"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

[Darat]

"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

This seems to have become a mantra for the coalition politicians - but none of them ever explain why this is the case or are asked why in interviews.

I find this seemingly complete acceptance that this is a fact very strange. Surely that means, for example, someone who can't work for a medical reason will be condemned to a life of horrendous poverty*? To me that seems very wrong.

(*Given that working a 35 hour week on minimum wage still leaves someone in poverty so for the benefit level to be below that means they would have to be well below the poverty line.)

Is it just me that finds this a bit unsettling, coming on top of the message that if you aren't in work you are a scrounger and lazy? (Latest figures from IDS himself - 4.5 million people on "out-of-work benefits", 450,000 jobs in the economy - you do the maths.)

 

[Francesca R]

This seems to have become a mantra for the coalition politicians

It is a mantra for all politicians isn't it? Did you ever clock Gordon Brown or Tony Blair saying that "some people are better off on benefits and not working"? IIRC Brown was quite a staunch believer that everyone, single parents included, would be better doing paid work.

 

[Thunder]

"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

This seems to have become a mantra for the coalition politicians - but none of them ever explain why this is the case or are asked why in interviews.

maybe cause' working is better than sitting around and doing nothing?

I don't care what it is. Doing something is always better than doing nothing.

 

[Francesca R]

(*Given that working a 35 hour week on minimum wage still leaves someone in poverty [ . . . ])

Is that correct? Median income after tax in 2007-8 (latest data) is £16,100 according to HMRC. Minimum wage is £5.93/hr which is £10,792 per annum at 35 hrs/week. There is little if any income tax on that number (don't know how much) but it looks like it would be above 60% of median so above the official poverty line.

 

[Skeptic]

Surely that means, for example, someone who can't work for a medical reason will be condemned to a life of horrendous poverty*?

Huh? Surely not. The meaning is that those who can work would be better off working than not. This implies neither that those who cannot work should get a job and must not be helped, nor that those who can work and cannot find a job are lazy. It just implies they would be better off if they could find work. I fail to see what's controversial about this.

 

[Francesca R]

Yes--hence it is a mantra for (almost) all politicians.

 

[lionking]

Firstly, how many people can't work at all for a "medical reason"? Most people with disabilities can do some type of work, many do and many more want to.

The only quibble I have with the (unattributed) quote in the OP is the word "always". The vast majority of people of working age desperately want to work, but clearly not all. You ask them whether they are better off working than not.

 

[Thunder]

anyone who is not elderly or handicapped should be working. especially if they are taking government funds to pay their way.

if they can't find work for themselves, the govt. should provide them with work to do, until they can find a real job.

working is good for your self-esteem and general psychological state. and it keeps you motivated. and it gives you a sense of personal responsibility, as you are doing something in exchange for your welfare or unemployment benefits.

the human being does not naturally enjoy sitting around doing nothing, while getting a free ride.

and even if you are lazy and pathetic enough to enjoy such a life, I should not have to pay for it.

sorry.

 

[cwalner]

I know that the OP is focusing the UK and that this is in the Non-USA politics section, but I thought a situation my mother was in many years back serves as a bit of a counter-example (if we are assuming that better off is only a financial consideration) even if it is from the US.

My mother had a job selling typewritters to offices (this should date the example considerably). One day, while attempting to get her sample out of her car, she twisted and injured her back (those typewriters were pretty heavy) and was out of work for a while collecting disability benifits.

Since her back remained injured to some degree, she was not released to return to her previous position (since it still required lifting the typewriters, which she was not longer able to do without risk or permanently injuring her back) but was instead offered an office suport job instead of sales. Unfortunately, the support job paid significantly less than the sales job, enough so that the percentage of salary (based on the sales position) she collected as benefits was more than the amount salary of the offered job.

She eventually took the lower pay and returned to work because my mother was starting to feel way too cooped up at home and going a bit 'stir crazy'. However, she did not stay with that company for very long and soon got a better paying job doing office management.

 

[The Don]

"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

This seems to have become a mantra for the coalition politicians - but none of them ever explain why this is the case or are asked why in interviews.

I find this seemingly complete acceptance that this is a fact very strange. Surely that means, for example, someone who can't work for a medical reason will be condemned to a life of horrendous poverty*? To me that seems very wrong.

I read this announcement differently and have chosen to interpret it in a different way.

I read it as "Someone who transitions to work from benefits will be better off as a result"

It doesn't necessarily follow that someone on benefits will necessarily be poor, just that if they work they'll be better off. I understand that part of the disincentive of taking a low paying job is that you may end up losing more in benefits than you gain in income.

If a permanently disabled person gets comparatively generous benefits of £x then goes to work and earns £y, their benefits should not be cut to £x-£y. Apparently, too often this is currently the case.

Under this initiative, there could be people on benefits who will earn more than people in full-time work.



Having said all of that, there's the separate "no-one on benefits should get more than the average wage" which will have an impact

 

[Undesired Walrus]

if they can't find work for themselves, the govt. should provide them with work to do, until they can find a real job.

working is good for your self-esteem and general psychological state. and it keeps you motivated. and it gives you a sense of personal responsibility, as you are doing something in exchange for your welfare or unemployment benefits.

the human being does not naturally enjoy sitting around doing nothing, while getting a free ride.

and even if you are lazy and pathetic enough to enjoy such a life, I should not have to pay for it.

sorry.

That's all very true. The problem is the jobs deficit. Where is this work going to come from?

 

[Cuddles]

I find this seemingly complete acceptance that this is a fact very strange.

Really? I don't see how the country could possibly work if it were not a fact. If you're not better off working than on benefits, why would anyone ever bother working?

In any case, I agree with Skeptic here. It's clearly meant to be read as "People (who actually have the ability to work) will always be better off in work than on benefits.". People who cannot genuinely work, for whatever reason, obviously will not be better off in work, because they can't.

The question of how to get everyone a job is completely unrelated. That unemployed people would be better off if they had jobs is in no way changed by the fact that there aren't actually any jobs for them. It just means that they'd be better off if there were more jobs. And again, this seems really rather obvious. If they wouldn't be better off with jobs, why would anyone be worried about unemployment numbers in the first place?

 

[mediocrity511]

But do they genuinely only mean people who physically can work? If they are honestly trying to achieve that why are so many of their policies aiming to cut money to those who are disabled,elderly or ill?
Making disability living allowance an even more tortuous process to obtain doesn't mean that people are better of working who are healthy.
Restricting the amount of time someone can claim employment and support allowance doesn't target someone who physically can work.
Neither does cutting the amount of childcare available to people in work.

 

[Rat]

That's all very true. The problem is the jobs deficit. Where is this work going to come from?

They can all come and polish my silver. I'll be counting the teaspoons before they leave, though.

 

[Elind]

"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

I think you read too much into this; or perhaps too little.

It doesn't necessarily mean only financially better off, nor does it mean those who can't work can't receive benefits.

But surely you agree that in principle work should be more financially rewarding than welfare?

 

[Mojo]

"People will always be better off in work than on benefits"

A friend of mine wasn't. He got sent on an unpaid work placement and they failed to cover his travel expenses.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

There are plenty of times in my life when I have been worse off working than I would have been if I had been comfortable getting benefits. When the wage you get for a full time job has you teetering on the poverty line - which in turn decides what the benefits are - then you will have less ready cash than someone who needs benefits and get approximately what you get - but doesn't have to count travelling to work into their budget.

Living in Gothenburg in the early noughties, I cleaned hotels, cared for disabled and worked in pre-schools. Caring for the disabled got me decent money, unfortunately as the result of 60-80 weeks, depending on rotas so I just worked and slept. When "my" disabled person left town I became unemployed and got about 80% of my former salary from unemployment insurance (In Sweden these are handled by the unions, and not the government. You contribute - like you'd do to national insurance - between 3 - 5% of your salary every month and should you get unemployed you were entitled to 18 months on 80% of your former salary and then further six months on 60% of your former salary.)

Since I was raised with a Swedish work ethic, I preferred to try to find another job and after two months I managed to get a temping gig on a pre-school. The salary I got there was slightly less than 80% of my former salary and bang on what you at this time got on benefits. The difference between me and someone on benefits of course being that I had to pay for travel passes to get to work, which sent me if not on paper, de facto below the poverty line.

Do I begrudge the people on benefits this? No, I am sure most of them have their reasons why they can't be gainfully employed and I can't very well demand they live below the poverty line just because I can't find an employer who isn't paying ridiculously low wages.

Would I rather live on benefits myself? No, not if I can avoid it. It would drive me up the wall. Do I judge people who do? Hell, no. I sometimes wish I had had the gumption to actually let the government take care of me for - say six months - like many of my friends did, instead of studying without goal on student loans which I will be paying off until my grave. This fixation with paying my own way really hasn't benefitted me at all. Those who could live with getting benefits for a while _knew_ what they wanted to study after those six months. Or had time to go to many interviews and pick a good job, instead of flitting like a demented moth onto the first lantern that lit up like I did. They were plenty better off, because they had time to shop cleverly, see each other and form friendships. Do unemployment groups and network. I only got to keep working. For about the same money as they got and even less thanks. If you dig wonderful holes, they give you a bigger shovel.

I have never been unemployed for more than those two months. I have always gone from employer to employer and I have always accepted the first job offered me, rather than face getting benefits. That's all total crap. People who understand how benefits can benefit, are the ones that benefit most. Those who get on benefits for about six months, figure out what they want to do with their lives and then go for that - ending up far more succesful and contributing more to society than I will ever be able to do. It benefits them and it has benefitted society.

And that's why I don't believe that it is always better to work than to be on benefits.

 

[Skeptic]

I fail to see why what you say here says anything about working vs. not working.

What you're saying (in your words, not mine) is that if you choose the first job that comes along after studying without a goal, you will be worse off than someone who knows what he wants to do with his life and then has patient to wait for a good job.

No doubt that's true, and perhaps the latter person "uses" a few months more of benefits, but it seems that they are not the main reasonhe is more successful, but rather his greater focus and dedication?

Surely the test is whether someone who has the same, or similar, skills and job-hunting patience would be better off not working than working? By the way, perhaps you're judging yourself too harshly and others too enviously, for all I know, so don't take this as a personal attack.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think we need to define "better off".
If it refers only to money, there clearly exist situations where it's untrue- a situation the government wants to change.

If "better off" refers to life in general- social context and contacts, chance of improving one's life, quality of life, I think most folk are happier in work than out of it. Sitting around for a few weeks is fine. After that it gets pretty soul destroying.

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I fail to see why what you say here says anything about working vs. not working.

What you're saying (in your words, not mine) is that if you choose the first job that comes along after studying without a goal, you will be worse off than someone who knows what he wants to do with his life and then has patient to wait for a good job.

No doubt that's true, and perhaps the latter person "uses" a few months more of benefits, but it seems that they are not the main reasonhe is more successful, but rather his greater focus and dedication?

Surely the test is whether someone who has the same, or similar, skills and job-hunting patience would be better off not working than working? By the way, perhaps you're judging yourself too harshly and others too enviously, for all I know, so don't take this as a personal attack.

Actually, I am taking it as a personal attack. I'm not sure if it is my English or your reading skills, but where the hell do you get that I would be envious from what I wrote?

And was it really that hard to gague that the reason I was studying aimlessly was to avoid having to go in benefits? This is very common in Sweden as there is a stigma on being on benefits, and people on benefits are constantly told to go to college, on borrowed money, to avoid being on benefits. This preassure is applied, creating a sense of urgency, so people apply for courses they aren't sure about in order to support themselves instead of getting benefits.

Maybe you just don't understand this stigma and the Scandinavian work ethic? No matter how high unemployment and how hard it is to find work, unemployed people are made to feel that they have only themselves to blame if they can't find work. If you are strong enough to stand up to that preassure and go on benefits anyway, then you have time to figure things out. But if you can't, then you won't. I went straight from highschool to uni and straight from uni to the only jobs open in 1998 to anyone fresh out of uni. Anything else would have been impossible if you are Scandinavian working class.

Now, what you read as envy, is me admiring them having the courage of their own convictions. And I really fail to understand how you are not picking this up. Especially since I outright write it.

Maybe because it is how you would react in the same situation?

What I'm saying is that **** employers are **** employers and if you aren't conditioned to think that you will die if you are not working then you have a better chance at figuring out your path. How you got that to be about envy says a LOT more about you than about me.

(In the end, my studies did pay off. But I had to leave Sweden in order for that to happen.)

Ät min sura skit, din arroganta skitstövel.