The Welfare Myth Of 'Them' And 'Us'

John Hills’ Good Times, Bad Times: The Welfare Myth of Them and Us, was published to considerable acclaim in Britain in late 2014, and a second edition has just been issued.

Some of the flavour of the book, and one of its most important themes, is captured in the opening paragraphs:

A visitor to Britain learning about our society and the problems facing us from newspapers and television might think that the issues are straightforward. … It’s skivers against strivers; dishonest scroungers against honest taxpayers; families where three generations have never worked against hard-working families; people with their curtains still drawn mid-morning against alarm-clock Britain; ‘Benefits Street’ against the rest of the country; undeserving and deserving. It’s them against us (Hills 2014, p. 1).

Good Times, Bad Times is panoramic in its scope, based on extensive empirical evidence and presented in a lively and engaging manner.

The core arguments put forth in the book are that a large part of what welfare states do in rich countries is redistribute policies across the life-course from when we are working age adults to when we retire, claim pensions and need more health care and aged care.

In addition, many more working-age people than is commonly thought need to call upon state support at some time in their working lives due to risks associated with labour market change, as well as the risks of sickness and disability. For example, even in Australia, which has the most income-tested benefit system of any rich country, nearly two-thirds of working-age households will receive an income-tested benefit during a 10 year period, but only around 1% of households fully depend on benefits for a decade.

Dividing people into "strivers or skivers" - or "makers and takers" as US politician Paul Ryan put it in the 2012 election - assumes that we can be divided neatly between those who pay in, and those who take out.

As John Hills points out in this important piece, this is just not the case.