If you only read one work related book this year let John Hills “Good Times Bad Times” be it. It is a rigorous and comprehensive defense of the welfare state and a trenchant critique of the Conservative governments policy towards it. When I had finished reading it I felt like I had been given an incredibly polite invitation to a revolution.
It attacks the welfare myth of “them” and “us” that has been assiduously built up by the Tory’s over the past 5 years. A myth which talks about hard working families, (us) and shirkers and skivers, (them). “They” are an unchanging group of permanently out of work people dependent on over generous benefits, families of them, where three and four generations have never worked. Of course the truth is somewhat different.
Across the period 1997-2009 the average time someone remained unemployed after they lost their job was between 5 and 6 months. Of those who started on jobseekers allowance in April 2007 only 0.7% were still on it after 2 years. In 2013 only 3% of those on jobseekers allowance had been on it for 5 years or more. As to the families that have three generations of workless, 8 months of research in Teeside and Glasgow could not find them leading the researchers’ involved describing their efforts as “hunting the Yeti”.
Hills points out that when the Welfare state was set up its purpose was not to transfer wealth from one group of individuals to another it was rather to smooth out the fluctuations in income that individuals experienced over a normal life span. Insurance saved in times of employment against unemployment and old age. In the 1980’s and 1990’s around three quarters of what the welfare state was doing was “savings bank” redistribution across the life cycle of the individual and about a quarter was “Robin Hood” redistribution between different people. Given that the welfare state is increasingly concentrated on life cycle-related services like health, education and pensions it is probably the case that in recent years the redistributive element is even less.
Hills considers the argument that the poor have got too expensive for us. What he shows is that the cost of transfers to the poor is the same share of average incomes now as it was in 1979. Having said this he then considers why those on middle incomes feel they are getting a raw deal. He points to the fact that since 1979 those on middle incomes have been losing out, their share of national income going down from 18% in 1979 to 16% in 2010/11. Has this gone to the poor? No the share of the bottom 20% of the population has gone down from 10% to 8%, then where has this share of national income gone?
The answer is the top 20% of the population whose share rose over the same period from 35% to 42% and indeed most of that gain went to the top 10%. In fact the ratchet of inequality runs right the way through that top 20% with the top 1% increasing its share of after tax income from 4.7% to 12.6%. The truth of the matter, as more and more commentators are saying, is that we cannot afford the rich.
Hills is clear that there are major policy issues that have to be addressed in relation to the welfare state. He is absolutely clear however that these need to be informed by evidence and not prejudicial stereotypes. His tone throughout is impeccably academic and polite. He lets the facts speak for themselves. They are as incendiary as any political rhetoric and should be as widely read as possible. Even those with a longstanding commitment to the welfare state will find this book inspiring and may even find some parts surprising. It is amazing how prejudice sufficiently often repeated seeps into the consciousness of even those who support a more equal society. Read it.
HousePress 