Stereotypes
Don't jump to conclusions
Judging all unemployed people on the basis of the McFadden family is like judging nurses on the basis of Beverley Allitt or doctors on the basis of Harold Shipman, or assuming that all football supporters are hooligans.
Here's a comment from the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service? that sums things up nicely.
There's a stereotyping that drives the view that all people who are out of work don't want to work. This is one of the biggest obstacles to people getting a job. They are not taken seriously because they don't have a job. This won't change if they are made to work, there will still be stereotyping between those who are working for benefits and those who are fully employed. This won't help the unemployed, many of whom aren't even registered unemployed and are not entitled to benefits anyway.
It's not quite as simple as that because the government and the News media have identified four categories of able-bodied unemployed people, but the other categories are just as bad. Like the vast majority of unemployed people, I don't fit any of these four stereotypes, these being (to put it crudely) the lazy (already mentioned), the feckless, the lunatics and the stupid. I'd love the chance to earn a living instead of claiming benefits, but let's examine these stereotypes, along with a fifth stereotype, the snobs, which is really a subset of the lazy.
Before discussing all these supposed categories of unemployed people, let's look at one category of people who choose not to work but who do not claim benefits either.
People who don't need to work
Those lucky people
In response to my comments on this page, I received an e-mail from a mother of four Children. She stays at home with the agreement of her husband, who has a well-paid job. They claim no benefits and lead life comfortably. In this way, they avoid the pressures of work and family life that eat away at so many marriages. Lucky them, I hear you say. Yet there are some people who describe that mother as a social scrounger and I was asked why people would treat her this way. Having decided on a response, I may as well post it on this page.
I believe that a lot of criticism stems from a combination of resentment and misunderstanding, with the latter often being caused by people's refusal to put aside whatever preconceptions they have - something that applies in all aspects of life.
I've heard before about stay-at-home mothers being criticised for doing just that, but I wasn't sure how widespead it is. At a guess, I'd say that there are two mutually exclusive groups of women who might not like you staying at home. The first group are jealous because they would also like to stay at home but can't maintain the standard of living they want on their husband's income. (That's not the same as being unable to live on one income, because my parent's generation regarded that as the norm, but they didn't have all the things that subsequent generations have come to take for granted.) The second group, far from wanting to stay at home, resent you because you're somehow letting women down, after all the campaigning for women's rights beginning with the suffragette movement more than 100 years ago. If any man resents you for staying at home, he may be jealous of your husband's wealth. All of this is just guesswork, but maybe you can fit your critics into one or other of these categories. Maybe there are other categories, but I can't think of any.
I then recommended that she tell her critics that if she went back to work, it would be at the expense of somebody in greater need. That ought to shut them up, but probably won't.
Live and let live
All of this is not to criticise mothers who do paid work. Indeed, some are obliged to do so out of economic necessity. Even among those who don't need to work, perhaps because they have partners in well-paid jobs, there will be some who want to work anyway. But if a mother can live comfortably without working and without claiming benefits, it really does seem silly to criticise her for choosing that lifestyle, especially when there aren't enough jobs for all those who want them.
Of course, if I am wrong in my guess about why stay-at-home mothers are sometimes described as social scrounges, or if there are additional circumstances besides those that I've suggested, I'll be happy to be corrected.
The lazy
People who don't want to work
There are some such people (I've met one or two) but they're definitely in the minority. Of course, there's a sense in which most people don't want to work, if only they could maintain their lifestyle without having to. Wouldn't it be nice to have unlimited leisure time and an unlimited supply of money with which to indulge it? Lottery jackpot winners and other people who suddenly come by vast riches often quit their job (if they have one) immediately. Most eventually realise that the reality isn't as they expected, partly because other people regard them differently, but that's another issue. Sadly, unemployed people don't generally have such riches to draw on. Although I was able to live off my former wealth for over six years during The nineties job quest, my current period of unemployment took me into Bankruptcy. The court was unable to take anything off me to make even a minor contribution towards repaying the creditors. So although unemployed people have, in theory (but only partly true), plenty of time, they generally don't have an exciting life, as I explain on my page about My lifestyle. Different unemployed people make different choices but they all miss out in some way on things that most people take for granted, unless they are either cheating in some way, as in the case of Shashi Bacheta and Jeffrey Cole, or exploiting loopholes in the system, as in the case of the McFadden family. So it's not difficult to see why the vast majority of unemployed people would much prefer to get a job.
Who are these lazy people?
Nevertheless, it's clear that there are some lazy people who feel that they can get by without a job, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing stories about them. Large families sometimes hit the headlines as the McFadden family case did in March 2008. Yet, despite the outrage this case caused (and I am also outraged by this case), it is an exceptional case. It's not unique because other cases have made the headlines before and will likely continue to do so, but it's certainly not commonplace. If it were, it wouldn't make the headlines the way it did. Three council staff members lost their jobs in another unusual case reported in October 2008, although it is more of a reflection of the local housing allowance, introduced earlier that year to replace the old housing benefit, than the family itself. Nevertheless, this is another case involving a large family and it does appear that such families are able to exploit the system in ways that most people can't.
Welfare reform
The politicians haved looked at the law in this area and decided on system of capping the total amount tat a family can claim, as part of the 2011 welfare reform bill. The McFadden family certainly won't like that aspect of the bill, but the vast majority of unemployed people are likely to approve of the claims cap. As far as the other aspects of the bill are concerned, some of the bullet point headers sound OK while others sound sinister. I fear the worst but the devil is in the detail, so let's see what emerges onto the statute book and how it is enforced. By the time some of it is implemented, it may be too late to affect me, but I'll still be interested in seeing what the consequences are.
Media distortion (part 1)
Newspapers are always looking for unusual cases in whatever they report. Most murders go unreported, even in local newspapers, because there are so many of them. For a murder to make headline news, it has to be in some way different from the average murder, cruel as that may seem. It's the way that newspapers work. Elsewhere in this blog on my page about Psychometric tests, I mention the case of Tracie Andrews, who stabbed her boyfriend to death. It was an unusual case because the woman was the aggressor. How much coverage would the story have received had the roles been reversed? In the same way, the McFadden family case made the headlines precisely because it was so unusual. Of course, in the minds of a sceptical public, this still leaves open the question about whether the majority of unemployed people really want to work or not.
Lottery jackpot winners
Lottery jackpot winners can't legally claim benefits because if they're unemployed when they win the lottery, they're supposed to declare their win and stop claiming; if they don't, I'm sure they'll be found out anyway because the lottery organizers are likely to tell the tax authority. In any case, there aren't many lottery jackpot winners in the overall scheme of things, so who might the lazy benefit claimers be? Clearly, they must have a lot of help from other people (and are therefore cheating the system) because, as I've already pointed out, life is mostly dull on unemployment benefits alone. Either you have a social life, in which case you are probably limited to one or two nights a week (unless your companions are subsidising you) and you're bored the rest of the time, or you find other ways to amuse yourself as I do, but nevertheless feel limited in so many ways.
Young people living with their parents
My guess is that the greatest numbers of idlers are young people still living with their parents, especially as jobseeker's allowance, modest as it is, is likely to be far more than the pocket money that they received while still at school. Only a small minority of such people think that way, because most young people want to make their own way in the world and to avoid dependence on their parents as far as possible. But for those who don't have any great ambition, or who only see a life of mindlessly boring jobs, then maybe (at least for a while), being lazy may seem preferable. There are probably other, older, people who are able to rely on others to avoid having to work themselves while still claiming benefits. They include people who have family and friends willing to subsidise their laziness as well as the criminals.
Criminals
For the purposes we are concerned with here, criminals fall into two categories. First, there are those who are illegally Claiming benefits while working. Second, there are other criminals whose illegal activities fund their lifestyle, some of whom sign on for jobseeker's allowance because they consider it easy money, little as it is. Both types of criminal find that it's not so easy on New Deal, which may have been brought in to drive these people off benefits. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of making it more difficult for those who genuinely want to work.
Media distortion (part 2)
I don't know if any proper research has been carried out to identify the lazy benefit claimers but I'd certainly be interested to know the results. I could be completely wrong in my guesswork about who they might be, but I certainly don't believe they are as numerous as a lot of people think. Like football hooligans or any other troublemakers, the coverage they get is out of proportion to their actual numbers. For example, nobody in the News media seems interested in my analysis of the issues as presented in this blog, although my Amazon reviews made the News media. Yet the McFadden family made news because of their laziness.
Yes, the News media pick and choose what they want to publish. While the stuff they publish is often distorted beyond belief, as the story about my Amazon reviews proved, the News media can distort the truth to an even greater extent by their choice of which stories to publish and which stories to ignore. If they ignore or sabotage stories that show unemployed people in a good light while dramatising stories that show how bad they are, there is nothing that anybody can do. The internet at least allows an outlet for those who cannot get their stories out in any other way.
Political assumptions
Unfortunately for the majority of unemployed people, government policies are driven by the assumption that a lot of them are lazy. I suspect that this was the reason for New Deal being introduced. Forcing unemployed people to do something, especially low-grade work in appalling conditions, is an appealing idea, at least superficially. However, it is a very clumsy approach to the problem with far-reaching consequences for the majority of unemployed people who really do want to return to a proper job.
I don't like lazy claimants
I have no sympathy with those who truly don't want to work but who nevertheless claim benefits. They deserve whatever punishment they get, but it may not always be easy to identify the lazy claimants.
Assessments of laziness
I don't trust jobcentre staff to determine who is lazy and who isn't. Some of them are sympathetic while others are highly suspicious, so it would all depend on who carries out the assessment. Those assessed by suspicious staff would be far more likely to be deemed lazy than those assessed by sympathetic staff.
I live in constant fear of having my benefit stopped, which actually makes it harder, not easier, to look for work. Do people really think that I or anybody else can be scared into a job? If I turn up for an interview obviously stressed, I'm not likely to impress an employer.
The feckless
Single parents
Not all single parents (and let's be clear, they include fathers as well as mothers) are feckless. Most are simply the victims of once-good relationships gone wrong. They want to do the best for their Children. We see and hear about a lot of trouble caused by unruly children who aren't properly looked after. If single parents are forced back to work against their will, the problems of unruly children can only get worse. These parents have enough problems to deal with as it is. They have to choose between surviving on benefits in order to care for their Children, when they don't have much money to spend, or working to earn more money, when they don't have much time for them. To some extent, all parents face those choices in today's society, but the choices are always hardest for those who have least. As for me, I'm not a parent and I've never had any particular desire to be one, either. Perhaps that's why I remain a bachelor boy.
Child support
I've heard all kinds of horror stories about the child support agency, originally designed to help single parents. Even the government realised that it was a hopeless case and a new agency, the child maintenance and enforcement commission, was launched in November 2008, though it seems, at least initially, that the name and website of the old child support agency survives.
Of course, it's not anything that has any impact on my own life, but the non-payment of maintenance by absent parents is an issue of considerable concern to many people. Whether the new child maintenance and enforcement commission performs any better remains to be seen, but any problems will be different. The first story is about how they pursued parents for old debts. The question remains - is the child maintenance and enforcement commission going after the right people?
Anybody who has problems with child support issues should contact NACSA (National association for child support action in UK). I do not know anybody personally who has contacted them, but I'd have more faith in them than any government agency.
Pregnancy debates
In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people suggest that women get pregnant just to be able to claim benefits. I don't know enough about the issue to comment except to point out that raising Children is never an easy option. It's certainly not a life of idleness. Abolition or partial abolition of child benefits would remove whatever incentive there is, but would affect a lot of working people as well as the unemployed and would also be a controversial policy. Perhaps Children of unemployed parents could be taken into care, so doing away with child benefits for the unemployed, but it would be an even more controversial policy and certainly wouldn't save money. The very idea is appalling.
In a discussion titled dole spongers, I found a post by a single mother, explaining that a day in the life of a single mother is not easy, which I reproduce here.
Whilst I agree with you on some of this, I hate the fact that now everyone on benefits is "scum".
I am 24 now and from the ages of 16-23 I worked full-time, usually more than 40 hours a week, and never claimed a penny in benefits. Then my charming boyfriend left me 3 months pregnant and facing life as a single parent.
I now live on income support, so probably in your eyes that makes me scum, but unlike a few people out there on benefits, I certainly do not have a lot.
Most if not all the money goes on my son. I often don't have a meal at night so my son eats better. I live in about 2 pairs of jeans and a selection of vest tops from the cheap clothes shops but I and my son are happy.
I am hoping to do a part time Learndirect course so that when my son who is 18 months starts pre school/school I will hopefully be able to get a better job and come off income support.
I know there are some people out there who abuse the system and who do seem to live a life that doesn't seam fair to people who are working, but I wish that society would stop branding us all the same.
And before you ask, I do not have internet, I'm at my mum's. LOL.
Here are some responses that illustrate some of the negative public attitudes on the subject.
What gives people the right to think they can breed and expect taxpayers to pay for it????? Get off your backside, get a job and maybe then consider opening your legs when you are financially stable to bring another potential benefit scrounger into the world!!!!!!!!!!
You should have had an abortion or be able to financially support yourself. There are many hard-working single parents out there. My uncle raised 4 (four!) boys by himself for 18 years after his wife died. You're right about one thing though, you are indeed scum.
The first response obviously came from somebody who didn't read the original post, which stated that the boyfriend left the woman during her pregnancy. The second response also came from a heartless person. If a woman gets pregnant in good faith, believing that she will be able to support the child, I don't see why she should be forced to have an abortion if circumstances change. The real controversy concerns women who allegedly get pregnant knowing that they will be reliant on state benefits.
The lunatics
People with mental health problems
I suspect that this is an extremely small category though it may be growing. I, for one, don't have any mental health problems. Sure, I decided to take a break from work in February 1990 because I felt I needed it. As explained in detail in The nineties job quest, I expected to return to work when I'd had the break but things didn't work out that way although I did eventually get a proper job again. Did I have a mental health problem when I decided to take that break? No, of course not.
The stupid
People with low educational achievements
Whatever else you say about me, you can't say that I'm stupid except as an insult. My contributions to Amazon's websites and my various blogs (including this one) prove that I have intelligence well above the average. As far as educational achievements go, I achieved 5 GCE "O" levels together with "Additional O" level maths. See pictures of my Certificates for proof if you need it. I would almost certainly have gained two "A" levels had I stayed at school for another year, but abandoned those plans when I had the chance of a career as a computer programmer. I'm certainly not the only brainy person to fall victim to long-term unemployment. I've met other brainy unemployed people (including at the waste-recycling centre) who also can't get back to work despite their best efforts.
Of course, stupidity is not necessarily a barrier to success. Kellie Pickler's success in music contrasts sharply with her performance on the American TV quiz show Are you smarter than a fifth grader?. Then again, it isn't necessary for a singer to know much about geography, unless that singer plans to travel the world.
The snobs
People who won't accept menial work
Really, this is a sub-category of the lazy. Anybody who doesn't appear willing to do menial work just to regain employment belongs in this category; however, it isn't as simple as some people would have you believe to get menial work if you have a history of well-paid jobs. Over the next four pages, we'll look at this subject in detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment