And what the hell does this mean?

First, as Lindsay Judge, who conducted research on the pilot for the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) to be released on Monday, points out: “If you focus on hours, you individualise the problem of low pay. It allows employers to take their eye off pay, and it allows the state to take their eye off benefits.”

Sure, I understand each of the words individually but taken together it seems to be nothing but a sorta humming along the lines of “bastard Tories, vote Labour” or summat.

Individualise the problem of low pay?

11 comments on “And what the hell does this mean?

  1. I think it means you should be doing a class analysis rather than investigating actual low pay, or something.

  2. The problem of low pay shouldn’t be resolved by more hours, it should be resolved by more pay per hour.

    Would be my guess.

  3. “the cost of the trial, incidentally, is £15m, which I am prepared to bet real money is more than the scheme will ever save”
    Since the entirity of my knowledge on this trial comes from her I won’t take that bet, but but could be interesting if a conservative wonk sees an opportunity.

  4. It means that CPAG reckons the employer should pay enough to support the whole family if the bread-winner turns up for a single hour rather than for a full working week.
    Expecting someone to actually work for their living is cruel and unreasonable.

  5. It means that all the supposed concerns about poverty fade away as soon as you try to examine a specific case. Same as tax justice: everyone knows that all companies are illegally evading taxes, but when you examine them individually you can’t actually find any evasion. Doesn’t stop them propagating the message.

  6. “By placing the emphasis on hours the government individualises responsibility for poverty: parents have to solve the problem themselves by working more hours, no matter how incompatible this may be with their caring responsibilities.”

    From the new statesman..sarah judge. she does do justice about the incentives they’re trying to build into the system.

  7. I can’t understand the quoted sentence, but CPAG claims that there are various causes of poverty that a focus on work as the sole solution won’t solve.

  8. Simple answer, increase pay rate and reduce time – wages bill remains same, all are happy.

  9. It’s explained in the New Statesman article linked:

    But in-work conditionality represents something bigger than a simple technical fix. In-work poverty is increasing in the UK, and can be seen as the product of three variables: levels of pay, levels of in-work benefits, and the levels of hours worked. By placing the emphasis on hours the government individualises responsibility for poverty: parents have to solve the problem themselves by working more hours, no matter how incompatible this may be with their caring responsibilities. Policies such as in-work conditionality are convenient, then, in allowing the government to avoid far more difficult – and political – issues such as low pay and inadequate social security that lie at the root of child poverty.

    In other words, it blames the low paid part-time workers for being low-paid part-time workers and tries to get them to fix the problem of them not earning enough to feed the kids instead of the government or employers doing it. Such a policy blames the individual, not the community.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.