Exposed: the myth of a 'culture of worklessness'

Exposed: the myth of a 'culture of worklessness'

www.guardian.co.uk

Together with Andy Furlong at Glasgow University and researchers Johann Roden and Robert Crow, we undertook fieldwork in very deprived neighbourhoods of Glasgow and Middlesbrough. We used every method available to try to locate families with three generations that had never worked, such as spending days surveying clients of job centres, interviewing dozens of organisations that worked in these neighbourhoods, advertising via posters, newsletters and newspaper stories through leafleting and door-knocking and spending months in these neighbourhoods talking to hundreds of residents.


Despite

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well what a surprise - even the unemployed want to work - perhaps it is, you know, a basic human instinct/need/failing to want to feel as though you are contributing to something, somewhere??

Perhaps those who are better off might like to consider the less fortunate as human beings, instead of something less??

Recent surveys suggest that less than 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. As Paul Gregg, one of the foremost experts on inter-generational worklessness in the UK has said: "It just doesn't exist on the scale people seem to think it does."

another "conservative" myth massacred by fact!

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is precisely the sort of mythology that allowed Thatcher to butcher the working classes in the 80's, and I for one am glad that the guardian has exposed this particular heap of crap, for what it is. A pack of stinking, villanous, lies.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
... three generations that had never worked

What they dont mention is their definition of "never".

ie... if one person on that three generations had spend a total of 3 days working in their whole life, before dropping out again, then do they count as "never worked"?
In my mind they still would, but how do I know what the researchers labelled it as?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You were looking in the wrong spot. If you want to find generations of people who don't want to work you need to look at the Elite or Royalty.

reply to post by alfa1

Originally posted by alfa1

What they dont mention is their definition of "never".

ie... if one person on that three generations had spend a total of 3 days working in their whole life, before dropping out again, then do they count as "never worked"?
In my mind they still would, but how do I know what the researchers labelled it as?

You do a little research - you read the article, yuo note that there are links in the article to the study summary, and from there to the full study.

Without a formal definition is is reasonable to take het common/dictionary meaning of "never" and "ever".

However even with a flexible defintion - "loose interpretation":

That we could not find families matching even a loose interpretation of
‘three generations that have never worked’, coupled with the results of
recent social surveys, suggests that the idea of intergenerational cultures of
worklessness enjoys an undeserved level of popularity.

Also remember that it is not the study that makes the claim that these words are applicable - the study is in response to the claims of others that these words are accurate.

What the study ACTUALLY finds is:

We found no evidence to support the idea that participants were part of
a culture of worklessness, and none for the idea of intergenerational cultures
of worklessness. Despite their long-term worklessness, parents actively
strove for better for their children and often assisted them in searching for
jobs. Young people in these families described wanting to avoid the poverty,
worklessness and other problems that had affected their parents. Running
directly counter to theories of intergenerational cultures of worklessness,
the research found that conventional, mainstream attitudes to and values
about work were widespread in both the middle and younger generations.
Employment was understood to offer social, psychological and financial
advantages (compared with worklessness and a reliance on benefits).
Interviewees knew it was better to be in work than to be out of work, partly
because of the deep and long-term poverty that extensive worklessness had
brought to these families.

so further than merely debunking the idea that there are families where 3 generations NEVER worked, it also found that the long term-unemployed WANT TO WORK, strive to get employment fo their kids, and understand that working si a good idea.

reply to post by rickymouse


Most of the Royal males have been militarily active, and have a hand in managing estates and international trade and diplomatic engagements. The females also involve themselves in the last two of that small list, which are both time consuming and potentially complicated. They tend to do an awful lot more than most of the so called elites,and although everyone loves to lambast them for thier so called personal wealth, they arent even the richest family in the UK, let alone the world.

Not to mention, no one can acuse our Queen of laziness. During the second world war, she COULD have left the nation, she could have escaped to the country. She drove ambulances in the middle of the blitz instead. Harry could have stayed at home after his tour in Afghanistan, but wanted to get back on the front lines, and took the Apache route. His brother performs an important public service also, flying air sea rescue in the RAF, one of the most challenging non combat environments a helicopter pilot can engage in. He operates in high winds, and delivers life savers to locations that without pilots like him, could not be reached.

They arent all bad.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Yeah, the English Royal family is always doing something or other. I probably shouldn't have included Royalty in the post. They are steering the country which isn't really easy. I would rather shovel cow manure for eight hours a day than do their job that has so much social scrutiny tagged to it.

reply to post by rickymouse


best post ive read on ATS in a long time.

bravo

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Well what a surprise - even the unemployed want to work - perhaps it is, you know, a basic human instinct/need/failing to want to feel as though you are contributing to something, somewhere??

Perhaps those who are better off might like to consider the less fortunate as human beings, instead of something less??

Recent surveys suggest that less than 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer. As Paul Gregg, one of the foremost experts on inter-generational worklessness in the UK has said: "It just doesn't exist on the scale people seem to think it does."

another "conservative" myth massacred by fact!

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 17-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Well, you are looking at the myth in a vacuum. That is, it is still a crock, but your proof against this crock is a crock for the exact same reasons.

People are not logical. Individually, we may seem like we are. And if you judge each decision on its truthful causations, there is a form of logic there. But in the end, we act illogically.

The "culture of worklessness" is a truth, even if it isn't familial. And that is the thing...the report measures familial ties, not cultural ties. Familial ties are a whole 'nuther subject.

But there IS a culture of worklessness. I have family members myself who are part of that culture. Hell, my sister and my oldest son belong in that culture. Me? I always work. If i am unemployed, I do private projects to create cashflow. When I am employed, I run business units. I am hardly a worthless person with or without a job. I generally consider the same of others.

But to ignore that a culture of worklessness doesn't exist is ridiculous. Just like any "culture" it transcends familial bonds, and ends up being, in its most simple terms, "like attracts like". You just gravitate towards people who will support your poor decision making. Who validate it with similar decisions of their own.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

The "culture of worklessness" is a truth, even if it isn't familial. And that is the thing...the report measures familial ties, not cultural ties. Familial ties are a whole 'nuther subject.

But there IS a culture of worklessness. I have family members myself who are part of that culture. Hell, my sister and my oldest son belong in that culture.

Individuals do not make a culture. Nor do individuals in a family represnt a history of 3 generations - which is the specific aspect of culture the report is about - the myth that whole familes that have been workless for 3 generations.

Your own experience wouold tend to support the overal conclusion of the report - you yourself have broken the cycle - well done!!

But to ignore that a culture of worklessness doesn't exist is ridiculous.

Or you could try reading the article and what it actually debunks instead of ignoring it.

do you have 3 generations of worklessness??

no??

reply to post by TrueBrit

Poor little billy has to fly copters and harry gets to play war....your a joke.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



Ahh, my apologies. I did read the article, but failed to see the relevance of such a narrowly defined group as "3 generations of worklessness". Is there actually a myth related to such? I have never seen anything like that, and would find the very notion of there being an entire population of these types of people to be preposterous to the infinite degree.

But, if such a myth exists, we will consider it debunked, indeed!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


It was something said by a politician and adopted as a bit of a meme in the UK.

I have also seen the same sort of thing repeated in Australia and New Zealand - if not exactly the same words - "generations of welfare beneficiaries" or similar tends to be the terminology in the antipodes.

People like to keep busy, it's instinct. They actually enjoy it and even obsess over it when it's something they like doing. When they have to slave to keep a roof over their head...they get pissed off, lose motivation and say fu@# it.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

It was something said by a politician and adopted as a bit of a meme in the UK.

I have also seen the same sort of thing repeated in Australia and New Zealand - if not exactly the same words - "generations of welfare beneficiaries" or similar tends to be the terminology in the antipodes.

Ahhh...yeah, I have seen something similar here, too. I have always understood it as a metaphor. Affluent people tend to make more white collar employees. Less affluent people tend to make blue collar employees. People with no work history are more likely to be from family groupings with higher rates of welfare.

I don't know if it is true or not. It would seem to be logical. But the study in your OP has some rather strange practices. For example, if a single person in the lineage worked, they were excluded that family. A more relevant number would be overall percentages

I think the answer lies more in people who live in lower cost environments also tend to live in places that have less work and damaged economies. In the US, Detriot would be a good example. I bet that in Detriot, given the flight of jobs, you will find that it is more pronounced.

Families tend to live near each other. And if they are in an area where economies are bad, then it would stand to reason that more in that family would struggle. And it just cycles to "worse" from there.

It isn't a damnation of any people insomuch as a damnation of the condition that they found themselves stuck in. Unfortunate, for sure.

I live in a part of the world where when fuel prices are high, we boom. When fuel prices are low, we starve. So while you all lament the cost of gas/petro, I am cheering them higher. It is how we make money: scratching out an existence in between boom/bust cycles. Right now we are booming and life is good. But I am familiar with that cycle of poverty that comes everytime we bust.

I think we are speaking the same words, just from different perspectives.

Originally posted by helltick
People like to keep busy, it's instinct. They actually enjoy it and even obsess over it when it's something they like doing. When they have to slave to keep a roof over their head...they get pissed off, lose motivation and say fu@# it.

edit on 17-12-2012 by helltick because: nothing

I tell managers the following: Your employees will soar when you allow them to spread their wings. in this I mean that people, when doing what it is they are good at, come to life. They become energized. And, most importantly, they become engaged. Instead of just having employees that show up to work, you have partners that help drive results, that innovate solutions, and that will not just walk by a piece of trash sitting on the ground.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by helltick
People like to keep busy, it's instinct. They actually enjoy it and even obsess over it when it's something they like doing. When they have to slave to keep a roof over their head...they get pissed off, lose motivation and say fu@# it.

edit on 17-12-2012 by helltick because: nothing

I tell managers the following: Your employees will soar when you allow them to spread their wings. in this I mean that people, when doing what it is they are good at, come to life. They become energized. And, most importantly, they become engaged. Instead of just having employees that show up to work, you have partners that help drive results, that innovate solutions, and that will not just walk by a piece of trash sitting on the ground.

Great post, and your employees will soar, but I think 99% have said fu@# it.

reply to post by helltick


If it wasn't for credit this planet would Not be civil...by any stretch.

reply to post by helltick


Im not too far off, myself.