TL;DR: It’s a tent-pole belief, that holds up the broad set of Conservative policies and
their voter support, and in general allows the believer to have peace
of mind in the face of growing hardship, inequality and business as
usual. It is though a toxically soothing lie. Get out and vote accordingly on June 8th. This piece is about
understanding why this belief is so important, how it arises, why
it’s false and what to do about it.
Why is this such a significant belief?
This is a crucial
believe, because it underpins a whole political and social
disposition. One which forms part of a struggle within modern
civilization that has existed from its beginnings and which continues
to shape the world we live in.
Unsurprisingly in a
market economy (arguably the defining feature of contemporary
civilization), much rests on money and the distribution of wealth;
not least health, education, social opportunities and innumerable
ways to self development and societal contribution. And it is the
attitude we take to that wealth distribution, individually and
collectively, that determines how it and our society evolves.
“If you’re poor,
it’s probably because you’re lazy.” belongs to a constellation
of beliefs, including: “Society gives everyone a somewhat fair shot
at success.”, “Your fortunes are your own making and your own
responsibility.”, “Because I worked hard and made a ‘success’
of myself, everyone else can too.”, “If you’re poor, it’s
probably because you’re lazy.” Let’s call these beliefs
together the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ cluster.
Looking at “If
you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy.” (or more
generally the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ cluster)
together with the policies of the Conservative party, it could easily
be the party’s motto. Consider how it serves to justify
Conservative positions on various social conditions:
Fact:
There isn’t
sufficient funding to maintain a world class free health service for
everyone, so people are suffering from equipment, space and staff
shortages.
Rationalization:
But if everyone
worked harder, they’d be able to afford private health insurance.
And if they took better care of their diet and lifestyle they
wouldn’t get so sick in the first place. Why should I pay for other
people’s laziness or stupidity? So the situation is to be expected
and I’m comfortable with decreased public funding as a fraction of
GDP and lowering taxes.
Fact:
Most social security
benefits are dropping in real terms and more stringent means testing
being enforced, meaning many more people are now being denied, who
would previously receive benefits, and those who are receiving them
are finding it harder to make ends meet.
Rationalization:
This is a good
thing, because it will give people the push they need to be less lazy
and work harder so they can take care of themselves. For those few
cases were people are genuinely very unlucky a smaller benefits
budget would be fine and there are charities that can offer help.
Again, reducing budgets and lower taxes are the way forward.
Fact:
Public sector pay
freezes to well below inflation, including for nurses, teachers, the
fire service and the police, have meant effective pay decreases
relative to inflation for the last 7 years or more.
Rationalization:
‘We have to live
within our means’ - meaning, there isn’t the tax revenue for much
more of a budget for the public sector and people should be free to
spend their money as they wish without being burdened with more tax.
If employees of the government are not satisfied with their pay, they
are free to find another job and take out a loan for retraining for
another career if they need to. They shouldn’t worry, because
providing they work hard at it, they should succeed.
The general case:
The rationalization
(following from the ‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ set
of beliefs) for cutting and privatizing any public service, and of
course lowering taxes, is that almost everyone realistically can and
aught to be responsibly for providing for themselves and their own
families. And so to subsidize that provision is to encourage
dependence and laziness and place a drain on the wealth of the
nation. It’s an instant justification for the whole of austerity
politics.
The above rationalizations of Conservative government policy
(regardless of softer sounding election time rhetoric) read very
differently depending on whether you subscribe to the ‘the wealth
you get is what you deserve’ belief cluster.
If you don’t share
those beliefs, they appear thoroughly heartless, self-serving and
blind to the reality lived by the majority of people. But if you do
hold such beliefs, then these rationalizations are not at all
heartless. They are pragmatic, responsibly minded and even
encouraging. Because if you truly believe a person’s dire straights
are mostly due to their unwillingness to pull their thumb out, and
that if they did they’d soon be much better off, then maybe if they
listen to your words they’ll get their act together and take some
responsibility, then everyone will be better for it. They might even
thank you. See how it becomes, still tough love perhaps, but
nevertheless clear headed, positive thinking? That is the power of
such belief.
Why would you start to believe this and why is it
appealing?
How do beliefs such
as ‘if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy’ take
root and come to be so strongly held?
An obvious route is
being born into privilege. Most people have an innate sense of
fairness as well as a desire for the good life. So then to avoid
guilt over a lingering sense of injustice and systemic exploitation
when looking at the rest of the world, there is a choice. Either
reject the idea of fairness and suppress your empathy, by embracing
the dog-eat-dog, Malthusian vision of the world, or find a way of
rationalizing your privilege. That could include seeing yourself as
having generally superior traits and abilities to those born less
well off and thus being the best suited for positions of power and
wealth. Where you spend wisely, they would only sit idly and fritter
it away. Such attitudes being the norm in your peer group would make
it hard to think otherwise.
From such a position
is would be relatively enlightened to think that people were poor
mainly because they were choosing to be lazy, or had
undesirable role models, and not just because they were congenitally
lazy and feckless. And of course these responses to privilege are
seen across society wherever relative privilege is apparent, not
just between the upper social classes and the rest. Also in some
sections of the working or middle classes in regard to immigrants or
the unemployed, or indeed other races for example.
The essential
rationalization is: ‘because that group is less well off than my
group, there must be something inherently or culturally inferior
about them to explain it – because otherwise I’d have to deal
with the realization that my group is being exploitative or
parasitic’. When it comes to relative poverty, the longer
established your relative wealth, the more necessary it is to believe
that those worse off (if not people in general) have an inherent
disposition to idleness and must be forced into work to be productive
members of society. This is, if you are to continue seeing the
disparity in wealth as natural or fair.
Another route to
this belief is having gone from rags to riches yourself, or to see
yourself as well on the way there. If you come from a community where
at least relative poverty is endemic, then you’ll probably have
seen a lot of apathy, low aspirations and maybe the occasional
instance of dodgy attempts to get free money (as so furiously pounced
on by certain media sources owned by billionaires). Without
considering too deeply the socio-economic reasons for such attitudes,
it’s easy to label it simply as laziness, especially in the context
of your own success and hard work.
Whether its selling
houses or having a highly successful shop or trade, what’s to say
everyone else in the community you grew up in couldn’t do the same,
if they just applied themselves? Believing that is preferable to
thinking you were just one of the few lucky ones of the actually far
greater number who do struggle hard to succeed but end up failing. Or
to realizing that apathy, hopelessness or low aspirations (all quite different from laziness) are a fairly natural
response to seeing how the odds of escaping relative poverty are so
slim. No, that would be a miserable perspective. If you’ve achieved
some success, it’s natural to want to enjoy it with a mind at
peace. And to do that, it’s helpful to see your success as existing
within a system that, while not perfect, is at least fair enough to
give everyone a decent shot, if they only applied themselves. And
hence, if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re lazy.
A third path to this
belief is essentially blind faith, where you are not comfortably off
yourself, but you’re trying and part of that effort is to adopt the
attitudes and beliefs of those you see as successful. Especially the
romantic vision of fortune being won by hard graft and ingenuity, and
the corollary that the poor are that way because of laziness and
fecklessness. By thinking in the same way you reason, you’ll have
more chance of making it. For this reason you’ll also read from a
selection of right wing newspapers/websites, which ceaselessly repeat
those same mantras. The fact that these media outlets are owned by
billionaires whose financial interests are served best the more poor
people share those beliefs, far from an alarm bell to you, is more
like an act of benevolence, for them to share with you the faith of
the successful.
It is along that third path that you're likely to think more about benefit claimants, with the impression they're mainly scroungers, popping out kids for cash and frittering it away on fags and bigger TVs than you have. Each of the regular exposés you read reinforce that impression. The actual figures involved probably do not occur to or concern you. But you might be puzzled to learn that the total officially estimated figure for benefit fraud is only 0.7% of the benefits budget, or around
£1.6bn. This figure compares to a conservative estimate of corporate tax evasion of around £5bn.
Tax Research UK estimate £85bn per year in tax evasion though (and a further £19bn in tax avoidance). So even though tax evasion is a between ~ 400% and 5400% bigger problem for the economy than benefit fraud, it shouldn't be a surprise which issue the billionaire owned media prefer to focus on.
Whatever the route
taken to believing that the wealth you end up with (or don’t) is
deserved, because of the psychologically supportive effects of this
and similar beliefs, it becomes natural to view those who challenge
such convictions, in a negative light. Since having the faith
challenged risks undermining the peace of mind afforded by it.
Inconvenient facts are rare exceptions, or being blown out of
proportion by jealous, free loading whingers, who feed off the
success of others and seek to bring them down with their defeatism
and idle entitlement. But you’re a winner and you wont let them do
that to you. Etc.
What if it’s not true? Would you want to know
and how could you tell?
Does it even matter
if it’s not true? If you’ve carved out a lifestyle for yourself
and a world view that helps you enjoy it, why is the truth so
important?
What would it cost
you to see things differently, if you’re a current subscriber to
‘the wealth you get is what you deserve’ belief cluster?
Would you be able to
enjoy your current lifestyle in the way you currently do?
Would you be able to
have the same kind of conversations with your friends, or even keep
the same friends if your views changed in this regard?
If not further
personal material success, how else would you apply your energies
with a different perspective?
What would motivate
and inspire you?
Could you maintain
economic security, or would you go back to struggling to get by?
Beyond the
repercussions for you, suppose for a moment you are wrong. With that
belief gone, it wouldn’t take long then to see the gross injustice
and waste in the current distribution of economic opportunity and
outcomes (wealth), if it wasn’t just down to people not really
trying. Would you then want to continue supporting, in how you vote
and spend your money, a government, a set of economic policies and a
world view that is inherently abusive to the majority of society and
depends on the continued squandering and diminishing of that human
potential, and the promotion of conflict, environmental destruction
and greed for its continuation? Would that sit well with you?
Change is hard work
and often scary, uncomfortable and inconvenient. Which is why many
people choose to carry on believing, regardless.
Please only read on
if you still feel the truth matters.
What else would need to be true?
OK, so you decided
you’d prefer the hard truth over comfortable illusion, how could
you tell the true? What evidence could you gather? One approach to
testing this ‘if you’re poor, it’s probably because you’re
lazy’ belief (and similar), is to consider what else in the world
would need to be true to support that belief, and then checking to
see if those other things are true.
Here’s a list to
get you started. If the large majority of poverty and relative
poverty was due to a lack of work ethic, we’d also expect to see:
-
Income
reflecting how hard working or at least productive a person is.
-
There being
opportunities for decently paid work for everyone who wanted it.
-
Inequality
decreasing in times of the greatest economic growth.
-
The wealth
you’re born into having little impact on the wealth you end up
with.
-
The wealth of
most countries per capita being roughly equal.
Let’s go through
those one at a time.
Income reflecting
how hard working or at least productive a person is
This is a logical
consequence of the belief we’re testing, because if wealth was not
a direct result of hard work and productivity, how could relative
poverty be a result of laziness? So then does a big hedge fund
manager who takes home ~ £1,000,000,000 per year (and this is not
the highest income for such work), work literally one
hundred thousand times harder than a single mother, juggling
several zero hour contract jobs to make ends meet on ~ £10,000 per
year? Perhaps not.
And we know it's not
about meaningful productivity since most hedge funds lose money
relative to the market and if the mother stops working it's food for
the children and crucial amenities that are at stake, rather than
that new private jet (made by skilled workers, which according to our
beliefs could easily find work elsewhere if they put their mind to
it). And it's not about intelligence either, since the greatest
artists, scientists, engineers, mathematicians and philosophers are
rarely if ever the best paid.
But what about a
more middle of the road example? Does a factory production line
manager work 2-3 times harder than the line workers he supervises?
Unlikely. What about an estate agent doing a reasonable business
selling foreclosed houses in a town where the factory recently shut
down, compared to a husband and wife who having lost their jobs there, now have their days filled with running between part time work to
pay the rent, job interviews and looking after the kids? Does the
estate agent work 10 times harder? Hard to believe.
OK, what if the
relationship between wealth and hard work was just highly non-linear?
Could we still hold our belief? Well, consider this scenario. There
is a call centre employing over a thousand people. The service is
considered essential to the business but the wage labour is a major
expense. Fortunately for the bottom line a new automated system is
installed that replaces 80% of the call operators at a fraction of
the cost. Unfortunately for the now jobless, they live in a town
unable to absorb that many people into other work and so most of them
end up with no or only a little part time work.
Does their drastic
and sustained drop in income reflect a sudden outbreak of laziness?
No. But it does demonstrate that your earnings are less about how
hard you work, and more about whether you can do something that
someone else is willing to pay you for. That willingness is
ultimately about profitability or the hope of it and your eagerness
to work hard only sometimes has much baring on that and even then
only in a highly non-linear way. In other words, if you are poor, in
no way can that be a clear indicator that you are lazy.
There being
opportunities for decently paid work for everyone who wanted it
If there were no such opportunities then we could not say that
poorness was down to laziness could we? Discounting occupations such
as drug dealing or prostitution, this should fairly obviously not be
the case, providing we set a reasonable bar for a living wage.
Industries come and go, technology advances and displaces labour over
time, supply chains are subject to unpredictable disturbances, currency exchange rates can drastically affect the profitability of
employing a work force, and stock market crashes in highly financialized economies can lead to deep recessions and mass lay-offs.
All of the above factors and more mean that very often, large numbers
of people are unable to find work fitting their skills and abilities
(let alone passions), without any change to their willingness to work
hard. What’s more, if there is an increased supply of labour,
without a proportional rise in demand for what they do, then either
unemployment will rise, or wages will fall.
Of course, if a
person is willing to work for whatever pay is offered, then sure,
there is usually something available. But here the supposed
connection between work ethic and wealth again becomes broken.
However many hours you spend as a fruit picker, or a shoe shiner or a
leaflet distributor, you will still be poor. So the conclusion here
must be that there are often not opportunities for the kind of paid
work that would raise a person well out of poverty, however willing
to take that work they may be. And so once again, a person being
poor, is not an indication that they are lazy.
Inequality
decreasing in the times of greatest economic growth
If wealth is a
result of people working hard, then when an economy is booming that
should be an indication that more people are pulling together and
working hard. And if more people are doing that than before (so
creating the growth) then the profit should be shared amongst that
greater number of people (because wealth is a result of hard work)
and thus inequality should fall.
In reality, do we
see that? No, we don’t.
Here’s a chart of
the GDP growth rate and various measures of income inequality in the
UK over the last half century. (Click it for clearer, larger view.)
If the fact that
inequality rises as economies boom puzzles you, consider that while
markets grow as a result of productivity and consumption,
productivity (useful work) is rewarded only as much as it must be rewarded. So then
you can see how globalization, deregulation of financial markets and
erosion of labour protection rights would all reduce how much most
productivity must be rewarded. Hence a rise in inequality, on the
backs of increased productivity.
The wealth you’re
born into having little impact on the wealth you end up with
If it’s really true that wealth and poorness are primarily down to
hard work and laziness respectively, then starting off wealthy cannot
give a significant advantage in the long term. Because if it did,
then in a competitive market economy people would be poor who lacked
that advantage, rather than simply because they were lazy or lacking
in some other way.
There’s a straightforward way to test this one, look at the
statistics. Maybe you can guess the result already now?
According to studies by the
IFS
and
LSE,
if you have wealthy parents you’re much more likely to succeed in
life in terms of both income and educational outcomes, than someone
with poor parents.
Even without the statistics that prove it, it’s easy to understand
why inherited or early life household wealth is such an advantage.
From having a house with plenty of space to play, with funds for all
the books or educational aids you’d benefit from, to having money
for a healthy diet, to living in an area with a great school and
having a peer group of friends that expect to do well and are
supported in doing so. All those factors help create a strong
foundation for later success. And once you’re ready to join the
world of work, knowing you have a safety net there in your family
means you’d be more willing to take the kind of risks that
successes often require, and you’d have funds to pay for any
further training, or capital investment you might need to get started
in business. What’s more, having wealthy parents and a wealthy peer
group means you’ll have access to people who work for, hire for, or
own successful businesses, which means it’s that much easier to get
the recommendations and interviews.
It’s also true that being born into wealth would make it easier to
waste money or spend it in a non-financially profitable way. But of
all the people wanting to succeed financially, if you start off with
wealth then you have an undeniably huge advantage. And so once again,
the fable of the poor being that way because they choose to be lazy
is disproved.
The wealth of
most countries per capita being roughly equal
Unless we want to adopt racist theories about other countries and
cultures, then we’d have to assume that on average people are about
equally able and inclined to generate wealth in one land mass as in
any other (perhaps excluding a few paradise islands). And through
human ingenuity most disparities in natural resources could be
overcome with the ability to offer a variety of products and services
wanted by other countries for trade. So then, if wealth if primarily
a result of hard work, we’d have to expect that per capita wealth
would be roughly equal between most countries wouldn’t we?
Of course, that’s not the reality at all. Compared to international
wealth inequality, national inequality is often trifling. Reason
being, history is a story of conquests. The desire and sometimes the
desperation for wealth provokes war. It’s not by far the only way countries behave with each other (there’s
a lot of productive cooperation too), but when they do, vast
inequalities result.
And just like some countries exploit other countries, through
economic, technological or military superiority, in order to further
enrich themselves, some parts of society exploit other parts, to
further enrich themselves, using the advantages they have of wealth,
better education, political and media influence, and the threat of
income insecurity.
And the results are..
Remember, not only
one, but all of these conditions would need to be met for the belief
to stand up to scrutiny. And none of them are met.
The unavoidable
conclusion then must be that ‘the wealth you get is what you
deserve’ is a soothing and rather toxic lie. The tragedy is it’s
only really the foolish, the misguided and the poor that genuinely
believe it, because it gives them hope. Those that have become rich
with their eyes open will know better, even if they tell themselves
and others this lie of meritocratic wealth and the lazy poor, as some
attempt at moral justification, or simply as a way of ending an
uncomfortable conversation. They know better really, because their
daily profit flows from the contradictions to those beliefs, from the
luck, the exploitation and the cumulative advantages of wealth.
What to do and what not to do
If you’ve followed
along and found your mind genuinely changed, first let it sit for a
moment. Then..
Do not:
-
Fall back on
the other crutch of the right wing hard core. “OK, the
meritocratic vision of wealth is utter BS PR talk. But people are
all ruled by selfish greed and are opportunistically corrupt anyway,
so there’s no point in trying to be any different. Better carry on
with business as usual.”
This is just an excuse for
those already behaving in the way they seek to suggest everyone
does, to avoid sorting themselves out. It only takes a moment to
consider all the valuable time, energy and resources given by
parents, friends, mentors and loved ones, and from all the
volunteers for charities or community groups to people they have no
other relationship with. Then all the labours of scientists through
the ages, for the sake of knowledge and contribution to humanity,
often without pay, that have made the world we live in today
possible. Any of these examples show such a reaction to be feeble,
lazy thinking. Yes, people can be
treacherous dogs to each other, but there are other, better choices
that people allow to guide their lives all the time and live happier,
more fulfilled lives because of it.
-
Get
distracted with wanting an exhaustively detailed and water-tight
account of a new paradigm for paradise on earth, before considering
changing your thinking or behaviour.
That’s just not
how social change happens in reality. It’s a collaborative,
emergent, gradual thing, that you become part of by sharing an
understanding and an intent. This reaction is essentially, ‘sure,
I’ll stop doing this bad thing, as soon as you answer this
impossible question to my satisfaction’.
-
When
(re)considering your voting choice on the 8
th June, fall
for the desperate anti-Corbyn headlines, about ‘radical’,
‘unrealistic’ policies or ‘terrorist sympathizing’. These
papers are playing you for a complete fool. Have a look at the
policies of other major, successful European countries such as
Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France and Norway, to see that practically
all of the Labour party manifesto policies (like public ownership of
transport and energy systems and free education and child care and
more funding as a fraction of GDP for a public health service and
higher corporation and top rate taxes) are actually just normal
elsewhere. Then have a look at
what was actually said or done regarding acts of terror and the
context from
other
sources, not just from the right wing rags, and also consider how
much terrorism does selling billions worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia and
other brutal regimes support? And if you think it’s Labour that
can’t be trusted with the economy because of the market crash and
recession,
read
a little more on the actual impacts of spending and debt on the
economy.
Do:
-
If you were
going to vote Conservative (the party essentially held together by
this lie), change your vote to help get them out for the good of the
country. Use a site like
www.tactical2017.com
to see how best to do that in your constituency.
-
With an open
mind, learn more about the real effects of and reasons behind
Conservative policies from a news source you might not normally
access, such
as:
anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk
skwawkbox.org
www.thecanary.co
And
there are of course some more mainstream, marginally left leaning
options, like The Mirror, the Independent, the Guardian. As with any
news source, do your own research to verify claims. But it’s
helpful at least to have some serious countervailing opinions to
those you normally hear (and not just the token left field column of
your usual paper).
You can learn about media bias from reports
such as this from the
LSE.
-
One time in
particular where this soothing lie is told frequently is election
time, because otherwise voting Conservative would just feel too much
like being a vassal of darkness. But once you’ve seen clearly
through the lie, can you really keep voting to support it? For that
reason, talk to your Conservative voting friends, especially where
you see them sharing this belief, to help disabuse them of it and
then encourage them to vote differently.
-
Share this
writing if you think it would help someone change their mind and
their vote.
-
Beyond the
vote on the 8th June, make a plan for how you can stay
better informed and help to inform others.
Thanks for reading.