You have thought so much about poverty – it is the thing you have feared all your life, the thing you knew would happen happen to you sooner or later; and it is all so utterly and prosaically different. You thought it would be quite simple; it is extraordinarily complicated. You thought it would be terrible, it is merely squalid and boring.
George Orwell – Down and Out in Paris and London (1933)
I don’t often write about where I am from, mostly because it depresses me, and the majority of my life has been spent in failed attempts to get away. Recently however a renewed interest in the history of the town has made me appreciate it with new eyes, even if hasn’t contributed anything in making me want to stay. Stockport is an old industrial town on the outskirts of Manchester which was formerly a centre of manufacture. Although recorded as being in existence as early as 1170, Stockport is really a baby of the industrial revolution, the traces of which still form a large part of the landscape of the town today. Terraced houses. Cobblestones. Mills. Chimneys. Rats. Soot blackened red brick. Canals. Poverty. Rain.
As the industrial revolution gathered momentum in the north of England, but especially in Manchester throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Stockport’s mills sprang up in earnest to take advantage of the roaring international trade in cotton. Impoverished agricultural labourers and hand weavers who had been put of business by new machines flocked to towns to work in the factories, producing a quantity and quality and woven cotton that had not been possible before. So far so good, I learnt all this in school without any particular interest . . . but then I picked up a copy of ‘The condition of the working class in England in 1844’ by Friedrich Engels, and suddenly the industrial revolution has come back to haunt me.
Engels was born in Germany, and at the age of 22 in 1842 his parents sent him to Manchester to work in the ‘Ermen and Engels Victoria Mill’ in the hopes that it would encourage him to reconsider a career in business, as his father had intended. Far from this, Engels began an in depth study of Manchester’s mills and slums, carefully considering the horrendous conditions of the working class and their station in society. The outcome of his work was a call to revolution; ‘The condition of the working class in England in 1844’ (which also prominently mentions Scotland, Wales, and Ireland). It was a detailed and disparaging study, which surely would have scandalised the mill owning bourgeoisie had it been published in English (which didn’t happen until 1887, when a number of improvements had necessarily already been made).
He describes my hometown of Stockport in somewhat uncomplimentary terms, ‘There is Stockport too . . . [which] is renowned throughout the entire district as one of the duskiest, smokiest holes, and looks, indeed, especially when viewed from the viaduct, excessively repellent. But far more repulsive are the cottages and cellar dwellings of the working-class, which stretch in long rows through all parts of the town and valley bottom to the crest of the hill. I do not remember to have seen so many cellars used as dwellings in any other town of this district.’
Stockport in my opinion is still ‘excessively repellent’, and the recession has not been kind to the town centre; now containing a familiar financial downturn collection of payday loan shops, betting shops, £1 shops, charity shops, and of course the pre-requisite large number of empty premises. The mills these days (where they are still standing) have been divided into units of furniture show rooms, museums, cafes etc. and are in various states of disrepair. Several are now listed buildings, but the mills in general are so numerous and just so big that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to maintain them all. Some attempt has been made to convert them into luxury apartments, but I’m inclined to think they would probably make draughty homes, and wandering around the ones I visited today I would guess it probably takes a lot of work to convert them into something liveable.
The cotton trade relied on slave labour on both sides of the Atlantic, from the slaves in America who picked it to the mill workers who wove it. Engels suggests that the mill workers, ‘are worse slaves than the negroes in America, for they are more sharply watched, and yet it is demanded of them that they shall live like human beings, and shall think like free men . . . the bourgeoisie [exploit] the workers in good times and let them starve in bad ones’. While I wouldn’t like to make a comparison between the slaves and the mill ‘hands’, it is a cruel type of freedom that offers a choice between starvation in the streets or a short lifetime of toil, misery and boredom in the mills for barely subsistence wages. What is obvious is that the success of both England and America, and perhaps every nation that has undergone/is undergoing industrialisation owes much of its development to human exploitation, ‘the destruction of their health, the social, physical, and mental decay of whole generations’.
This is particularly poignant when considering countries such as Bangladesh which have made headlines in the past year over working conditions, pay, and even the safety of the buildings. Engels noted that Manchester had been constructed in such a way that the bourgeoisie could go about their business without ever having to enter a working class slum, and the same might be said of the west today. We outsource manufacture to developing countries to exploit cheap labour, keeping the factories quietly tucked away in corners of the world we are unlikely to go to – saving us from being confronted by terrible conditions that capitalism has created.
The more I read of Engels, the more I was able to apply his descriptions directly to what I see happening in front of me in England today, and I have been reflecting on this more acutely since watching the controversial new Channel 4 series, ‘Benefits Street’. This program, which documents the lives of benefit claimants and low paid workers on a street in Birmingham has clear parallels with many of the things that Engels discusses in ‘conditions of the working class’. Although the clear difference is the government issued benefits, which outside of workhouse provision for the most desperate, did not exist in 1844.
Last week’s episode featured a number of Romanian workers, Britain’s most recent influx of ill received migrant workers, who had arrived on the street. Working exhaustive hours for low wages, living in cramped conditions and derided by their unforgiving British neighbours, the Romanians received a raw deal in their hopes for a better life in England or of saving enough money to send home. Engels, too, discusses migrant workers, but in 1844 the majority were from an impoverished Ireland, and from 1845 onwards an impoverished Ireland starving in the grip of a potato famine. Desperate families left Ireland, only to receive a predictably hostile reception in England and were bound to slave away in a squalor which Engels described as being synonymous with the Irish. The very worst slums in Manchester (a quarter known as ‘Little Ireland’) were those inhabited by the immigrant workers;
‘The worst quarters of all the large towns are inhabited by the Irishmen. Whenever a district is distinguished for especial filth and ruinousness, the explorer may safely count upon meeting chiefly those Celtic faces . . . the Milesian deposits all garbage and filth before his house door here, as he is accustomed to do at home, and so accumulates the pools and dirt-heaps which disfigure the working people’s quarters and poison the air . . . The filth and comfortlessness that prevail in the houses themselves is impossible to describe. The Irishman is unaccustomed to the presence of furniture; a heap of straw, a few rags, utterly beyond use as clothing, suffice for his nightly couch . . . When he is in want of fuel, everything combustible within his reach, chairs, door posts, mouldings . . . finds its way up the chimney. Moreover, why should he need such room? At home in his mud-cabin there was only one room for all domestic purposes; more than one room his family does not need in England. So the custom of crowding many persons into a single room, now so universal, has been chiefly implanted by Irish immigration. And since the poor devil must have some enjoyment, and society has shut him out of all others, he betakes himself of the drinking of spirits. Drink is the only thing which makes the irishman’s life worth having . . . so he revels in drink to the point of the most bestial drunkenness.’
The concerns of English workers at the time were much as they are now, that the immigrants would bring unwanted competition by agreeing to work for less money and in worse conditions, and so would undercut the natives and bring standards of living down; not to mention introducing an element of moral decay. Descriptions of the poor treatment of Irish workers was slightly painful for me to read, given that this almost certainly would have applied to my own great grandfather (from a family of Irish immigrants working in the mills in the late 19th century).
Those who have seen ‘Benefits Street’ might recognise a few of the things described above; namely rubbish supposedly scattered by immigrants, overcrowding, and alcohol consumption as a means of escape. With so much against the workers of the industrial revolution, I wonder how the members of the upper class could reasonably have expected the working class to better themselves? It is easy to casually suggest (especially from a height) that if people work hard and ‘get on’ then they can clamber their way out of poverty, but I believe that unless you are made of exceptionally stoic and inexhaustible stuff, as well as having a little luck – then it is nearly impossible now, just as it was then. Engels regrets the decline of social mobility as he sees it, ‘The disappearance of the lower middle class deprived the working man of all possibility of rising into the middle-class himself’ and this well applies to England today.
I haven’t had the time to talk about many other things that Engels mentions; the health issues suffered by workers, child labour, widespread illiteracy, industrial action etc. However, Engels was outraged by all that he saw, damning ‘the property holding class, when it is so blinded by its momentary profit that it no longer has eyes for the most conspicuous signs of the times’. I think this is a sentiment well worth remembering.
Photographs my own. If you’re interested in ‘The condition of the working class in England in 1844’ then it is can be downloaded for free off the amazon, go check it out 🙂 And if you’re interested in unearthing a bit more of Stockport’s industrial past, than I highly recommend taking a look at some off road urban exploration of the town here.
Switzerland is soon to vote on the possible introduction of a basic guaranteed income for all citizens; regardless of their employment status or circumstances. The amount will be 2,500 Swiss francs (about £1,750) per month. That’s right, the citizens of Switzerland may about to be guaranteed a set monthly ‘wage’ without having to do any work at all, unless they are so inclined.
Now, I had never heard of such a staggering concept before, but this article from the BBC suggests that actually the idea of a basic income for all has been around since this 16th century when Thomas Paine (I think incorrectly mentioned as Thomas More) presented it as part a utopian ideal. In ‘The Rights of Man’ Paine argues that a basic income which would provide for a child’s education and welfare as well as a comfortable state pension and funeral costs should be a considered a human right rather than charity. In a later pamphlet Paine stated:
It is wrong to say God made rich and poor. He made only male and female; and he gave them the Earth for their inheritance.
So, this brings me to the real point of this post: what would you do if your material needs were met and you were free to do whatever you wanted with your life?
Of course there is an argument that a guaranteed income will lead to laziness. Swiss economist Rudolf Strahm suggests that, “There will be no incentive for young people to learn a job or study”. I think this takes a fairly dim view of humanity. Just because people are financially comfortable it does not mean that they will drift into inherent laziness. If this were the case then no one born into wealthy families would ever be motivated to do anything, and we know that this is not the case. It is ridiculous to suggest that money is the only thing which motivates people, I like reading, drawing and blogging. None of those things pay, I’m not going to stop anytime soon because I believe they help me to develop, allow me to engage with the world and I find them interesting – but mostly because I enjoy them.
In my experience people are always in pursuit of something that will give their life purpose and meaning, whether that be raising a family, career success, a relentless pursuit of more money to add to the pile or even simply power; everyone is looking for something and financial stability will put these things within reach rather than cause them to disappear. I believe that human beings enjoy learning, being productive and developing their talents and a guaranteed income would allow them the time and financial freedom to do these things. My own personal take on this is that I would probably be in further education right now if it weren’t for the crippling debt involved.
Be an entrepreneur
A society where people have the freedom to pursue what they like and are good at can only be a good thing, could Switzerland become a nation of happy entrepreneurs? Young people are curious about the world around them and eager to learn and develop new skills, in fact, they are the driving force behind the guaranteed income in Switzerland. It would help them to study, learn a job, and be more engaged in society rather than hinder them as Strahm suggests.
Still be an employee
I often wonder if there are people out there who might be doing my dream job, but they are totally and utterly miserable and are unable to give it up because they can’t afford to. I have my suspicions that there is probably a lot of this unhappy job clinging going on at the moment, and there are a whole plethora of people waiting for the economy to recover so that opportunities might arise for jobs they might actually like. If a guaranteed income was introduced then people would have real power to choose a job that motivated them, rather than do something they hated just to pay the rent. Enno Schmidt (as quoted from the BBC article), a campaigner for basic income suggests that ‘a society in which people work only because they have to have money is “no better than slavery” ‘.
Switzerland need not worry about employees suddenly just giving up work because they don’t need the money anymore, so many people love their jobs and have spent a lot of time and effort getting good at them – they aren’t about to throw that away. Perhaps there would be more freedom of movement between jobs where you would have an opportunity to try something out for a while, with no pressure to stay if it didn’t suit you. This might sound a little bit flakey initially, but in the long term companies could be sure that their employees were there because they really were dedicated and enthusiastic, not just present under miserable duress. I really do believe that a happy workforce is a more creative and productive one. For those people in currently in wage-slave jobs who would definitely leave if they could, then perhaps mass resignations would prompt employers to reconsider working conditions.
But is it possible?
Switzerland is a very wealthy country with the fourth highest per capita income in the world at $78,881 (Wiki), so affordability is not the the central issue. Nonetheless, if Switzerland did vote for a guaranteed income then it would be a fascinating and very risky social experiment. 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,750*) per month is scarcely enough to survive on according to Mr. Schmidt, so maybe everyone will be keeping their day jobs for a while yet, although it would undoubtably make life a lot easier for the majority of people.
My two cents: UK perspective
A guaranteed liveable basic income will never be introduced in the UK, but I thought I would muse over the possible implications.
*Yeah, ok, what? £1,750 is pretty crazy amount of money from where I’m sitting here. It’s more than what I got paid at the best paying job I’ve ever had, and I think there would be plenty of adults in the UK who would be delighted with this princely sum on top of their usual wage, given the real clamp down on pay increases and level of inflation here. It certainly throws an interesting light on the notion of a living rather than a minimum wage. However, I hear through the traveller grapevine that Switzerland is a hellishly expensive place as it is a very wealthy country, and a guaranteed income is probably going to drive the prices up even further – so if you were depending on this income alone then maybe life would be possible rather than easy per se. I assume that unlike benefits in the UK the basic income would keep people above poverty levels, because otherwise this defeats the entire object. Also there is something to be said for an income which everyone is entitled to, rather than fostering a suspicious and cold society where people are criminalised because they are poor; so called ‘benefit scroungers’. It also eliminates the Dickensian idea of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor which is increasingly creeping into the UK discussion state benefits (by actually treating people like human beings, we all have a right to a certain standard of life, opportunites and education). If I was a viable adult in a career that was progressing well then I would probably hope to be earning slightly more than this in times not blighted by recession – and I would be proud to earn my own money. However, it would be nice to know that I wouldn’t fall into poverty and be branded as scum if this were not the case. So yeah, I do think the economic/personal incentive to work would still be there, just not in such an authoritative, threatening, shouty and judgemental way; all carrot and no stick – touché Switzerland.
I wanted to share this article by Ruth Hardy from the Guardian following David Cameron’s speech about his ‘commitment to the cause of permanent austerity’ at the Lord Mayor’s banquet last week. I thought it was particularly interesting as it had been written by a young intern who was moonlighting as a waitress at the event. It’s nice to hear the voices of young people in the press, and it’s always good to hear from the 99% – I thought her perspective was very interesting:
It was hard to stomach David Cameron preaching austerity from a golden throne
As a waitress at the lord mayor’s banquet, the contrast between what Cameron was saying and where he was saying it felt particularly chilling
At a state banquet for the new Lord Mayor on Monday, David Cameron gave a speech about his commitment to the cause of permanent austerity. He stood up to speak from a golden chair, and read his notes from a golden lectern.
As it happens, I was at the banquet too and heard the news about permanent spending cutbacks for myself. Sadly I was not there as a dignitary, a foreign diplomat, a captain of industry or the director of a big City firm. I was there as a waitress. The contrast between what he was saying and where he was saying it seemed initially almost too laughable to get worked up about. But actually, it reflected something chilling in Cameron’s attitude towards the people he purports to be working for.
Please follow this link for the rest of the article: http://cur.lv/5ghkl
This is Cait Reilly. She is a 24 year old graduate (much like my good self) who took the government to court over claims that a mandatory unpaid work scheme ‘recommended’ to her by the Job Centre was unlawful. Today Ms. Reilly won her claim, with the court judge ruling that the work scheme was ‘unlawful’ as it breached laws on forced labour (not to mention minimum wage). In a speech outside the court Cait said:
“If someone gives their labour to a company, they should be paid for it. However well intentioned a workplace scheme may be, it is very dangerous to introduce compulsory unpaid labour into the UK employment market.”
It is totally inappropriate to put a graduate on a placement working in Poundland and thus preventing them from doing some degree related voluntary work in a museum. I’m not agreeing with the voluntary museum work either (that should be paid as well, I believe that all ‘big society’ volunteering and interminable internships are harming economic recovery not to mention a poor graduates chances of ever entering adult life) it’s just that the pill is not so bitter if you have arranged the work yourself and can clearly see how it will benefit your career goals.
I have long had the feeling that the Department of Work and Pensions does not know how to deal with unemployed graduates. In boom time a whole lot more of us would have had a job, perhaps to the extent that the DWP never bothered to come up with a scheme to help us – there was never any need to. Now in times of economic woe graduates end up under the same umbrella as a 16 year old school leaver, and obviously the same schemes that might help them are going to be an ill fit for us.
To help guide the DWP through their fog of incompetence and confusion I have a few suggestions for what they could do to help graduates:
- Find suitable placements for graduates. Graduates want work experience, we’re all dying for a good internship and it’s a cut throat world, the job centre could help by liaising with suitable companies to help hunt these internships down and make them more accessible. If we’re in the job centre it probably means that we’re the graduates who aren’t the well-connected ones with friends and family members sorting out our work experience, and we could do with a helping hand. Poundland won’t go down well with a student who spent four years studying economics (although the irony wouldn’t be lost on them), but they’d bite your hand off for a placement in a bank. Placements should be paid to ensure that bright but poor young things aren’t left out in the cold. If internships are unpaid then benefits should not be stopped, but rather topped up – a scheme like this exists in Ireland, and a lot of my friends ended up on this after finishing university. Currently if you are doing a full time internship, paid or not, you are not entitled to benefits as you are ‘unavailable for work’. Doesn’t exactly encourage us does it?
- Let us work for our benefits. Do you really want me to work in Poundland to gain some experience? No problem, but that will only be 9.08 hours a week (based on minimum wage of £6.19/hour up to the weekly benefit sum of £56.25)
- Make it easier to temp (this is one for all jobseeker’s, not just the graduates). I signed up with a recruitment agency or 3 that occasionally call me and give me some full time work for a few days/weeks. This makes me really happy, apart from how difficult the job centre is about temping. When my temp work is over I don’t want to go through the hassle and paperwork of starting an entirely new claim. It isn’t new; I was only gone for four days!
- Liaise with temp agencies. When I’m not temping, working in a shop or interning I’m usually trying pretty hard to find a job on my own. But times are hard, and I would appreciate some help. If a temp agency can find me a job for a week or two then it might be nice for the job centre to have a go at offering this service as well. This might suggest laziness on my part (why can’t I find my own job?) but I don’t mean it to come across that way, it just seems to me that a marriage between a temp agency and the job centre might be rather nice. A week’s work feels like a placement anyway, but with temping you actually get paid, and probably gain some experience too. Win.
- It’s the economy, stupid. Cait Reilly was unemployed because the economy is in a shambolic state no matter how you fudge the numbers, not because she had no experience on the shop floor. Young graduates are an intelligent and perceptive bunch; we worked hard to get to university and worked equally hard to get our degrees. We did not expect to be in this situation, and we certainly aren’t happy about it, so please don’t make things worse by patronising us and strangling any ambition we have left with bureaucratic red tape.
As a struggling graduate who is far from living the dream I am always interested in what hijinks other struggling graduates have been getting up to. Times are hard, but the really sharp graduates can still be an enterprising bunch and there’s always a chance that they’ve stumbled onto something lucrative.
Several weeks ago a 24 year old media production graduate’s campaign to get a job went viral after he advertised himself on a billboard in London. Adam Pacitti’s multi-platform attack from online CV to website, Twitter and real world billboard was a campaign that could have been conjured up by any worthy advertising company, and he’s clearly no stranger to the media limelight. Currently it seems that Pacitti is buried under an avalanche of enticing job offers, and I’m sure I’m not the only person curious to know what the outcome of all this will be. Adam Pacitti has slightly more money to throw into his campaign than the sign wearers of the 1930s, but it’s a sad cycle; the desperate unemployed have been here before. His campaign is simple, clever and shaping up to be successful, although it is far from original in the current economic climate. As I finished my final year at university in Dublin 26 year old Féilim Mac An Iomaire spent €2,000 renting a billboard in the city center in the hope of finding suitable employment without having to emigrate (enduringly wishful thinking as I can attest – although I’m not doing much better for being back in England).
Although I admire Pacitti’s gall (even if he is just a bit too smug), this sort of attention grabbing campaign irritates me on several levels. First of all, not everyone has vast amounts of money to squander on renting billboard space, nor should graduates have to go to such extremes to get a job. And even if I did have a princely sum saved up from my minimum wage job and/or jobseekers allowance I would be hard pushed to want to spend that on advertising. Spending in excess of £500 on advertising is simply too much, especially if you’ve already incurred the financial hardship of a number of unpaid internships and work placements. Advertising yourself in this manner is a massive gamble that personally I would be unprepared to take. However, I would be willing to emigrate which is potentially a much bigger financial risk – if I even managed to somehow scrape enough money together for that to be an option. It is a sorry state of affairs that a creative and intelligent person should be in the position to have to go to these lengths in the first place, and recession notwithstanding the government needs to address the way it deals with unemployed graduates. It is not appropriate for graduates to be pushed into unpaid placements at supermarkets (and such placements should paid at least minimum wage, if not living wage – but that’s a different post topic). This is tremendous waste of talent, and surely bad news financially for the government if graduates are unlikely to ever be earning enough to make a dent in their student loan debts.
In short, you’re unlikely to see my face on a billboard anytime soon, but for the few chancers with the courage, drive and money to burn on an advertising campaign I hope the gamble pays off – because if such extreme action won’t get you a job worthy of your education then what hope do the rest of us have?
Edit: Just realised the irony of posting this immediately after a post about gold!