This post is a follow-on from my previous post:The World Does not Owe us a Living…

There may not be any society which implements a true ‘Universal Income’, but there are a notable number of societies which operate a ‘Welfare State‘.  In broad terms, a Welfare State is a “system in which the government undertakes the chief responsibility for providing for the social and economic security of its population”.  This responsibility is often disbursed via the provision of financial aid to those who are considered to have insufficient to otherwise live – the unemployed, those unable to work through disability or illness.

Despite being seen by some as a basic obligation of government however, in many modern societies (such as the United Kingdom) there are those that consider a welfare state to be a system which does little more than allow a comfortable life to those unwilling to work.  Indeed, this is a view which is often supported by politicians; George Osbourne (the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) publicly declared that there are people “sleeping-off a life on benefits”.  It could be said that attitudes have not much changed today; at the moment a system called ‘Universal Credit’ is being rolled out in the UK, the impact of which is estimated to reduce the income of those on the welfare state significantly.  Yet, in the face of this there are those that believe that the best encouragement for an individual to work is to cut the amount of money provided through the system of benefits.  Indeed, Iain Duncan Smith, the (then) Work and Pensions Secretary responsible for introducing Universal Credit is quoted as having said that “Under Universal Credit, we are beginning to see a cultural shift where people choose to work rather than rely on state support.”

The point of this article however, is not to delve into the factors which may or may not psychologically or even financially motivate individuals to work, but instead to challenge a basic premise of this entire argument: the fact that there is enough work for everyone should they wish it – since it strikes me as a self-evident truth that if there is not enough work, then no matter what the motivation, the person WILL NOT find employment.

In the United Kingdom, statistical data is gathered by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) – and of that, data is gathered concerning the number of people in and out of employment.  The ONS has a formal Glossary, but briefly categorise ‘Employment’ as having a job, and ‘Unemployment’ as not having a job but nevertheless being economically active (over the age of 16) and looking for a job.  Presently in the United Kingdom, the Unemployment Rate is 3.9% – which works out as just over 1,8m people.  (Population of 66m, % of under 16s, 18.9%).

So, if there are 1,8m people who are not employed and who would like to be, how many jobs are there for which they can apply?  According to the ONS, the number of Vacancies stands at 854,000.

Now, I do not have an advanced degree in mathematics (so I may be wrong), however at first glance it would appear that there are less vacancies then people who are unemployed.  It would follow then, that not everyone will be able to find a job, even if they want to.  (These numbers do not take into account the fact that a Vacancy is not necessarily a Full-Time position – those 854,000 posts could in fact all be Part-Time jobs – offering only a limited number of hours work a week.)

I would contend therefore, that under such circumstances, reducing the amount of benefit someone receives is not (automatically) likely to help in reducing unemployment.  I say automatically, because it remains a possibility (probability?) that those with less money due to lower benefits may end up starving to death – in which case of course the number of unemployed may drop as they die off!!

How then can any government hold an individual responsible for not working when there is insufficient work for all (or where there is work, but which the person is question is unable to undertake)?  Such an abdication of responsibility by government is nothing short of immoral.  It is a clear case of prejudicial and discriminatory behaviour – in exactly the same way as it would be to blame a man for not being able to bear children.

In many ways, current society looks upon work as a choice and an option, yet for many (all?) it is neither.  A person’s options may be limited for any number of reasons: ranging from their physical or mental capacities, the location in which they live or perhaps simply down to a lack of desire to perform a certain role in society.  How many of us are lucky enough to have chosen our job? In the truest sense, unless we are our own boss, then the choice of our employment has always been in the hands on another.  Yes, we may have made choices along the way, however if we take it down to the basic proposition: choosing between not being able to live on benefits and accepting a job that you don’t like – we find that it is not really a choice at all.  It is easy perhaps to conceive of just how much pressure there may be on someone to accept a job that they do not want simply to be able to keep the wolf from the door.

Perhaps when we consider the role of government we should consider that quality of life is an important criteria in our standard of living.  Under such arguments then, it is realistic to expect that a government be held responsible for the provision of an adequate working environment – before it begins to penalise individuals for not working.