Misconceptions about the Welfare State in the U.K.

December 30, 2002 12:30 PM

Poverty and the Welfare State: Dispelling the mythsThis working paper (PDF file) states that "debates on poverty and welfare in Britain are full of myths." Among them (culled from the exec summary, since I'm still reading the paper): 1. The belief that poverty is long term and is passed from generation to generation is not consistent with the evidence. 2. Poverty is not caused by people behaving differently (although people act differently after they become poor), or by people having too many children, or by racial differences. 3. Scare stories about spiraling costs and abuse are greatly exaggerated. 4. Welfare does not encourage dependency. Just in case anybody's writing a major paper over the holidays or anything. I found this via the fantastic Canadian Social Research Links web site. (And if this came up in a previous post, I apologize; I searched on just about every relevant term I could think of.)
posted by 314/ (32 comments total)

Interesting stuff. Good link, 314.
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:57 PM on December 30, 2002

With some experience in the field (the section 8 voucher program in the U.S.), I reactively disagree with most of the findings in the report. But it is important to note that this study is for Great Britain, and not the United States, and the situation may very well be different there. After reading the PDF, however, I find no evidence at all -- merely conjecture after conjecture, much like a Metafilter post, save but a smattering of numbers. I realize this is an exective summary, so where are the details, the figures?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:13 PM on December 30, 2002

This confuses me. In the latter chapters, it infers the poor remain in poverty becuase they choose to do so. Isn't this a Leftist peice? I thought that the self determination line of thought was a Right mantra.

Civil: A few of the references give lin
posted by blogRot at 1:41 PM on December 30, 2002

If all these government programs are such a great idea, then how come they have to use force to get us to pay for them?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:54 PM on December 30, 2002

Homer: Well, what do you think?
Editor: This is a joke, right? I mean this is the stupidest thing I've ever read!
Homer: What's wrong with it?
Editor: You keep using words like "Pasghetti" and "Momatoes" You make numerous threatening references to the UN and at the end you repeat the words "Screw Flanders" over and over again.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:56 PM on December 30, 2002

"All the evidence we have indicates that poverty is not a problem of a permanently excluded underclass. Most of the population is vulnerable to it. The best way to help the poor within the welfare state is not to target programmes more carefully on the poor, but the converse: to ensure that there is a general framework of resources, services and opportunities which are adequate for people's needs, and can be used by everyone." From this page.
posted by todd at 2:01 PM on December 30, 2002

points for the ob.simp.ref
posted by Fupped Duck at 2:14 PM on December 30, 2002

re: Poverty -- "Most of the population is vulnerable to it"

Well, most of the population doesn't have fists full of dollars, pockets lined with politicians, or job security, either. That's just the problem. It's easy to make a million when you've got a million. Hell, if the richest 1% of the population was fleeced enough to give a million dollars to every man, woman and child in the country, they'd still be fabulously rich, while the rest of us could just live off the interest.

But you gotta have that underclass if you want your work done for you. Of course, the slow decentralization of money from the United States to our colonies in the East is really getting in the way of our bottom line. Pretty soon we'll be looking to Africa to provide our cheap slave labor. Funny how some things never change.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:21 PM on December 30, 2002

And I have to wonder how much EU governments are to blame in sustaining a perpetual underclass. Over the years I have heard EU economics ministers suggest that "10% unemployment is a permanent state". And the government of England is notorious for frequently adjusting the unemployment statistics downward. I also think of the huge French out-of-Paris ghettos, massive housing projects increasingly ruled by gangs.
Many EU governments seem to be just cynical and pessimistic, can self-deception be far behind?
posted by kablam at 2:44 PM on December 30, 2002

Pretty soon we'll be looking to Africa to provide our cheap slave labor. Funny how some things never change.

Yes. Like this sort of false, "the rich are evil", Marxist rhetoric.
posted by MidasMulligan at 2:56 PM on December 30, 2002

Thats what is confusing to me and that is what I was refering to. The paper continues to point out that poverty will be experienced by most but for a short duration of time. So those who do remain in poverty for a generation do so at their own behest?
"It is very unlikely... that someone will be worse off if they move into work."
"Most children born into poverty cease to be poor before long."
I interpret the main punch of the peice to be that welfare was designed to stop people from becoming poor. The poor and poverty that would still exist in the welfare state proposed would be that multitude of persons taking advantage of the welfare state, are they not choosing to remain in poverty?

"All the evidence we have indicates that poverty is not a problem of a permanently excluded underclass. Most of the population is vulnerable to it.

"The best way to help the poor within the welfare state is not to target programmes more carefully on the poor, but the converse: to ensure that there is a general framework of resources, services and opportunities which are adequate for people's needs, and can be used by everyone."

If there is no desire to 'rise up above one's class' (and all that rot) what would be the motivating desire to labor when you could have the exact same privileges as one who did? Why not choose to remain (the now new class of) poor?
posted by blogRot at 3:06 PM on December 30, 2002

Civil_disobedient, jeez if your going to make up statistics, then at least make them plausible. I can't find any exact numbers, but there's no way the richest 1% control $290 quadrillion (or $290 million billion). Even if the richest 1% all have a $43 billion fortune like Bill Gates, they could only have a total wealth of $124.7 quadrillion.

(I'm American, 10^9 == million, 10^12 == billion, etc.)

Just to illustrate how far this is from the actual number the top 1% have, Steve Ballmer the 10th wealthiest person in the US only has a fortune of 11.4 billion. Only about a 1/4 of what his old boss has, and the richest 1% still consists of nearly 2.9 million people.

Now it's true that it's easier to make money if you've already got it, but that's what we need to concentrate on. There are some things like nepotism that will always give people advantages, but america is the land of opportunity. Not, I repeat NOT the land of guaranteed outcomes. So, as longs as we're making every effort to give people an equal opportunity to fail, we've got the best system possible.
posted by betaray at 3:19 PM on December 30, 2002

Damnit, I said I was American, 10^6 == a million, 10^9 == billion.
posted by betaray at 3:22 PM on December 30, 2002

Hell, if the richest 1% of the population was fleeced enough to give a million dollars to every man, woman and child in the country, they'd still be fabulously rich, while the rest of us could just live off the interest.

Hee hee hee! *twirls moustache* What a diabolical idea that has NEVER been tried before! Ho Ho! Let's call it redistribution of wealth!! We can all live in proletarian bliss if the piggy rich fat-cat bourgeois is destroyed and their wealth distributed equally among the underclasses!!

Somebody write this down!
posted by hama7 at 3:38 PM on December 30, 2002

If all these government programs are such a great idea, then how come they have to use force to get us to pay for them?

I'd disagree that force is required, I think many are happy to shell out if they see the results they expect - although sometimes people need a little persuasion to push self-interest aside and act a way that benefits society as a whole.
posted by zygoticmynci at 3:55 PM on December 30, 2002

MidasMulligan: Do you honestly think that the astronomical economic growth of 3rd world countries in Asia, which coincidentally occurs after WWII, has nothing to do with the influx of 1st world nations moving manufacturing to their cheaper markets? And do you really think that, once said 3rd world countries' increased economic capacity correspondingly increases average wages, that corporations wouldn't simply move on to greener pastures? Or do you believe so stolidly in the impecible goodness of companies and their responsibility to their shareholders to actually commit to producing goods for 1st world labor wages? As an aspiring Marxist-Commie-Pinko I'd really like to know.

betaray: Sorry about the complete lack of math skills there.

Just to clarify, I think this study is wrong. 1) Poverty is passed along families, and 2) poor people do behave differently, (though that is more a product of the poverty, not a cause). Having more children than one can financially afford is a wonderful way to guarantee you'll stay in poverty and that your offspring will be denied the benefits the extra money could have provided (better healthcare and schooling, for example). 3) Just from my own experience at the Boston Housing Authority, I'd say 20% of the vouchers given were from abuse of the system. Abuse of the welfare system may not be rampant, but it's certainly costing us. 4) Welfare may encourage dependency, but only to those people who don't mind living in poverty. These people do exist, but given the choice, most would much rather just have a steady income and a stable life.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:57 PM on December 30, 2002

Steve Ballmer the 10th wealthiest person in the US only has a fortune of 11.4 billion.

Emphasis mine. I think that statement says something about American society, but I'm not entirely sure what. It probably isn't saying anything good about it, though.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:58 PM on December 30, 2002

The statement "personal fortune" is fairly misleading in most of these cases, as the vast majority of a rich person's wealth is not liquid, but bound up in investments of one sort or another. "Redistributing their wealth" would be far more complex than simply emptying their bank accounts, and would mostly have to involve the mass sale of shares, real estate, bonds and other holdings, which would cause a serious recession and would bankrupt a number of companies, as well as most governments, in fairly short order. This would, in the end, have the opposite effect to what was intended (that is, mass impoverishment rather than the elimination of poverty). There may or may not be means of eliminating poverty, but destroying one's economy is almost certainly not a reasonable way of doing so.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:24 PM on December 30, 2002

I'd disagree that force is required ... sometimes people need a little persuasion to push self-interest aside and act a way that benefits society as a whole.

zygoticmynci: If you don't think force is required, try not paying your taxes for a couple years and see what happens. I'm sure the IRS will contact you with threats of incarceration, attachment, and other forms of "persuasion" to make you want to "benefit society as a whole!"

I think many are happy to shell out if they see the results they expect

...and that's the great thing about charities: they really DO have to persuade us to part with our money without the (expedient) option of forcing it from us. The wide variety of charities allows you to CHOOSE where YOU think you'll get the results you expect. You can even choose not to give at all.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:28 PM on December 30, 2002

although sometimes people need a little persuasion to push self-interest aside and act a way that benefits society as a whole.

Muhahahahaha!! *puts on black buttonless pajamas and picks up torch and pitchfork* Where shall we begin, hmm? [Note to self: need several million black pajamas for noble proletariat masses, and maybe some hats]

Let's get the filthy bourgeois intellectuals and listless leisure class first!! Swine!! We have the element of surprise on our side because this has never been considered before!!

*cue Willam Tell Overture*

We shall build with the hammer and harvest with the sickle like the pioneers that we are!! Hoorah! Hi Ho, et cetera!
posted by hama7 at 7:55 PM on December 30, 2002

zygoticmynci: If you don't think force is required, try not paying your taxes for a couple years and see what happens. I'm sure the IRS will contact you with threats of incarceration, attachment, and other forms of "persuasion" to make you want to "benefit society as a whole!"

Shit, we have to pay taxes too! Those fascists! I'm out of here... I'm going to move to England or France or Sweden...

Oh, wait. People in the united states pay out less in taxes per capita than residents of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, France, Austria, Italy, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Canada, Germany, England, Greece, Poland, Slovenia, Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Turkey, Australia and Japan. It's true. So stop the complaining about taxes, because you'll pay more just about anywhere you go (except Korea and Mexico. I hear Mexico's nice this time of year... Just don't drink the water.)
posted by SweetJesus at 9:04 PM on December 30, 2002

So stop the complaining about taxes, because you'll pay more just about anywhere you go

Those are federal taxes only, and as you should know from living in the northeast, states tax too. State/local taxes add up to about another 10% of GDP.

You'd also have to add subnational taxes on to Canada fer shure and probably Germany, but most of the other countries aren't going to have much in the way of subnational taxes. Certainly not subnational income taxes and sales taxes/VATs.

Not that this makes a giant difference, but better to be accurate than not.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:23 PM on December 30, 2002

except Korea

Yay.
posted by hama7 at 12:30 AM on December 31, 2002

Just don't drink the water

You can't drink the water in Korea either. Ah well.
posted by hama7 at 12:31 AM on December 31, 2002

I said I was American, 10^6 == a million, 10^9 == billion.

I'm not quite sure when it happened, but I think this is generally accepted in the UK these days. I blame globalisation...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 3:27 AM on December 31, 2002

I blame globalisation...

Me too! Damn globalisation, as if the world weren't round enough!
posted by hama7 at 4:47 AM on December 31, 2002

Now if we could only get them to spell it "globalization." :)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:40 AM on December 31, 2002

The problem is that urbanization => poverty. The U.S. had no real "poverty" per se. until the advent of urbanization in the 19th century - before, much of the U.S. population worked as farmers living on subsistance levels. Poverty was originally blamed on alcohol, leading eventually to prohibition, etc. It's probably an inevitable result of capitalism - there will be haves, and there will be have-nots. However, the standard of living in the U.S. is about as good as it gets around the world, and the U.S.'s poor lives in luxury compared with the poverty of the rest of the world. And believe it or not, you could argue that with our social programs, we spend so much per poor person that theoretically, there should be NO ONE below the poverty line. Our social programs don't work because many people make good livings "helping the poor" and have no incentive to change their inefficient programs, and the poor generally have become utterly paranoid about government programs, for good reason, and often choose to avoid them. Yes, welfare does help some, and so does social security, but the programs are not efficient enough to truly allievate the problem of poverty in U.S. society.
posted by Veritron at 10:35 AM on December 31, 2002

The problem is that urbanization => poverty

Good Christ, is this a joke? Here, a quote from a biography of Peter the Great:

As he traveled again through the French countryside [in 1717], Peter remarked, as he had on his way to Paris, on the poverty of the French peasants. The comparison between the luxury he found in the capital and what he saw outside surprised him and he wondered aloud to his friends how long this system could last.

Why do you think people have historically moved from the countryside to the city and not vice versa?
posted by languagehat at 11:11 AM on December 31, 2002

Every man a king!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:29 AM on December 31, 2002

I think Veritron may have meant poverty as a concept. At least, that's how I interpreted it.
posted by spacewaitress at 12:51 PM on December 31, 2002

He can mean poverty however he wants, it's still ridiculous. Read the Bible, for example — there is a constant contrasting of the poor vs. the rich.

It's probably an inevitable result of capitalism - there will be haves, and there will be have-nots.

Well, that's probably true, so long as you don't neglect the fact that it's probably also an inevitable result of any and every other political/social/fiscal system ever proposed and/or practiced.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:49 AM on January 3, 2003