Letter: Social Justice: crucial progress from Beveridge, but leading where?

Ms Juliet Solomon
Wednesday 26 October 1994 20:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Two reports were produced today on aspects of welfare and unemployment.

One (the Borrie Report) is an apparently comprehensive document, the other (the White Paper on the Jobseekers Allowance) a disguised minor rationalisation of the existing system.

Your leading article 'Labour seeks the high ground' (25 October) is entirely concerned with these statements, and concludes by commenting that a larger contribution to unemployment reduction could be made through better education and training, a view that is now almost taken for granted. But why? It is difficult to see how, if there are 2.5 million unemployed, and half a million job vacancies, any amount of education and training will close the gap.

The rise in material living standards that has taken place over the last 150 years has involved increases in productivity - more use of machines - and less labour. Full employment, in the mid-19th century, meant about 12 hours a day for most people over the age of about 10. In the 1950s it meant 45- hour working weeks for those men who wanted to work. It is not clear what it means now, since nobody has defined it.

It has been calculated that if all employed Americans worked an hour a day less, 3 million more people could theoretically be employed. The problem is distributional, and politicians and their advisers would do well to face this inevitability. They should adapt their policies accordingly, encouraging education and training for interesting and meaningful lives as well as paid work, and efforts should be made to distribute work, as well as incomes, as fairly as possible.

Such an approach would replace the current desperate attempts to conceal reality with rhetoric. Then we might find ourselves on a road with a feasible destination, rather than a pointless journey to the elusive end of a rainbow.

Yours faithfully JULIET SOLOMON London, N10 25 October

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in