of a good life—it's certainly true of me, I'm never content without some kind of project—I'm inclined to think that the importance of paid work specifically is cultural. Consider again the pensioner. If you knew a pensioner who was sitting around the house unhappy you might certainly encourage them to go out in the world, volunteer at a theatre group, join a birdwatching club, or even get a job, just for the sake of getting out of the house and meeting people and getting some structure in their life. On the other hand, if a pensioner who was already active in several groups and had a number of friends and was generally doing well (and didn't need the money) confessed that they were feeling guilty because they weren't doing paid work specifically, it seems to me that the natural response would be, certainly to understand where they're coming from, but to reassure them—that doesn't have to be part of their life anymore. And it would be natural, too, if their guilt faded in time; not just based on a single reassurance but on the general attitude of society, which agrees with that reassurance.
(It's easy to imagine someone who is too disabled to hold a job but can still mostly drive meals to little old ladies twice a week, or help put groceries away in a food pantry once a week, or something. I feel like someone in that situation would get a great deal of the psychological value of a job, despite the work not being paid.)
Then on the other hand, work paid or otherwise is an important part of a good life, but so are other things: spending time with your friends and family, going out of the house for non-work-reasons, learning new skills, practicing your existing skills—cooking fancy meals, coding an application, writing a novel, singing or playing an instrument, whatever—reading or listening to books, watching TV shows and discussing them with friends. It's possible, it happens, for someone to technically be able to hold a job, but at the cost of everything else in their life—they have enough energy to do their job and that's it, the only thing else they can do is rest. On the one hand, this is clearly unsustainable and they're going to get more disabled in the long run. And on the other hand—it seems to me that the psychological benefits of working, though real, do not make up for the psychological costs of not being able to do anything else.
"Group one are the people who will receive the new and more generous benefits without question," It would be nice to think, but...evidence suggests that there will be many questions.
You talk about work being good for you, but there are many forms of work and many roles. Not all are beneficial to health. Not all 'work' contributes to society in a positive way. Not all pays enough to live on. Not all allows offers the sort of self-realisation, social interchange, meaningful outcome or sense of pride that delivers the health benefits of being in work. A lot of these benefits can be found in volunteer roles, but not the other necessity - money. It isn't 'paid work' per se that matters to people. They need money to survive, but they need meaning to live. More focus on meaningul work which improves life for everyone might resolve the issue of those who opt to avoid work as much as they can. A considerable part of the problem may be that a lot of work that is available to people on low incomes is menial, boring, unpleasant or uncomfortable, and erodes their sense of their own value. i.e. it is soul destroying.
The above sounds like what proposals *should* have been, not what they are. Someone on LCWRA and in receipt of PIP will have their benefits absolutely decimated despite being medically assessed as incapable of work. I'm sorry but you can't make excuses for this, what's been proposed is vile. It WILL kill people.
Excellent article. What strikes me as under-discussed (because we fear the discussion will let lazy people off the hook) is this - "We talk about incentivising work, but this doesn’t often mean making work seem more attractive. Rather the focus is on making not working much worse."
From the 1970s onwards, a diminishing section of the British workforce could find secure, well paying unskilled or semi skilled jobs. By well-paying I mean sufficient to pay rent, and with one wage able to support a family (a second wage was often needed for the extras, like holidays and nicer clothes). The destruction of industries across the country threw millions of working class men and women into a job market with a much poorer offer. No local jobs, or low paid service jobs, that's what replaced factory jobs. The subsequent growth of the public sector and financial services was mostly in white-collar work, so didn't address the problem.
So within a generation the adults made redundant, and young people coming out of school, were in the same boat. Work was much less financially rewarding (no more paying the rent from wages, housing benefit had to be claimed) it did not offer future prospects (no more apprenticeships, retail work had no progression, and manual council jobs were being privatised with lower wages and worse terms).
This was the experience of everyone I grew up with, in a one-industry town that lost that industry. I got out, because I was academic - and because mobility was still possible then, as housing costs elsewhere were affordable.
My question is this - if society does not provide, through the free market or with government intervention, sufficient jobs for its adult working-class population, where they can earn enough to have a family life, some hope of advancement through work, and security and dignity in work (no zero hours, or fake self-employment) - then is that society really in a position to criticise people who don't want to do the work on offer?
I'm astonished individuals ever come off benefits to eg work 60 hours plus driving as "self-employed" for Amazon, peeing in a bottle to meet the company's time demands. I understand entirely why people might say they simply cannot do that work. And that doesn't take account of the people with health problems or caring responsibilities, wo just don't fit in this job market anymore.
I know we can't pay benefits from a magic money tree. Indeed I have been working many hours for years, in part to keep others on benefits (my taxes go to the benefits pot). But I don't feel like moralising about the "benefits of work" to the people who now are faced with job conditions I never had to deal with.
There is also group 5: those with responsibilities, usually caring for others, which are more important and squeeze out the space to take on paid work. These people need welfare support that allows them to do their important work - and perhaps help in shouldering that burden which they do with bravery and determination. Ideally the system can provide such support that allows the carers to also find rewarding work as well, but it feels we are an awfully long way away from that. Whether it is children, older relatives, disabled family members and friends, we have a long way to go.
Excellent post. No one seems able to comment on why the UK is such an outlier in terms of not returning to pre pandemic levels of joblessness etc. I imagine it is because there is no one single explanation - rather it’s a complex web of factors: economic, social, cultural etc. But unless we better understand the underlying reasons it’ll be hard to get people back to work (or indeed into work for the first time).
But clearly the system needs reform. The level of spending on welfare is completely unsustainable if extrapolated out at current rates of uptake. The left of the Labour Party seems incapable and/or unwilling to grapple with that though. One Labour MP the other day said on tv she thought the system needed to be left as it is. That’s plain daft. But it’s a position basically many on the left hold. Oh and everything can always be solved through a nebulous, never defined ‘wealth tax’ (the left wing populist equivalent to the right’s equally simplistic idea that cutting taxes is the answer to everything and anything).
I think Starmer needs to go very easy on the framing as it risks sounding un-Labour in tone. I think they’ve done it in a clumsy way so far (their comms in general on everything varies from heavy handed to lacklustre to timid). Overall, I admire the fact Labour is trying to tackle this issue head on but huge risks lie ahead especially with populists lurking to tap into fears and resentment.
Pensioners are not on benefits- it is a state pension which has been paid for by National Insurance - the clue is in the word - insurance - that guarantees people who have reached retirement age a bare minimum on which to live out their lives. If you like you could say that farmers are on state benefits but no-one ever says that!
Most benefits claimants have likewise paid into the system at one or more point of their lives, and the large number who are on in-work benefits continue to pay into it.
Excellent analysis! Referencing David Graeber's idea of bullshit jobs, are you really going to jack in benefits for an insecure, poorly paid job where you're treated like shit knowing that afterwards you won't be able to claim benefits on such generous terms? Is this the reason why UK has more long term ill than comparative countries?
In your list you have to err towards either 1 or 4 – do you prioritise economic costs or universalist ethics? If you want to target dole bludgers, people in 2 and 3 will be unfairly treated, whereas if you prioritise 1 some people will game the system. Do we ape americans or europeans? Are we neoliberals or social democrats (looking at you Reeves)? Pays your money takes your choice.
Finally, gilts as ubi for indolent rich? Or bailing out Thames water share holders? Surely targeting these undeserving welfare queens is something we could all get behind!
I think that you hit the nail on the head fairly early on, in that the government's approach seems to be mainly stick and very little carrot.
This is - obviously - because all of the solutions cost money. People need more support for mental health conditions (money). Support for long COVID (money). Disabled people need businesses to make provisions for them (money). The lower paid need a better incentive to work in the form of an increased minimum wage (money).
Moreover, people don't want to perform soul destroying, menial tasks for a pittance. But making jobs more bearable (better staffing levels, training, tools, conditions, prospects) all cost money.
As ever, though, it's the person suffering who ends up having to solve the problem. Most of this doesn't have COVID at its roots, or mental health or anything else. It's the systematic removal or running down of the safety nets and supports that were in place pre austerity. COVID just finally brought them all to the surface.
I can see all the logic to the argument, problem that I see from my world is that slowly society and community have been destroyed and these are the building blocks that gave me the grounding that I received. In my 20's I had severe anxiety and depression and the anxiety never goes away, but I got help on the NHS from a wonderful clinical psychologist who helped me ti understand what was going on. Slowly I sorted out how to live with my condition and built a decent enough career. Also I had friends, access to decent training, leisure opportunities near to home, youth clubs, all these things are essential, worked as a finance manager for homeless and youth charities for almost 30 years now, many things were improving before 2010, since the lack of investment has made life way harder for people with this problems, so the government needs to sort that shit out first, Reeves needs to reform taxation properly and fairly so that investment can take place to empower people and communities, so far this government is weak, totally out of touch with the reality of these issues, I know a number of people who will suffer because of the new proposals, I can't think of why jobs nearby that they could do and as with Osborne the bill will rise unless a genuine structure is put in place and that will cost a lot more money so they need to tax some wealth, reform council tax, land tax and do whatever they can to collect tax off the big avoiders and invest it in ordinary people, otherwise they are simply pissing in the wind ( sorry for that but it's the closest thing I can think of) x
I'm inclined to agree with you that some kind of work is part of a good life—it's certainly true of me, I'm never content without some kind of project—I'm inclined to think that the importance of paid work specifically is cultural. Consider again the pensioner. If you knew a pensioner who was sitting around the house unhappy you might certainly encourage them to go out in the world, volunteer at a theatre group, join a birdwatching club, or even get a job, just for the sake of getting out of the house and meeting people and getting some structure in their life. On the other hand, if a pensioner who was already active in several groups and had a number of friends and was generally doing well (and didn't need the money) confessed that they were feeling guilty because they weren't doing paid work specifically, it seems to me that the natural response would be, certainly to understand where they're coming from, but to reassure them—that doesn't have to be part of their life anymore. And it would be natural, too, if their guilt faded in time; not just based on a single reassurance but on the general attitude of society, which agrees with that reassurance.
(It's easy to imagine someone who is too disabled to hold a job but can still mostly drive meals to little old ladies twice a week, or help put groceries away in a food pantry once a week, or something. I feel like someone in that situation would get a great deal of the psychological value of a job, despite the work not being paid.)
Then on the other hand, work paid or otherwise is an important part of a good life, but so are other things: spending time with your friends and family, going out of the house for non-work-reasons, learning new skills, practicing your existing skills—cooking fancy meals, coding an application, writing a novel, singing or playing an instrument, whatever—reading or listening to books, watching TV shows and discussing them with friends. It's possible, it happens, for someone to technically be able to hold a job, but at the cost of everything else in their life—they have enough energy to do their job and that's it, the only thing else they can do is rest. On the one hand, this is clearly unsustainable and they're going to get more disabled in the long run. And on the other hand—it seems to me that the psychological benefits of working, though real, do not make up for the psychological costs of not being able to do anything else.
"Group one are the people who will receive the new and more generous benefits without question," It would be nice to think, but...evidence suggests that there will be many questions.
You talk about work being good for you, but there are many forms of work and many roles. Not all are beneficial to health. Not all 'work' contributes to society in a positive way. Not all pays enough to live on. Not all allows offers the sort of self-realisation, social interchange, meaningful outcome or sense of pride that delivers the health benefits of being in work. A lot of these benefits can be found in volunteer roles, but not the other necessity - money. It isn't 'paid work' per se that matters to people. They need money to survive, but they need meaning to live. More focus on meaningul work which improves life for everyone might resolve the issue of those who opt to avoid work as much as they can. A considerable part of the problem may be that a lot of work that is available to people on low incomes is menial, boring, unpleasant or uncomfortable, and erodes their sense of their own value. i.e. it is soul destroying.
The above sounds like what proposals *should* have been, not what they are. Someone on LCWRA and in receipt of PIP will have their benefits absolutely decimated despite being medically assessed as incapable of work. I'm sorry but you can't make excuses for this, what's been proposed is vile. It WILL kill people.