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
|