Commodification of welfare

why is commodification bad

At the same time, a more coercive turn is emerging in the social protection system including a new sanctions regime instituted in to address what was considered a poorly policed system. In the more likely case that both of us find cleaning much less pleasant than cooking, you get a raw deal.

It is increasingly an orbit that is closing down any vestiges of choice and stripping back subsequent policy buffers. At the same time this is a process that is evolving with varying degrees of intensity and ideological fervour, longevity, and historical trajectories across the US, the UK and Ireland.

These states are functionally quite different from Western, developed countries in regard to their immigration histories, current labour migrant flows, and also policy intentions.

Commodification of welfare

However, in working through the potential theoretical relationship between welfare states and labour immigration, I found two juxtaposed explanations which respectively tap into different aspects of modern welfare states: one based on the logic of the fiscal cost of immigration, and the other based on the logic of decommodification and equal treatment. I said above that scenario C didn't have anything to recommend it, but this is not exactly true. The real question, I think, is whether this is the only way for things to turn out--that is, is it really true that the yuppie that is richer only shows, to the less rich, the image of their own future? But we could have a much lower level of commodification where people work less, because their cost of living is much lower: they are able to satisfy many of their personal needs without spending money. I write about him often and once got Yglesiassed in return because in many ways I find him a more congenial thinker than a lot of more traditional "leftists" who seem trapped in nostalgia for midth century industrial capitalism. And if not, is it the most desirable outcome? This has heaped housing risk and insecurity on renters and is directly fuelling growing homelessness. The people of the future will be richer than the people of today, and therefore will more closely resemble annoying yuppies. In the Netherlands, for example, both incomes and working hours are lower than in the United States, and a good argument can be made that the well-being of the Dutch is at least as high as our own. In scenario A, I cook my own meals and clean my own bathroom, and you do the same for yourself. Interviewing policy experts, I learned that a lot of them found it problematic to grant privileges in admission conditions and work rights to high-skilled immigrants over lesser-skilled ones, as they thought it was unfair and incompatible with their understanding of equal treatment. This hypothetical is a bit silly, since with only two people involved we could just barter the trade in services rather than paying each other money. For in a society where labor-power is still commodified and people are dependent on the labor market, it is essential that we constantly create new jobs for people to perform--otherwise, you end up with mass unemployment just like we're seeing right now. However, I would argue that a lot of political and economic discourse in the United States is actually dominated by the third scenario, which sees commodification as a good in itself, irrespective of its efficiency or its effect on our working lives.

Suppose you and I live in adjacent apartments. Their results point to a potential disagreement between policy reactions to socioeconomic changes, which originate from different regulations, and the societal worth of modern welfare states.

Such patterns are most extreme in the US where the commodification of housing support has reached a point where publicly provided housing has practically disappeared and much of the welfare regime rests on income and housing tax credits which favour those in work.

Commodification in a sentence

I found this fascinating and wondered whether this is a potential explanation of why some states are more selective than others in their labour immigration policies. In the aftermath, what is apparent is that financialised capitalism in unison with neoliberalism not only survived but thrived. In the Netherlands, for example, both incomes and working hours are lower than in the United States, and a good argument can be made that the well-being of the Dutch is at least as high as our own. Now consider the following ways in which we might satisfy two of our needs: food and a clean habitat. Annoying yuppies take yoga classes, or even hire personal trainers. In our article we demonstrate empirically that welfare states act not just as a source of concern over the fiscal costs of immigration, as has been argued in the literature quite a bit, but also that welfare states inform notions about the extent to which it is appropriate to select foreign workers based on skill. However, from the standpoint of the worker, we can think of the de-commodifying welfare state as giving people a choice about whether or not to commodify their labor, rather than forcing them to sell their labor as would be the case in the absence of any welfare-state institutions. There will be more personal shoppers and more policemen. Such patterns are most extreme in the US where the commodification of housing support has reached a point where publicly provided housing has practically disappeared and much of the welfare regime rests on income and housing tax credits which favour those in work. I have to monitor you to make sure that you're doing a complete job of cleaning, and you can boss me around if you dislike my food or I don't have dinner ready on time. Suppose you and I live in adjacent apartments. Artisanal cheese is more labor-intensive to produce than industrial cheese. Presumably not. It's easy to mock the idea that the future economy will be based entirely on giving each other haircuts and yoga instruction. However, I would argue that a lot of political and economic discourse in the United States is actually dominated by the third scenario, which sees commodification as a good in itself, irrespective of its efficiency or its effect on our working lives.

This hypothetical is a bit silly, since with only two people involved we could just barter the trade in services rather than paying each other money. I don't want to pre-judge this choice so much as just argue that it is a choice. The Irish case is a more novice turn, following the severity of its recent phase of disciplinary neoliberalism, which has reduced its capacity to implement compensatory social policies that tended to exist alongside a more explicitly neoliberalised economic regime.

But we could have a much lower level of commodification where people work less, because their cost of living is much lower: they are able to satisfy many of their personal needs without spending money.

However, insofar as there are programs like unemployment protection, socialized medicine, and guaranteed income security in retirement--and insofar as eligibility for these programs is close to universal--we can say that labor has been partially de-commodified.

Commodification synonym

So, I started to investigate this more thoroughly. For example, states like South Korea often employ skilled migration programmes to entice members of their international diaspora to come back, rather than attract foreign workers per se. Though not as punitive as the US or UK examples, recent changes in Ireland bear the imprint of coercive commodification. More people will hire interior designers and people will get their kitchens redone more often. Where we disagree is in seeing the best future trajectory of the economy as one in which people perform more and more services for each other, for pay. Even now, not every country resolves these questions in the same way. These states are functionally quite different from Western, developed countries in regard to their immigration histories, current labour migrant flows, and also policy intentions. On the basis of this argument, Esping-Andersen differentiates those welfare regimes that are highly decommodifying such as the Nordic countries from those in which workers are still much more dependent on the market such as the United States. How do you see the future of skill selective labour immigration policies in developed countries? To elucidate this point, consider a simplified thought experiment. Annoying yuppies take yoga classes, or even hire personal trainers. I think that in countries that have until recently served as migrant-sending countries rather than migrant-receiving ones, skill selectivity is often lower on the policy priority list. Such changes intersect with the coercive commodification of the social housing system, where housing need is increasingly channelled into the private rental sector under a tightened Housing Benefit regime, with reforms under the Localism Act diminishing the security traditionally attached to publicly provided housing. Most new programmes addressing skill selectivity have been introduced in Western Europe, while long-standing policies exist in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Beyond existing and instructive qualitative case studies, our analysis offers a quantitative comparison of 20 countries over more than a decade.
Rated 6/10 based on 93 review
Download
"Welfare Reform, Precarity and the Re