At least the Guardian agrees that this is terrible reporting with this article.
Since there is a concerted media campaign to label benefit claimants as scroungers, it seems worth the effort to examine exactly why so many people are forced (or choose) to sign on. Remember it's not just the unemployed who claim benefit, but also those who are in low paid or part time work.
Here is an excerpt from Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"
In 1998, he was hired by the Observer to find out what goes on inside "Corporate America".
I think his findings accurately display the relationship between corporatism and government.
$ CHAPTER 5 $
INSIDE CORPORATE AMERICA
"Wal-Mart invented the disposable workforce. About a third of the workers are temporary and hours expand, shift, contract at whim.
The workforce turns over like the shoe inventory, so few ever collect full pensions or profit shares.
But Wal-Mart does provide free meals-sort of. Most workers' salaries are near or below the official U.S. poverty line, so those without second jobs qualify for government food stamps. With 1.3 million workers, Wal-Mart has the nation's largest payroll, if you call that pay. Taking over the care and feeding of the WalMartyred workforce is a huge government welfare program. It could have been worse, but the courts rejected Walton's plea for exemption from the U.S. minimum wage"
What's the difference here, today?
Maybe I'm naive but if everyone was playing the game, technological advances such as the industrial revolution or the digital age, could have, (should have) made it possible for us all to do the minimum of work while still enjoying a relatively comfortable lifestyle.
I have more to say on this but not feeling 100% so I will go off to bed.