52 per cent of the people in the areas where Benefits Street was filmed are in employment.
There are two pervasive myths about welfare in the UK which are routinely retailed by politicians and the media.
The first is the myth of the family where ‘nobody has worked for generations’. The second is the myth of the area where ‘nobody works around here’.
By ‘myths’ I don’t just mean widely believed falsehoods, but statements which embody a mythological mode of thinking which has no relation to facts whatsoever.
The point about these myths is that they refer to things taking place elsewhere involving other people. It is the sense of otherness they convey rather than the factual inaccuracies they involve, which tells us we’re dealing with myths.
So to James Turner Street, the supposed subject of Channel 4’s documentary series Benefits Street, which seems to have given the struggling Iain Duncan Smith a new lease of political life. Press coverage of the series has repeatedly claimed that the great majority of residents on the street are receiving out of work benefits.
For example:
The Express: Benefits Street exposed: The street where 9 out of 10 households are on welfare
The Mail, (this Tuesday): The series … follows the lives of people on James Turner Street – where 90 per cent of residents are on benefits
Today the Mail has toned down its claim: it seems only 75 per cent ‘are said to be on benefits’, which may indicate a tentative recognition on the Mail’s part that its previous claims don’t stand up to scrutiny.
What are the real employment figures for ‘Benefits Street’?
I’ve matched the postcodes for James Turner Street to Census Output Areas, the finest grained geography at which official statistics are normally published, using ONS’s postcode/output area lookup file. These are very small areas indeed, with about 175 households in total. James Turner Street straddles two of these areas. Data on employment and economic activity is available from the 2011 Census via Nomis.
If we want to know what employment looks like on James Turner Street, this is where to start.
In these output areas, 43 per cent and 38 per cent of people aged 16-74 were in employment on Census day 2011. However this includes pensioners and students in the denominator. Focussing just on the non-retired, non-student population, 52 per cent in both areas were in employment. About a third were ‘other inactive’, meaning they were neither working nor seeking work, and 16/15 per cent were unemployed.
If the production company for Benefits Street managed to find an area within these output areas where 90 per cent or 75 per cent of adults were out of work, they would have to have been very selective indeed.
It’s also useful to look at the household level, as many non-working people are living in households where someone else is working, and most benefits are awarded on the basis of household income. Focussing on non-retired and non-student households, 62 per cent and 65 per cent of households had someone in employment.
These figures should not come as a surprise. The areas where ‘nobody works around here’, like the ‘families where nobody’s worked for generations’ belong to mythological thinking.
Moving up a geographical notch to the level of Census Super Output Areas (average 670 households), in only 0.16 per cent of areas are 50 per cent or more of working age non-student households without employment. The great majority of people who are out of work live in areas where the majority of people (other than pensioners or students) are in work. This is true even in very deprived areas, of which James Turner Street is an example.
There is more information on the James Turner Street area available at ONS’s Neighbourhood Statistics site (using the larger Super Output Area geography). This shows that out of work benefit receipt among people of working age is 30 per cent rather than the 90 per cent of myth.
On a range of deprivation indicators, this area is clearly struggling. But among the wealth of largely depressing statistics on the site is a detail we haven’t heard about in the frenzy of hand-wringing about Benefits Street. Educational achievement at GCSE level is well above the average for both England and Birmingham with 71 per cent achieving 5 or more A*- C passes compared to a national average of 59 per cent.
Perhaps that detail might encourage people to junk the mythological thinking surrounding this unfairly maligned area. When it comes to GCSE attainment, the James Turner Street area seems to be bucking the expectations of the media, the government and the general public. That should be something to celebrate.
Click to zoom
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
50 Responses to “James Turner Street exists: Benefits Street doesn’t”
Felix Lanzalaco
are you asking me or telling me ? If you are asking immigrants count for about 1 percent of our applications. Job adverts dont actually reflect the market, surely you must know that. I mean come on. Everything is a data deluge nowadays due to automation.
I could break down how many of these are real jobs and what are just automated scripts retriggering the same thing, Then there are issues of flow in and out of temp work and the issue of what are the amount of real jobs. But you actually used the easiest possible (and not even intelligent) route to sidestep that. If i was trying to sidestep this issue i would at least have constructed something slightly better than number of jobs on a search.
So I will not go into such details, because what i want to ask you is whether you really want the real answer to this issue ? Can you be honest with me about your motivations for commenting here in such a manner ? i.e. Can you actually live with a truth that says there are not enough jobs ? What would you do if that were true ? We have instincts to make us want to lord it over other humans ? So what a lot of people like yourself really want to do is fulfill such instincts, but what if there are not enough jobs, and even worse what if increasing computer automation (cheaper to outsource abroad) is going to keep taking more jobs ? Its predicted to, and its already happening.
I am pretty well educated in the sciences. So in the sciences spouting opinions is frowned upon, because even trained scientists use a brain, and we all know that brains are prone to bias. This is precisely why scientific thinking was invented. There is no worse place for bias to exist than in politics, because human bias itself evolved from political modes of reasoning. Think about that. Not for me. I can see your agenda. Think about it for yourself, because its very transparent what you are trying to do here.
LB
That’s because the welfare state hasn’t worked.
It’s spent trillions and there are no perceivable outcomes.
So look at your science background. What’s the evidence that the trillions spent have worked? None. It’s just as bad and in many cases worse.
There are enough jobs, and not surprisingly when the evidence is presented that the jobs are their in Brum, you go into denial mode. The hard evidence in the form of job adverts says there is work available.
Now look at the next bit of evidence about the welfare state. It’s got debts.
http://www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities
The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying £7.1 trillion in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still in the workforce.
It doesn’t have assets. It’s an unfunded scheme.
So on top of it not producing results for the trillions spent, the end result on top is that its got a 7,100 bn debt with no assets.
Hard evidence again. Lets see. On the basis of your past performance you’re going to deny that the state owes any money to anyone for a pension. In other words your solution is to default on the debts.
Now since the poor are the most reliant on their pensions, they are the ones that get screwed the most. They will be destitute.
But what the heck, you’ve spent their retirement money on White Dee, and on optional migrants.
That’s why you won’t debate the specific cases. It’s why you will say that the are no jobs when the evidence is put in front of you. It’s why that you will deny that the debt to pensioners exists.
After all, if you faced up to reality, you would have to conclude that its a disaster for the poor.
Felix Lanzalaco
so people are actually tracking some of these people down to put them in jobs. This is a form of token witch-hunt because there are nowhere near enough jobs even for the motivated. All societies have a percentage who cannot work, that is the nature of life. Life itself always creates redundancy.
What about this article here. So in reality 30% in benefits street are on benefits, and educational attainment is slightly above average. Although thats not saying much. Ghettos evolve because society creates them by natural assortment. We have them here in Glasgow. They are comprised of people who are marginalized for various reasons (some their own fault, some not) and cannot get housing in better areas, The councils also put tenants with drug and mental health issues in these areas. So it all feeds into itself and benefits are not the primary issue. Why ? Ghettos are similiar around the world with or without benefits. There is a particular mindset in most ghettos which is natural product of the way minds in poverty are forced to process and deal with the world.
Your worldview then demands us to believe that all minds are created equal in terms of the ability to process information, retain motivation, comply with the law, maintain attention and keep mood high. Yet the information from genome analysis of populations tells us different. It tells us that genetics continously create a marginal population who cannot keep on track as a product of life itself. How we treat that margin affects their long term outcome. You think these TV programs which misrepresent those populations are helping with that ? The society we have is the product of our problem solving (or not). If we go on IDS type crusades and witchunts that pander to mob mentality then we make the problem worse and so the problem is really a reflection of our own incompetence and not the people targetted for short term “feel good”. An intelligent solution lies in looking at and emulating countries who deal with this problem better. i.e. Northern Europe.
LB
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-50p-man-smoggy-3001481#.UuPUbhBFDRY
Benefits Street star Smoggy has had the last laugh on welfare chiefs – by being offered three jobs just months after he was told he was not doing enough to find work.
Channel 4’s so-called 50p man – real name Stephen Smith – was forced to give up his fledgling business when his Jobseekers Allowance was stopped.
Benefits chiefs said the 38-year-old was not looking for “proper work” and scrapped his £90-a-fortnight payments – leaving him broke.
But after touching the hearts of the nation, popular Stephen has been inundated with job offers from impressed would-be employers.
Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-50p-man-smoggy-3001481#ixzz2rQJiItGL
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
=================
I’m not surprised he was offered work. He’s quite employable even with a criminal record.
Ghettos are similiar around the world with or without benefits.
So benefits aren’t the solution. Correct – you’ve worked that bit out.
Trillions spent, and no results.
So what’s your explanation? The standard socialist response from Beveridge to Hilter, that its the genes. Those two concluded eugenics was the solution.
So come on, I’ve given hard examples of how to solve quite a few of the cases on benefits street.
Smoggy is the easy one. Now what about the other easy cases.
Why not deport the Polish duggies committing benefit fraud?
LB
In addition to Ms Roberts, other residents of James Turner Street to be charged were:
– Tina Thomas, 46, charged with conspiracy to supply Class B drugs (cannabis) and possession of ammunition without a certificate.
• Charlene Wilson, 29, charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (crack cocaine) and Class B drugs (cannabis) and possession of diamorphine.
• Ian Wright, 38, charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (crack cocaine) and conspiracy to supply Class B drugs (cannabis).
• Monique Walker, 28, charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (crack cocaine).
• Marvin Scott, 37, charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (crack cocaine).
In addition, Omari George, 20, of Dora Road, Handsworth, was charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (crack cocaine) and Class B drugs (cannabis).
==============
Yep, whilst we’ve been paying them to find work, they’ve been busy.