Skivers and Strivers - Essay Example

?   Skivers and Strivers       Skivers and Strivers Commentators and politicians would make people believe that only workers in paid jobs make a significant contribution to society and are hard-working. They assert that those who depend on out-of-work benefits are worthless and lazy. This myth highlights the realness behind the expression. Only a small number of people have the ability to engage in work activities and are not willing to work. A large portion of the social security budget is directed towards supporting low wages workers via in-work remunerations. Far from skiving, a large number of individuals who do not take part in paid work are making an exceptionally tremendous input through a variety of unpaid endeavours. Without the contribution of people taking part in unpaid work, the entire society, together with the formal society, would be destroyed (Prasanta 2008, p. 23). This paper will assess the argument behind distinguishing skivers and strivers while looking at the government’s enforcement of austerity to decrease government borrowing, lessening a range of social welfare benefits, and assessing the view that welfare payment are extremely high and support undeserving lifestyle, or if the return of the ban notion of undeserving poor is merely a means to render the victims of neo-liberalism the cause of their own misfortune. Descriptions such as skivers and strivers have turn out to be a frequent aspect of political expression since 2010. This expression groups individuals into those who are feckless and unemployed, and those who are focussed and hardworking. In addition, this expression makes people to condemn one group and support the other entirely. The expression communicates a number of notions and achieves several purposes. Political players of every sort have been employing terms such as weal-takers, scroungers, wealth creators, welfare mums, and undeserving and deserving poor for a long time (Harris 2005, p. 116). By doing this, it develops a prevalent idea that two enduring and distinct factions exist, the skiver and the strivers, and that every individual makes a choice to be either skivers or strivers. Skiver is a term used to refer to individuals who are not paid to engage in work activities because they have a preference for a life of ease and leisure. These people are perceived to be manipulative, unreliable, and lazy. These individuals tend to live at other people’s expense so that they can abuse a number of substances, watch television, sleep, and waste their time. These people depend on assistance and are not able to do anything on their behalf. A large number of skivers have emulated this way of existence from their caregivers and transmit it on to their young ones. These people are also presumed to be outsiders. They are seen as morally disreputable, unproductive, and untrustworthy (Charlton 2004, p. 75). It is perceived that skivers are paid for not engaging in any meaningful activity because they do not contribute to the society, while feeding on benefits. In contrast, strivers are perceived as not getting anything for their hard work or productivity. This is because the pay taxes and do not get any benefits. These individuals are only rewarded for the work they accomplish. Strivers are presumed to be hard workers, investing tremendous energy and frequently lengthy hours for low wages, so as to get on in the world, support their households, and earn a living. They are also seen as morally righteous, economically productive, and socially responsible. It may be argued that the skivers and strivers myth divides individuals against one another and creates an excuse. If individuals are going through a difficult period and finding life challenging, they may point the finger at the skivers, instead of anything else, for example, the economic policies of the government (Keynes 2007, p. 78). Commentators and politicians find this essential because they are aware that a large constituent of electorates will position themselves in the strivers group, making them have a perception of being in the useful side. Very few individuals would want to be associated with the skivers group. In addition, it is always unproblematic to point a finger at individuals who do not have the capacity to fight back. Individuals who are criticized as skivers are already isolated, diverse, and geographically scattered. These people are not organized, do not possess an impaired sense of entitlement, they do not possess a common identity, and do not have the capacity to defend themselves. The government is enforcing austerity to lessen government borrowing. Austerity measures may frequently entail a mixture of fee increases and reduced spending. The local governments in Britain have had to lessen their financial plans by 40%. This means that social care, which constitutes 60% of spending by the government, is putting up with the burden. In addition, the value of child benefit and child tax credits is likely to face a growing 4% decrease, on the basis of present prediction. Nevertheless, the numbers of individuals who take care of elderly relatives, disabled relatives, and children, either simultaneously or in quick succession, presently stands at approximately 2.4 million, with population shifts, it is anticipated to escalate. Therefore, this means that people who do not have the capacity to take part in paid activities will not be able to receive government support, thus leading extra challenging lives. In addition, the decision of the government to enforce austerity so as to lessen government borrowing means that a number of social welfare benefits will be lessened in the process. As a result, people who receive social welfare benefits will be labelled as skivers; people who are dependent on assistance and are not able to do anything for their own selves (Giugni 2011, p.96). The view that welfare payment is extremely high and provides support for undeserving lifestyle is not appropriate. This notion presumes that only individuals in paid work contribute to the wellbeing of the society, while individuals not engaged in paid work do not provide anything of value to the society. This view is not fitting for two reasons. One, a large number of individuals who do not take part in paid work take part in unpaid activities. The formal sector, where there is paid work, would collapse without the unpaid activities that individuals, largely females, do in taking care of other people, looking after their neighbours, households, and families, and raising children. These activities are not given price or status and largely go unnoticed by the formal sector. Nonetheless, its worth has been approximated at over 20% of the country’s gross domestic product. This is also when the time is valued as if paid the countrywide minimal wage, which hardly suggests the entire worth of this significant input. It has also become evident that a large number of individuals do not take part in paid work because they posses previous activities that entail unpaid work (Keynes 2007, p. 78). The second explanation is that the worth of individuals’ input cannot and should not be measured purely based on economic stipulations. A person should also think about work that keeps local communities clean and inviting, safe, enhances individuals’ capacities as neighbours, friends, and parents, and also keep people happy and healthy (Pearson 2006, p. 61). In addition, a person should also think about advocating for an enhanced world, making music, taking part in music, reflecting, developing works of art, exploring, gardening, and informal learning and teaching. A large composition of these may either contribute indirectly or directly, to the economy. But more significantly, such activities are of worth in their own right without an attachment of any price mark. For a number of individuals, being out of the labour market is a reasonable decision and one that permits them to make a significant input to the community. The United Kingdom’s push towards labour market deregulation in the last three decades has developed an economic situation that is dependent on a flexible and fluid labour force. The past week’s benefit claimant may easily be the next week’s worker and the past week’s worker may easily be the next week’s benefit claimant. In the final quarter of 2012, approximately 870,000 workers shifted from employment to economic inactivity or unemployment of which 48% became part of the unemployed population, looking for employment positions. It does not make sense to label as undeserving lifestyle the people who are receiving social welfare benefits while searching for employment opportunities in the final part of the quarter, having lost their employment positions in a period of numerous staff layoffs and business closures. Similarly, it cannot be claimed that welfare payment is extremely high and provides support for undeserving lifestyle. This is because a large number of individuals who do not take part in paid work take part in unpaid activities and the worth of individuals’ input cannot and should not be measured purely based on economic stipulations (Haveman 2001, p. 11920). The return of the ban notion of undeserving poor is merely a means to render the victims of neo-liberalism the cause of their own misfortune. Neo-liberalism is an approach to social studies and economics in which the regulation of economic components is moved from the public domain to the private domain (Harvey 2005, p. 11). Neo-liberalism utilize ideas of neoclassical economics to assert that governments open up trade, lessen deficit spending, eliminate fixed exchange rates, reform tax regulation to widen the tax pool, restrain subsidies to trade by permitting property and back regulation, and controlling private state-run businesses and protectionism (Prasad 2006, p. 50). It may be argued the idea that individuals getting social security benefits are skivers makes it easier to give reasons for punitive welfare-to-work policies and lessening spending. The government argues in favour of banning the idea of undeserving poor because it sees it as an attempt to prevent misusing public resources on individuals who are presumed not to be on their side, because they are not worthy of protection or help. The political actors also argue that it should be justifiable to terminate their social welfare benefits if they do not apply for any employment position that is on offer. Also, they assert that lessening social spending will both avert benefit dependency and lessen the budget arrears. In conclusion, each person is dependent throughout their existence on the hard work of others. A portion of that work is paid through wages, but that does not make it any more worthwhile. A large part of it does not attract wages, but that does not make it any less significant. Therefore, there should be a sense of commonality and develop a better comprehension of the reasons as to why people gain from helping and cooperating in difficult periods, instead of discriminating. There should be a benefit program that supports and respects this interaction instead of one that promotes competition and division (Sullivan & Sheffrin 2003, p. 46). References Charlton, JI 2004, Nothing about us without us: disability oppression and empowerment, University of California Press, California. Giugni, M 2011, The contentious politics of unemployment in Europe: welfare states and political opportunities, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. Harris, SE 2005, The new economics: Keynes' influence on theory and public policy, Kessinger Publishing, Montana. Harvey, D 2005, A brief history of neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, New York. Haveman, RH 2001, ‘Poverty: Measurement and Analysis,’ International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 11917-11924. Keynes, JM 2007, The general theory of employment, interest and money, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. Pearson, C 2006, Direct payments and personalisation of care, Dunedin Academic Press, Edinburgh. Prasad, M 2006, The politics of free markets: the rise of neoliberal economic policies in Britain, France, Germany and the United States, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Prasanta, KP 2008, Social welfare function: the new Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.  Sullivan, A & Sheffrin, SM 2003, Economics: principles in action, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Read More