Politics of unemployment figures

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

I came across someone using unemployment figures as percentages of the population to explain how well the UK economy was working in a given time period and it made me angry. How common is this as a way of measuring success? Do people realise the problem is the lack of access to benefits while being unemployed, or if unable to work, and not the unemployment itself? What are your views on unemployment? I'm genuinely curious, I'm a student but struggling to do anything towards my thesis because mental health is trash, so I see myself being forced into work I can't handle to be able to survive. In the next year I need to be working and supporting myself, and while I have good qualifications I do not see myself as in a position where I'm capable of work. I know there are many other people in much worse situations than I am, being forced into employment due to lack of benefits etc despite their health and other situations. Even worse is how the tories in the UK were, in the past, able to claim they had increased employment rates because of how they recategorised many unemployed people as employed by changing how it was measured. Considering how governments pull tricks like this to stay in power, what do you make of unemployment figures and unemployment in general?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/29/sparkling-jobless-figures-mask-real-picture-uk-economy-unemployed

It's interesting how in this article as well, the tactic to rebut the conservatives in the UK with respect to their policies around unemployment figures is to focus on how much of a problem it is that they are lower, rather than noting that people who are on incapacity benefits(or whatever the equivalent is now with universal credit and so on) should be able to live without unemployment. What I find difficult is that while obviously, unemployment being given moral weight by politicians is a direct result of how capitalism rests on the equation of wealth with being a moral, good person, I've had difficulty staying invested in left wing movements as they also neglect the non working but working class population.

Even in movements focused on disabled people's rights, a lot of media focuses on the people who want to work but can't. It seems like at a basic level society just doesn't attribute worth to people who can't work unless they're constantly explaining how much they wish they could work and how much they resent being unemployed. And seeing as I am mostly talking about the UK here, it reminds me of victorian poor laws and workhouses, where ultimately they believed workhouses should be such that the people in them had a worse quality of life than the poorest worker. Only the desperate are seen as deserving of benefits.

[natsume]

What governments do is willfully permit rampant abuse of the system so working people will be angry at the system and they can contract the benefits (while still ignoring abuse to continue the cycle). A couple months ago I was in line at a grocery store and this woman directly in front of me pays with a food assistance debit card (a bunch of Italian water bottles). So I have one item and I walk out directly after her and I watch her load her water bottles into a new white Porsche SUV. Honestly, anecdotally I've only seen people use food assistance debit on ice cream and other non-essential junk food items. Another time at a convenience store, a man wearing a MAGA hat was buying ice cream scoops with his food assistance card and complaining to the clerk that the other employee made fun of him for buying ice cream with a food stamp card the last time he was there (and of course he was because as a minimum wage employee he doesn't get food assistance and instead pays into food stamps for this guy to eat ice cream). Edit: I've seen it used correctly once but they ran out of money because food stamps are in very small amounts - because there are millions of people abusing it and wasting all the money, by design.

 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

45 minutes ago, natsume said:

What governments do is willfully permit rampant abuse of the system so working people will be angry at the system and they can contract the benefits (while still ignoring abuse to continue the cycle). A couple months ago I was in line at a grocery store and this woman directly in front of me pays with a food assistance debit card (a bunch of Italian water bottles). So I have one item and I walk out directly after her and I watch her load her water bottles into a new white Porsche SUV. Honestly, anecdotally I've only seen people use food assistance debit on ice cream and other non-essential junk food items. Another time at a convenience store, a man wearing a MAGA hat was buying ice cream scoops with his food assistance card and complaining that the other employee made fun of him for buying ice cream with a food stamp card the last time he was there (and of course he was because as a minimum wage employee he doesn't get food assistance and instead pays into food stamps for this guy to eat ice cream). Edit: I've seen it used correctly once but they ran out of money because food stamps are in very small amounts - because there are millions of people abusing it and wasting all the money, by design.

 

I'm not really aware of the history surrounding what programs there are for disabled, unemployed, poor americans, but from what I've heard your benefits are also underfunded by the government.

I suppose a further issue with that is that with highly gatekept financial aid to those who need it, the ones who need it most may also struggle to apply for it in the first place. But I also don't believe any country has, as an overall proportion, such a large number of people who fraudulently claim money due to unemployment etc. In the UK people's belief in this was hugely stoked by the media(we've had channel 4 produce programs set in a part of the UK stereotyped as very poor and full of unemployment, in which they filmed some of the most stereotypical benefits claimants you can imagine - it used basically the same stereotypes as the very racist series about irish travellers).

 

Edit: Wow, your benefits system is also completely different to ours and doesn't use taxes...honestly with how little you get out of them in the US, you genuinely shouldn't be paying any tax gosh. 😢 I will update if I find some stats though.

[natsume]

There are cases of millionaire lottery winners collecting food assistance legally. The system is a joke and literally designed so the people who need it most get almost nothing. I mean, how could they while millionaires are collecting the same benefits? https://www.freedomworks.org/content/millionaire-food-stamps-why-revising-categorical-eligibility-essential-fixing-welfare

It has the appearance of insanity but it is by design to hurt the poor. The government is intentionally bankrupting the system so they can justify starving the people who actually need it. I suspect it will never be fixed.

Boris and the conservatives may very well see the US system of government assistance as the goal in the UK. It is a whole new age of punishing the poor with the EU out of their way.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

24 minutes ago, natsume said:

There are cases of millionaire lottery winners collecting food assistance legally. The system is a joke and literally designed so the people who need it most get almost nothing. I mean, how could they while millionaires are collecting the same benefits? https://www.freedomworks.org/content/millionaire-food-stamps-why-revising-categorical-eligibility-essential-fixing-welfare

It has the appearance of insanity but it is by design to hurt the poor. The government is intentionally bankrupting the system so they can justify starving the people who actually need it. I suspect it will never be fixed.

Boris and the conservatives may very well see the US system of government assistance as the goal in the UK. It is a whole new age of punishing the poor with the EU out of their way.

I was about to update that I found some data on similar things. I don't think boris could do that here though and he wouldn't need to, because a) people are already geared up to see benefits claimants as public enemy no. 1, and 2) his rich mates make enough money elsewhere. It's kind of like how someone speculated that they thought the uk nhs would be privatised in a way similar to the german system, I think I'm just not aware enough of all the ways such systems of support for poor, disabled, unemployed people can be fucked up and profited off of by the rich while stripped from those who deserve it.

[Skycaptain]

Governments have been massaging unemployment figures for decades. Tricks like moving the school leaving age to eighteen to remove a load of youth unemployed off the figures, moving people onto disability benefits, making them retired etc all lower the headline figures. Likewise the alternative "people in work" figure is boosted by those on zero hour and part time contracts. 

[Sally]

On 12/20/2019 at 6:10 PM, natsume said:

 A couple months ago I was in line at a grocery store and this woman directly in front of me pays with a food assistance debit card (a bunch of Italian water bottles). So I have one item and I walk out directly after her and I watch her load her water bottles into a new white Porsche SUV. 

 

Following and watching someone like that is kind of creepy.  

[natsume]

What? I didn't follow anyone my car was in the next aisle 😂. 

As I said I checked out seconds after her. I had one item.

Actually,I even drove off first. I hope everything I did was ok with you, Sally, I guess I don't have to worry about being "creepy" like you do? Never thought about it. 

Why are you attacking me in this thread?  Don't worry, welfare cheats never get caught. I didn't turn her in so sleep easy 😀

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@Sally Does the US demonise people on benefits as much as the UK, or more? I'm genuinely curious about attitudes, because I made this thread as I don't like how everyone's expected to go on benefits reluctantly, while endlessly repeating how much they'd rather be in work. There are many of us who are forced into work while having disabilities which make it hard, but not hard enough to qualify for benefits. But that sort of viewpoint is never heard in the media.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

52 minutes ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

There are many of us who are forced into work while having disabilities which make it hard, but not hard enough to qualify for benefits.

Or who should not be made to look for work at all, but the system is decided by idiots who think cerebral palsy will "clear up" (true story from the person who helped me get on disability) so they're forced into it, all the while no employer will take them on because why would they? I literally had one interviewer say directly to me "we don't want anyone with any "issues", just a normal person who can do work". I made some BS excuse why I had to hang up; I wasn't demeaning myself or my fellow disabled people by continuing that.

 

I can't even get into this convo properly cos it stresses me out, but I needed to vent.

[the great acescape]

Hello! I'd like to start by saying that it's absolutely refreshing to see anyone critically question unemployment figures as an indicator of economic stability or success. I'm a policy professional by training, and I've found that it's extremely easy to present unemployment rates as proof positive of the effectiveness of certain policies, without actually examining the type and quality of jobs being filled. Most of these jobs, for example, are temporary or contract jobs with no substantial short-term benefits (at least in the United States - I would not be surprised, however, if this is increasingly becoming the case elsewhere).

 

I also want to extend my solidarity to you as you work towards your thesis. I also struggled for a very long time with very severe depression and anxiety, and I had to take a year away from my masters program to receive treatment. I've been fortunate enough that I am now able to comfortably work in a full-time job, but I've heard nightmare stories from people in both the U.S. and U.K. about byzantine and cruel disability systems.

 

When I examine the policy platforms of politicians, as a general rule I always start by looking at their views towards healthcare (especially creating accessible and comfortable societies for people with disabilities), and their views on climate policy (an area which I would argue is highly intertwined - when you're faced with wobbly systems of food production and medical care, for example, what will you do to make sure that everyone, not just those who are able, get what they need?)

[Sally]

5 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

@Sally Does the US demonise people on benefits as much as the UK, or more? I'm genuinely curious about attitudes, because I made this thread as I don't like how everyone's expected to go on benefits reluctantly, while endlessly repeating how much they'd rather be in work. There are many of us who are forced into work while having disabilities which make it hard, but not hard enough to qualify for benefits. But that sort of viewpoint is never heard in the media.

The US is a huge country with a number of different regional and political cultures, so the answer is yes and no.  I think many would rather be able to work, because work has many emotional/mental benefits.  However, the US -- as the UK, apparently -- does sometimes deny people benefits if their disabilities aren't permanent or total.  It isn't that people are forced into work; no one can do that -- it's a case of not getting benefits if you don't qualify per the rules.  But I have read about that in our media, so it's not a secret or a surprise.  

[nineGardens]

On 12/21/2019 at 1:52 AM, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

How common is this as a way of measuring success? Do people realise the problem is the lack of access to benefits while being unemployed, or if unable to work, and not the unemployment itself? What are your views on unemployment?

It is a very common way to measure success.... and I would even suspect, potentially a better one than most other measures (GDP etc) in some ways and do some extents.

 

Bluntly put, people often have better mental health and a sense of well being when they have a responsibilities. This is not ALWAYS the case, but the point remains that *being needed* by your society in some way does good things for people. This doesn't have to be a employment (a stay at home parent is still needed. Sufficiently intense volunteer work is needed), but finding ways for many members of society to put themselves and their talents to use is *often* (but not always) a good thing (unless the job is really really crappy/degrading).

 

So I do think there is something to be said for "The lack of employment is IN ITSELF a problem (and some conditions)"... but that lack of Welfare access quickly creates a SECOND probably, and prevents people from dealing with the first.

 

 

There are multiple approaches to Welfare. The two that come to mind for me, coming from NZ and our last election is as follows:

 

"Lazer focused benifits" - The government has data and information of people floating around already. By using this data/ and a it of science, they can figure out where money is likely to do the most good, and deploy it in those places. The goal here is efficiency... but also being mindful of "Some people really do need the help, and some people do better with an incentive to get up and get moving again".

There's actually a really cute/interesting story of this ... where the government of the time reduced welfare to single parents and encouraged them to go back to work once all their kids were at school. At first glance "Cut welfare to single parents" sounds super harsh... but as it turned out, the REASON for this is that parental employment is highly correlated with better outcomes for the kids even when the job is dumb. There was a letter sent to parliment a few months later from someone effected, basically saying "I hated you, I fought you, I lost, and I was forced to get a job.... but my kids are proud of me now... and I never even realized they were ashamed of me before." 

(Note, I only tell a story here, and have no opinion on if kids SHOULD be proud/ashamed).

 

 

The other direction is heading towards "Wide/Generous Welfare" - basically keeping the criteria for welfare broad, or even going so far as something as a Universal basic income (which is given to EVERYONE).

There are two main ideas with this. First, people on welfare are often dealing with stress... may well be less educated, or may have kids absorbing their time. The more complex and "lazer focused" the welfare system, the harder it is for anyone to comply, and fill out the paper work, and you're already dealing with people who may have difficulty with paperwork (or your paperwork may just be written confusingly).

The other value in this approach is that complex systems of rules create perverse incentive structures. If couples get less money than singles, will people divorce for welfare purposes? If your welfare is $300 - your earnings,   than why get a job that earns you $50, or even $350? The first $300 are effectively taxed at 100%, so why work?

These kind of incentive structures supporting only ABSOLUTE need create perverse incentive structures and "poverty traps". By having a simpler, more universal system, the chances of perverse incentives are low, and fewer people will be asking "But do they REALLY deserve it"

Uncertainty around payment can also create anxiety/uncertainty. There's a bunch of experiments with rats indicating that they act very differently around a button that WILL provide food, and one that MIGHT provide food (Reliable food sources are used only when needed. Unreliable ones are used as often as possible, and drive the rats crazy).

 

 

"Lazer Welfare" has the advantage of costing less and giving more direct benifit per dollar... and can potentially be used to create useful incentive structures in areas where you think it will benefit people. Its easy for the govt to turn around to tax payers and say "No really, we're saving $8million of medical and judicial fees by appling $6million of welfare. Its a good investment. The Science backs it". 

BUT its also more invasive of privacy, and can (from the point of view of those receiving it) feel arbitrary and confusing, creating extra stress. It also creates perverse incentives, and if used badly can create "Poverty traps", where someone works a bunch of hours for their $350$, but only gets $50 more than they would otherwise.

 

"Generous Welfare" is probably(?) less efficient on a dollar for dollar basis, but simplifies the system, ensures everyone gets enough, and avoids incentive structures (Both good and bad). The stability of them can give people a simpler foundation to build their own lives (see various experiments into UBI).

BUT... if you increase a universal welfare by $100, then won't that just lead to inflation? Will rent in every house go up by $100? Are you helping the people, or just paying their landlords more money? This is a problem, and potentially a reason why its hard for governments to solve problems by pouring money on them (especially in times of housing/resource limitation).

Effectively, if you have ANY critical resource that is limiting/underprovided, then the prices are going to go up until the poorest people can't afford it. Nothing any government does by shuffling money around can solve that, because if you only have enough houses for 90% of your population, then 10% aren't going to have a house. 😕

 

 

 

.... that was a long rant. Oh well.

[natsume]

Minimum wage and welfare benefits being a primary driver of inflation is one of the oldest legends. It appears to be started by politicians in order to convince people that minimum wage should not increase (but whether that idea originally came from corporations is a chicken or the egg debate).

The primary driver of inflation is actually the monetary policy of your nation's central bank. Barring something like minimum wage instantly being multiplied by 3 it will have little to no effect on inflation (and even in such a case your central bank would rectify it assuming your economy is relatively healthy). Inflation is controlled by the rates at which your central bank loans money to banks (which then loan the money to businesses and individuals).

 

The problem with increasing the number of people on welfare is that it generally reduces the amount that the people in severe need can actually receive. Using US EBT food assistance as an example, as the number of people on the program has increased the amount given per person/family has been decreased (under both political parties).

[Muledeer]

On 12/22/2019 at 4:03 PM, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

@Sally Does the US demonise people on benefits as much as the UK, or more? I'm genuinely curious about attitudes, because I made this thread as I don't like how everyone's expected to go on benefits reluctantly, while endlessly repeating how much they'd rather be in work. There are many of us who are forced into work while having disabilities which make it hard, but not hard enough to qualify for benefits. But that sort of viewpoint is never heard in the media.

I think it depends on where you live and even individual attitudes.  I can only speak for myself: I don't demonize or belittle anybody for taking assistance.  Especially food assistance.   I don't think that work requirements are realistic for the majority of those on the dole.  There are many reasons why someone is broke, and it's often because they can't work, for one reason or another.   

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

2 hours ago, Muledeer said:

I think it depends on where you live and even individual attitudes.  I can only speak for myself: I don't demonize or belittle anybody for taking assistance.  Especially food assistance.   I don't think that work requirements are realistic for the majority of those on the dole.  There are many reasons why someone is broke, and it's often because they can't work, for one reason or another.   

While I used the US to refer more to the whole state, the way access to benefits is handled, national media and such, it's good to also hear people's views. I agree with the above, sadly it's common fo british media to bring up benefit fraud and give the impression it's much more common/costly than it is(though it's a constant mystery to me while people care more about £1 lost from benefit fraud than £100 due to military rubbish/politicians who take money from the treasury for personal expenses etc).

[natsume]

That's because unlimited military spending is seen as patriotic. 

Corporate tax cuts and corporate welfare are seen as rewarding hard work.

 

 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

4 hours ago, natsume said:

That's because unlimited military spending is seen as patriotic. 

Corporate tax cuts and corporate welfare are seen as rewarding hard work.

 

 

I know the reasons, don't worry.

[Howard]

In Canada, people employed part-time are counted as employed. Also, discouraged people who stopped looking for work, students, the ill, the elderly, stay at home parents and minors are left out. Yet, unemployment rate is sometimes waved as a good stat for the economy. 

I disagree with this method for several reasons. First off, working 16 hours a week should not make you employed. Discouraged people should be counted as unemployed. All in all, the unemployment rate in Canada is, in my opionion, higher than pretended by the governement.

@natsume, I partly agree and partly disagree with you. I think it all depends on how minimum wages and other policies are in place which affects welfare. It is common for a welfare recipient to have a rent hike when it is announced that welfare benefits are increased. As well, when the NDP came to power in Alberta, they raised the minimum wage by over 20% over 4 years. That's a lot. A lot of Albertans complained of inflation while in other provinces inflation rate remained stable. These two instances can not be explained by Central Bank policies. It is obvious though that if a Central Bank decides to print more dollars while there is no net increase in production, there will be inflation.

In as far as our welfare system, it varies from provinces to provinces. In Quebec, it is wide and generous as it is quasi-universal, it's lazer as there are conditions to be met, like having to join a job hunting club.

[natsume]

But housing prices in Alberta have fallen. If there aren't rent control laws which make landlords justify rent increases based on the market then predatory practices like this may occur. Alberta continues to have very low inflation overall and in real estate prices as well. If your landlord heard you got a big promotion at work they might try to raise your rent as well, but would you blame your job or the landlord?

[Howard]

@natsume : https://troymedia.com/albertas-business2/albertas-inflation-rate-high/

Rent remained stable due to a decrease of population due to falling oil prices. All other goods went up from 2014-2018.

[Skycaptain]

It would be best if unemployment meant "anyone over school leaving age not in full-time employment unless for voluntary reasons, i.e. Partner earns millions, financial situation means don't need to work, and that these reasons don't mean that people are claiming benefits" 

[Sally]

7 hours ago, Howard said:

In Canada, people employed part-time are counted as employed. Also, discouraged people who stopped looking for work, students, the ill, the elderly, stay at home parents and minors are left out. Yet, unemployment rate is sometimes waved as a good stat for the economy. 

I disagree with this method for several reasons. First off, working 16 hours a week should not make you employed. Discouraged people should be counted as unemployed. 

The US counts unemployment similarly, and I agree with your complaints about that system.  Unfortunately, discouraged people just can't be counted, because they stop looking for work and therefore (in the US) they don't qualify for unemployment insurance.  They just fade into the "can't find them" category.   

[natsume]

That source contributed the higher inflation primarily due to growing energy and transportation costs in Alberta, primarily the skyrocketing electric prices which were not impacted by the minimum wage.

.“In Alberta, electricity prices rose 27.5 per cent in 2018 . . .

Prices were up on an annual average basis in all eight major components in 2018. The transportation index (+4.7 per cent) was the largest contributor to the increase,”

The CPI growth would likely be the same as the rest of Canada without this large growth in electricity costs.

[Whore*of*Mensa]

I like a kind of Marxist take on this one: under capitalism, we are units of labour - our value is measured by our productivity, or what we produce in monetary terms. 

 

That's why anyone who doesn't work is seen as worthless, although they might produce things of great value - community, art, writing, a child - you can't measure those things in numbers so we're taught that they don't count. 

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

On 12/31/2019 at 5:09 PM, Whore*of*Mensa said:

I like a kind of Marxist take on this one: under capitalism, we are units of labour - our value is measured by our productivity, or what we produce in monetary terms. 

 

That's why anyone who doesn't work is seen as worthless, although they might produce things of great value - community, art, writing, a child - you can't measure those things in numbers so we're taught that they don't count. 

While Marx is, as ever, the best one to quote for his criticisms of capitalism and I am an anarchist who very much agrees with him, I didn't raise this topic with reference to politics because I don't want to treat this as something which left wingers automatically understand. If I make this about capitalism the focus will all too often shift to working people, with non workers dependent on the state treated as unfortunate side effects of capitalism instead of an entire demographic which I really think need to be included more in politics.

 

Though this is a very biased rant ahaha I just see them being ignored in the same way that disabled people are almost ignored in any mainstream political discussion about people losing healthcare. People argue about how the majority of people are affected, rather than those most dependent on the services being discussed, and I feel we need to do better. Especially with how quickly I see discussions about people losing benefits be rebuffed by commenters with "well they voted for it" or "how ironic that they're more likely to be right wing" and so on. I believe there should be more of a focus on people reliant on the state for their income than there is, and how they are frequently weaponised against working class workers. Like for example with how the UK's workhouses were transformed with the second poor laws, in which it was declared that living conditions for people inside of workhouses should always be worse than for the poorest worker outside the workhouses, which of course could be posed as a threat to any worker - being told that while workhouses might provide you with food and shelter, life inside would be more miserable than it was for you currently, no matter how bad that was, would be a great incentive for employers to use. While unemployment and the notion that it should always be bad for the economy are tied together with how capitalism values people based on productivity(which can also be said for the gig economy and zero hour contracts etc which have shifted things from valuing based on hours worked), the problem of a lack of attention paid to people who are currently dependent on the state for survival is true of left wing politics as well, and I wish I had more confidence that we as anti capitalists could seriously fight back against things like benefits cuts, institutionalisation etc.

 

So I guess, I can make it about capitalism because basically everything is, but I also don't want to let left wingers off the hook in thinking about it. I guess this thread is really about finding solutions to the problem that the majority of people are so happy to demonise people dependent on state benefits based on the much more abstract threat of the economy failing. I think responses to this can often be presented in the form of "shouldn't you be able to have time off work for -" followed by situations relevant to the working people being appealed to, but this doesn't address how many people lack compassion for those people on benefits except for in the very time that they are in that position. I've even known someone who was once homeless criticise me and a friend for offering money to people on the street because "they'll only waste it". I think the impact of how capitalism undervalues people doesn't hit anywhere near as hard to people who have jobs to derive value from than those treated as worthless on benefits.

 

In the UK people like to argue that the system of benefits and healthcare etc is something which everyone pays into so they can be paid back for it later on in life. But too many don't view it that way, and treat the recipients of their taxes as entirely separate groups of people. It's not surprising, because basically the whole of society treats long term unemployed people as invisible, like nowadays we see a lot of popular points made about media representation but representation for long term unemployed people, people who rely on state benefits etc is missing almost everywhere. Even elderly people on pensions aren't represented, let alone people out of work because of disability or poor prospects in their area/based on their qualifications. It's an all pervasive bias.

 

I guess I kind of reacted defensively to you, but meh I hope you don't mind the long winded rant!

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

On 12/23/2019 at 12:40 AM, the great acescape said:

Hello! I'd like to start by saying that it's absolutely refreshing to see anyone critically question unemployment figures as an indicator of economic stability or success. I'm a policy professional by training, and I've found that it's extremely easy to present unemployment rates as proof positive of the effectiveness of certain policies, without actually examining the type and quality of jobs being filled. Most of these jobs, for example, are temporary or contract jobs with no substantial short-term benefits (at least in the United States - I would not be surprised, however, if this is increasingly becoming the case elsewhere).

 

I also want to extend my solidarity to you as you work towards your thesis. I also struggled for a very long time with very severe depression and anxiety, and I had to take a year away from my masters program to receive treatment. I've been fortunate enough that I am now able to comfortably work in a full-time job, but I've heard nightmare stories from people in both the U.S. and U.K. about byzantine and cruel disability systems.

 

When I examine the policy platforms of politicians, as a general rule I always start by looking at their views towards healthcare (especially creating accessible and comfortable societies for people with disabilities), and their views on climate policy (an area which I would argue is highly intertwined - when you're faced with wobbly systems of food production and medical care, for example, what will you do to make sure that everyone, not just those who are able, get what they need?)

I found it really cool to hear back from someone working in the area, just didn't know what to say to you ahaha what I find frustrating about discussions around unemployment is that the treatment of them as bad really is practically unanimous. Whether it's a right winger or left winger. Here's an interesting example of some far leftists' views on it, which is exactly why I don't view it as reducible to left vs right:

 

"Unemployment is always a direct effect of living under capitalism, it is used by the bosses to depress wages “there are plenty of people out there who work for less money than you” is a common threat as is “behave yourselves or I’ll close down” as we saw above, the chaotic nature of capitalism also leads to regular crises and attacks on workers which cause massive unemployment. This is especially true of South Africa where the crisis of the racist capitalist system has caused massive job losses. Elsewhere in Africa, the economic crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, which was caused by recession in the imperialist world capitalist system and by the mismanagement of the economy by the ruling class, has led to ESAPs and job losses.

Unemployment will not be stopped while the capitalist system exists but there are immediate demands that can be put forward. Any workplace threatened with closure should be occupied. The workers should demand continued employment whether it be under a new owner or by nationalisation. We believe it makes little difference because, for us, nationalisation is not a cure-all. It is no guarantee of better wages or job security and it does not bring us any nearer to socialism. There is no essential difference between a boss who is a civil servant and one who is a private employer. However, we oppose all privatisation that leads to job losses, worse working conditions or less services for the mass of the people. We also call for a shorter working week, an end to systematic overtime and double jobbing and an end to all productivity deals. Basic wages should be high enough so that workers do not need to work excess hours.

We believe that the unemployed should accept no responsibility for the situation. Unemployment payments should be increased substantially. Where possible, the unemployed should organise themselves to defend their rights and link up with the broader trade union movement. We think that the employed and the unemployed have basically the same interests, and these are to resist the ruling class which oppresses them."

 

I find it interesting because on the one hand it clearly tries to use the common idea of unemployment as a terrible thing as an argument for anarchism. But on the other hand, I believe those negative views of unemployment influence people's resentment of "socialist" policies, in which it's assumed that more deserving people are paying for less deserving people to live comfortably. And while more people understand that being wealthy isn't an indicator of how much you contribute to society, the idea that you must somehow contribute to society through work in order to be deserving of anything is incredibly common. Then there's also the way that people may use the argument that the richest people are undeserving because their work doesn't meaningfully contribute to society...there are a lot of ways it seems that negative views of people who can't work could be spread by all sorts of people.

 

I also want to say that my views on this are influenced by the fact that I just wish there was more representation of disabled people which didn't require them to prove their value through work. It puts a huge amount of pressure on anyone who worries they won't be able to work.

[Whore*of*Mensa]

4 hours ago, Lonemathsytoothbrushthief said:

I guess I kind of reacted defensively to you, but meh I hope you don't mind the long winded rant!

Don't mind at all, it's interesting and I think I agree with everything you said.

 

I will probably try to reply when I've had more time to think about it, but I don't think I have a very different position on this. I'm influenced by the social model of disability which is not about individual limitations but about how people are disabled by the organisation of society. The simplest example is that we are all dependent on the state to get around using state-built roads and so on, however people in wheelchairs are prevented from getting around by the fact that we build stairs into buildings, not ramps..(Sorry if that's not quite relevant and again too political; but the social model applies to all types of disability and is useful to disabled people). 

 

Do you agree with the universal basic income, as a way to separate work from survival? (ignore if not relevant again!)

[natsume]

Universal basic income is eventually going to be pushed by corporations like Apple as people become too poor to give all their money to a corporation which sells non-essential items produced by slave labor in foreign countries.  They can then give all their universal basic income to apple so there is no economic problem on their end. The trick is figuring out how the corporations don't have to pay for any of the universal basic income.  But, yes, universal basic income is coming and it's been floated by corporate think tankers as a good solution for a future when there are extremely high unemployment rates due to increasingly cheap automation in all sectors. (I don't know if he was considering gig jobs as unemployed or even remember his name)

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

@Whore*of*Mensa I agree with you too, and as far as universal basic income goes, I'd have to say going off of what @natsume said that the problem is leftists being prepared by the time it is being proposed. Though on the other hand to me it sort of looks like many governments are going to keep making living conditions worse and worse for most minorities, including those on benefits, until we reach a recession/depression tbh. I saw a stat which said that basically the UK is more vulnerable to a recession/even depression than it was in 2008, though to be fair we're talking about our tiny islands so maybe the effect on the world's economy wouldn't be as big if the UK economy fucks up than when the US one did. At the same time though, I still think that for many that'll probably be the situation before any universal basic income comes.

 

But yeah, if it comes we need to make sure it's not a trojan horse. Names for these things hide that the people who finance them may set all sorts of limitations which typical voters wouldn't question. It's like how new zealand's sex workers got "decriminalisation" by leaving criminalisation for migrant sex workers.