I agree with all that. I do think benefit levels for people with
children are now better than they were when you were enduring them, but
I don't think that affects the fundamental issues much.
The "status" I am talking about is the status which Michael Marmot and
Richard Wilkinson say is the key to health inequalities. Rich people
have more of it, the argument goes, so they live longer. Senior civil
servants have more of it than junior civil servants. So if they have
more of it they stand to lose more of it.
The unequal distribution of status, which seems closely tied up with
unequal distribution of income, affects us all by reducing the life
expectancy of everyone. If the income and status of these rich people
is reduced then there should be some beneficial effects. These effects
may of course be difficult to detect - for example if they are
overshadowed by the effects of increased unemployment. But if there are
no such effects then the status theory of inequality is worthless.
Martin Rathfelder
Director
Socialist Health Association
22 Blair Road
Manchester
M16 8NS
0870 013 0065
www.sochealth.co.uk
If you do not wish to be on our mailing list please let us know and we will
remove you.
Laura Davis wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure we should take what the Daily Mail says about people
> living 'contentedly' on social security for years too seriously. And I am
> sure most people trying to live on JSA find it increasingly difficult to
> heat and eat, but as far as I am aware no-one is really trying to find out.
> Why do you think the rich have more 'status' to lose? There is a similarly
> common assumption that it's only the employed at senior level who experience
> 'stress'. I do not believe either of these assumptions to be true. A
> person on benefits may have less status to lose according to conventional
> measures - which makes me think the measures are wrong, or perhaps the
> little bit of status or self respect one does have left, when taken away, is
> equally devastating. Perhaps the less well off make less fuss because they
> know nobody listens and making a fuss gets you nowhere (except maybe
> escorted off the premises) and leaves you in a worse state than putting up
> with it all (or turning to petty crime to make ends meet).
>
> For me in the recession in the 70s, I was denied benefits for weeks and left
> to go hungry and homeless, while breastfeeding a baby. That child has grown
> up with serious difficulties (Aspergers, mental health problems). I had no
> help from any of the agencies who were supposed to be there for me, in fact
> their approach was punitive. No, life on benefits is not only not fun, it
> can be catastrophic experience, not only for the adult who experiences it
> but for the children, who are also indelibly marked by it, and may suffer
> lifelong problems themselves. Isn't this what the literature tells us?
>
> Regards
>
> Laura
>
>
>
>
|