Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness?

[ViolentPanda]

On another thread ("list of those for whom Welfare Reform and cuts were too much to bear"), a poster (Falcon) asked:
"Can anyone account for the observation that there are societies which have no concept of "Welfare" in which people live happy productive lives in conditions considerably less favourable than ours?
Could it be that the Welfare system itself predisposes people to unhappiness, and that the concern of those who's jobs depend on the various operations of the Welfare State amount to nothing more than Münchausen syndrome by proxy?"

He was asked if he'd start a new thread (the one he posted on isn't appropriate - it's about those who have died), but he said "I won't".
I've done it for him, and I'll also post the answer I gave his question.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Can anyone account for the observation that there are societies which have no concept of "Welfare" in which people live happy productive lives in conditions considerably less favourable than ours?

First, let's unpick what "welfare" is, because it means different things in different settings and contexts.
You, it appears, are referring to STATE welfare paid to individuals, mostly paid for through taxation and pooled risk insurance schemes (private and public). In other societies welfare can mean anything from private co-operative welfare arrangements to classic "extended family" self-organised assistance.

Could it be that the Welfare system itself predisposes people to unhappiness, and that the concern of those who's jobs depend on the various operations of the Welfare State amount to nothing more than Münchausen syndrome by proxy?

It may well be.
It also might well be that without "the welfare system" people would be less happy than they are, and more prone to, variously, life-compromising illness, nutrition-related disorders and suicide.
Care to make a case for predisposition that doesn't borrow too heavily from the work of others?

 

[Santino]

Bless those happy poor people.

 

[quimcunx]

The world didn't stay the same except for the existence of the welfare system. Other things evolved alongside, independently and um interdependently (?) Our attitudes to mental health for instance.

Are we pretending that because the mental health 'sophistication' we have in this country in this time does not exist in other cultures or times that people do not suffer misery or abuse or lack of self worth etc because the tools to measure it or express it do not exist?

For instance (cliche time) a teenage girl has a child out of wedlock and gets benefits to care for her child full-time. She is made to feel like a pariah by (media) society to some extent but is supported to an extent, more so than she would be in other times or places. In another country or time before welfare she might have been made to give up that child and live in a convent for a while and work for her keep there before leaving and getting a job until someone married her then be a socially acceptable stay at home mum or working mum. Was that person happier for their socially acceptable productive life?

Is that what was meant?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Bloody firefighters causing misery. If only people were left to their own devices they wouldn't feel so bad about the consequences of smoke inhilation and third degree burns.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Life expectancy around the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

[TruXta]

Falcon's original question as stated in the OP is worse than meaningless, it's positively misleading. All societies that we know of exhibit various notions of welfare and public concern for the health and happiness of its members.

 

[JimW]

There's such a lot of factors at play these sort of comparisons are often pretty meaningless anyhow - remember seeing something from the UN (IIRC) a few years back and Afghanistan came out one of the highest for self-reported happiness, this being not long after the end of the main shooting stage of the war. Argument there could as well be that if you weren't currently under direct bombing then things were looking up. And self-reporting is largely how levels of happiness/satisfaction tend to be measured for these anecdotal comparisons AFAICT, but then you look at societies (this was to some extent the case in China which i know fairly well) and find that in fact issues that have come to light in the UK decades past, such as domestic violence and child abuse, are only just getting attention or not on the radar yet. And you wonder how that factors in to the supposedly happy society.
On something more related to material welfare, societies with "pre-modern" social structures rather than welfare states might retain security of a different kind - a village community you belong to and have a place in, housing access through kinship etc. which will be basic or worse by Western standards but sufficient for those issues not to be a source of stress for people elsewhere. And you see that shift over the past few years in China, where people used to either have housing out in the country villages or (usually fairly grotty/small) assigned housing in the towns and cities; now more people are living in fancier housing but many of them don't feel secure as it's a massive financial burden, a larger number are close to that but find it even harder still and a source of misery, and a large group have also lost the old stuff but remain excluded from the marvellous market-based new provision. And as far as i know, self-reported happiness is way down since the early years of the reform period when people thought it was going to be all opportunity and rising living standards.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness? No. Unemployment and misfortune does.

 

[BigTom]

Why would the welfare system itself predispose people to unhappiness?
I can see that sometimes people are made to feel like scroungers/fakers etc. because of the press around benefits but I'm guessing this isn't what Falcon is thinking about.

This basic axiom of the argument needs to be expanded upon. I know for myself that my depression does not come from the benefit system, as I can date it to when I was 10/11 (and didn't grow up on welfare). However, having welfare in the past few years when I've lost so much income from my self-employment has been vital. Without that I'm as certain as it's possible to be that my mental health would be in a much worse state, and it's not been good at all for the past few years, but at least I haven't had to worry about where my next meal is coming from.

imo there are far too many factors involved in mental health issues & suicide rates to be able to extract the effect of the welfare state either way in a statistical method, but I can definitely see a mechanism by which welfare state would improve mental health conditions / reduce the pressure in some people's lives and thus reduce suicide rates.
So unless the axiom in the argument presented can be expanded I don't even see that there is a discussion here.

 

[Frances Lengel]

Does the welfare system predispose people to unhappiness? No. Unemployment and misfortune does.

Very much so. And without welfare provision in the form of benefits, unemployment would make people even more unhappy. Not to mention malnourished as well. VP's already said that though.

FWIW I think the opposite of what Falcon seems to be saying - A decent welfare system (like we used to have but don't anymore) can give strength to individual people and actually foster happiness. A person who becomes ill or disabled will get the care they need & help to live as independently as possible, a kid whose parents don't give a fuck will get a decent meal and a bit of attention at school, a person who's partner is battering them can get a flat and live off benefits til such a time as they can get their confidence back, anyone who feels like it can access a public library etc.

I should say that all the above examples are what a decent social security system should provide and not necessarily what ours does provide anymore. I also think it's important to refer to social security provision as social security rather than welfare - A lot's in a name.

 

[Bakunin]

A simple answer, based on personal experience, is:

'Yes, it fucking well does, especially with ATOS and the DWP involved in running it.'

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Can anyone account for the observation that there are societies which have no concept of "Welfare" in which people live happy productive lives in conditions considerably less favourable than ours?

Can anyone substantiate this rather than base it on an 'observation'?

Or is it a load of balls where someone has decided what they want to prove and is stating dubious 'facts' to support that?

Most of the published things I've seen that compare countries by crap / not crap (apart possibly from living standards for the richest few percent) tend to put the UK lower down the scale than most of the rest of Europe / Scandinavia but not as far down the 'crap' scale as the USA. And broadly speaking, that scale is comparable to the scale of how 'generous' the welfare system is. And the right wing answer to all our problems is that we should get more like the USA...

And from what I've read of life in the USA, life on absence of benefits there does not tend to equate to happiness.

 

[Blagsta]

Falcon's original question as stated in the OP is worse than meaningless, it's positively misleading. All societies that we know of exhibit various notions of welfare and public concern for the health and happiness of its members.

This. Falcon is a knob with a transparent agenda.

 

[Frances Lengel]

This. Falcon is a knob with a transparent agenda.

And he wears stockings and suspenders and perches on a high stool in front of a vanity mirror with his legs crossed in a grotesque parody of a pose that he imagines is provocative when he thinks no one's looking. Probably.

 

[8ball]

The question is so weird and vague and semi-meaningless as to render this thread kind of pointless without some clarification from Falcon.

First, let's unpick what "welfare" is, because it means different things in different settings and contexts.?

It means 3 different things the 3 times it is used in the original quote alone.

 

[Bakunin]

And he wears stockings and suspenders and perches on a high stool in front of a vanity mirror with his legs crossed in a grotesque parody of a pose that he imagines is provocative when he thinks no one's looking. Probably.

Is that with or without a large pineapple buried deep unside is anus, possibly spikey end first?

 

[Frances Lengel]

Is that with or without a large pineapple buried deep unside is anus, possibly spikey end first?

Only on a weekend - Monday to Friday it's a prizewinning marrow.

 

[Bakunin]

Only on a weekend - Monday to Friday it's a prizewinning marrow.

Possibly inserted sideways for that delightful 'pit prop' effect that enables people to instantly know what he had for breakfast this morning.

The downside being that he can't wear white trousers. They'd be instantly ruined due to uncontrollable seepage.

 

[el-ahrairah]

oh, so that's who shat on the bus yesterday.

 

[Bakunin]

oh, so that's who shat on the bus yesterday.

Look on the bright side.

If he'd coughed he could have shattered the windscreen.

 

[phildwyer]

Societies that don't have welfare systems have far stronger networks of social and familial solidarity than ours.

People may well be happier in such societies. Obviously however that does not mean that abolishing welfare is a means to make people happy.

 

[_angel_]

Societies that don't have welfare systems have far stronger networks of social and familial solidarity than ours.

People may well be happier in such societies. Obviously however that does not mean that abolishing welfare is a means to make people happy.

like you said, our politicians are pursuing policies to make family networks fewer (sending homeless local families out of london etc)

 

[phildwyer]

like you said, our politicians are pursuing policies to make family networks fewer (sending homeless local families out of london etc)

Aye. There is relatively little homelessness or starvation in Islamic societies, for example, because a combination of family and mosque will always ensure people are housed, fed and clothed.

 

[Greebo]

Societies that don't have welfare systems have far stronger networks of social and familial solidarity than ours.<snip>

There is also more scope for abuse and exploitation, given that there are fewer sources of support beyond the extended family.

People may well be happier in such societies. Obviously however that does not mean that abolishing welfare is a means to make people happy.

Happiness is relative, not an absolute.

 

[phildwyer]

There is also more scope for abuse and exploitation, given that there are fewer sources of support beyond the extended family.

True. And the extended family is also a source of conservatism and conformity. But having lived in both societies with strong extended families and societies with strong welfare systems, I'd have to say that the former works much better.

 

[Greebo]

Aye. There is relatively little homelessness or starvation in Islamic societies, for example, because a combination of family and mosque will always ensure people are housed, fed and clothed.

Whereas here, few people in social housing (let alone benefit claimants) are allowed to have even one spare room. So they'd have difficulty putting anyone up for more than a few nights even if they think it'd be the right thing to do.

 

[phildwyer]

Whereas here, few people in social housing (let alone benefit claimants) are allowed to have even one spare room. So they'd have difficulty putting anyone up for more than a few nights even if they think it'd be the right thing to do.

See, in an Islamic society no-one would think that lack of space could be an excuse for not extending hospitality to a family member.

 

[Greebo]

See, in an Islamic society no-one would think that lack of space could be an excuse for not extending hospitality to a family member.

So for instance, you'd have somebody curled up between the toilet and the shower cubicle if that really was the only available space?

 

[phildwyer]

So for instance, you'd have somebody curled up between the toilet and the shower cubicle if that really was the only available space?

Yep. Many live in similar conditions.