A well-known neuroscientist and author has taken apart Liz Truss' claim that taking money away from people in poverty will motivate them.
Dr Dean Burnett posted a powerful thread on Twitter where he claimed that the Prime Minister's plan to encourage people to work longer by reducing benefits. There are strong rumours that the UK Government will not increase benefits in line with inflation despite promises from the Johnson administration that this would happen.
This would then result in a real terms drop for some of the poorest in society right at a time when their bills are skyrocketing.
Read more: Welsh MP says the state can't 'catch' everyone and people should help each other
Speaking to The Times, a Truss ally said: "How can it be right that someone who gets up at 6am & works hard all day is seeing their pay go up by 5% or so and someone who is not working and is on benefits gets a 10% rise?." The ally then claimed that changing this will increase incentives for people to get jobs and fill vacancies.
In a passionate Twitter thread Dr Burnett loudly derided these claims. He said: "Probably doesn't need saying, but I'm on my 3rd glass of wine so I'll say it nonetheless. Taking money away from the impoverished will NOT *motivate* them to get better jobs or fill vacancies THAT. IS. NOT. HOW. PEOPLE. WORK. Never has been, never will be.
"Firstly, poverty is incredibly stressful. It has massive (negative) impacts on wellbeing, mental health, stress, motivation, etc. Ergo, 'punishing' someone in poverty (ie be lowering benefits) is pointless. Their whole existence is punishing."
He went on: "It's hard to imagine what difference to motivation and drive would be had by lowering someone's available funds from £5 a day to £4.50 (for example) If you've broken 12 bones, you're not going to suddenly be more mobile and productive when someone threatens to break a 13th.
"And sure, *some* may be perfectly happy living on benefits alone. But A) Such people are way rarer than certain newspapers insist B) Using such people to justify slashing benefits is tantamount to burning down hospitals because hypochondriacs exist.
"But even if you ignore the whole sociopolitical aspect of slashing benefits to 'motivate' people to get jobs, the psychology doesn't add up. Because that's not how motivation works either. Human's motivation can be boiled down to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic: I want to do this because someone else is rewarding me to do it/punishing me if I don't. Intrinsic: I want to do this because I've decided I want to due to various internal qualities.
"The literature reveals that intrinsic motivation (people doing things because they've decided it's important to them) is considerably more enduring and potent that extrinsic (people doing things because others will reward/punish them accordingly).
"Point is, telling people 'get a job, or we'll starve you!' is economically counterproductive. People *may* do it, but they'll hate it, and feel no compulsion to do more than the bare minimum required to meet their obligations. On the other hand, you give people the scope and freedom to explore their interests (i.e. by covering their expenses to ensure they/their family can stay alive), they're more likely to seek out a job they like and can/will stick to
"This isn't even considering the whole Yerkes-Dodson curve. Basically, stress *can* motivate people to perform/work better, up to a point. But too much stress makes everything worse.
"Which means that, even if you do force impoverished people to get a job by slashing their benefits, they'll likely be very bad at their job, because living on the breadline is extremely stressful. Having to work to justify your existence is even more so.
"Of course, slashing benefits doesn't make sense if your goal is increasing productivity, boosting the economy, getting people back to work etc. If you actually care more about 'showing that you're willing to punish people for the sin of being poor', it makes perfect sense.
"It's yet another manifestation of the same thinking from those in power ' have more money than I need. Other people really need money. How do I reframe it so that it seems like they don't? Meaning I get to keep everything, despite having benefited from a communal society'
"In summary, it's nearly midnight, I need to go to bed, and heaping more suffering on those already suffering has no positive outcomes. Unless your desired outcome is 'I need to show people how pointlessly cruel I am'. In which case, it makes sense I guess."
Read next:
- Police force issues apology to two women abused by superior officer
- Children grow up in poverty in the shadow of Wales' greatest wealth
-
Governance in Wales is a convoluted mess that needs to be fixed
-
The vitally-important questions Welsh police force refuses to answer after top officers dismissed
- The most polluted areas of Wales revealed
