Over the past few weeks, the ever-rising cost of living and the visibility of many people struggling to grapple with basic sustenance has been thrown into the spotlight. The housing crisis and rapidly rising prices for essentials such as food and fuel has been paired with a government who have, so far, demonstrated a stark level of apathy to the situation, blind to the struggles so many face in everyday life.
How are young people, even those doing the “right” things like pursuing education or training, supposed to survive in this world? This world that offers little to no support and seems to exploit all of our efforts at every step through life? We are currently living in a society that expects people on low incomes to survive with less than a living wage (€12.90 per hour in Ireland).
Coupled with the attention being given to the spiralling cost of living is not not patience for economic conditions to recover and government policies to take effect. Rather, it’s another phenomenon being termed the Great Resignation.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, something extraordinary has been observed by economists around the world: people in their masses began to voluntarily quit their jobs. What makes this unusual is the fact that along with the pandemic came one of the largest global economic shocks we have ever experienced. Generally, in times of economic turndown, individuals tend to hold tightly onto any job they may currently have, as employers resort to laying off workers to cut costs and deal with the uncertainty of the future. And yet, a massive proportion of those who managed to hold onto their jobs during the pandemic willfully decided to let go of what stability they had.
A massive proportion of those who managed to hold onto their jobs during the pandemic willfully decided to let go of what stability they had
While unprecedented levels of unemployment emerged as many workers were laid off for pandemic-related reasons, such a scenario was not met with an increased demand for employment. The opposite seemed to emerge: suddenly less and less people were willing to work.
In response to this mass unemployment, governments implemented various levels of monetary stimuli in hopes of re-invigorating the economy. Most importantly, funds were “found” to assist those unemployed and those most acutely affected by the crisis. Moreover, individuals were provided with once-off cheques or regular payments from programmes such as the PUP, which provided people with sums that were comparable with their standard wages – without the need to work.
I believe this phenomenon has woken us up, particularly struggling young people, to the realities of the functioning of the world and ignorance of societal issues by those in more privileged positions. It was made incredibly apparent that governments have the capabilities of releasing incredible sums of money into their economies, including businesses, various programmes, and infrastructural projects. I will not omit that this has been significantly financed by borrowing and that long term, this level of intervention may be unsustainable. What is sustainable, however, is a shift in our priorities. That is, we have the potential to redirect resources to the ordinary worker, the ordinary individual.
The Great Resignation is a reaction to the consistent lack of this approach, which seems to worsen from year to year. What better way to stand up against the cost of living and the meagre contribution that employment grants one towards getting by, than to refuse to fulfil the societal requirements of a job? It is not that people do not want to work: people do not want to work on zero-hour contracts for minimum wage and without any sense of security and stability. These so-called precarious jobs have been plaguing our society because employers attempt to maximise their efficiency (and thus profits) by offering short-term employment only when required.
We have the potential to redirect resources to the ordinary worker, the ordinary individual
In other words, employers reduce the risk they take on by weakening their ties and obligations to their employees. This has evidently gotten to a point where the ties are so weak and working conditions so low that the minor financial benefit offered by a job is no longer worth it.
When presented with the option of remaining in receipt of the PUP or going back to such precarious and low-reward work, the choice for most people is simple. This is not any sort of global strike or Marxist revolution, such a choice has simply become undeniably practical. What the Great Resignation has demonstrated is that, relatively speaking, the recompense of being involved in the labour market is so low and the cost of living so high that we are ready to accept a (still insufficient) government unemployment programme because it is the better, more secure offer.
We have already seen from Trump’s tax cuts on the rich that “trickle-down economics” does not work. But the question I would like to ask is: Does it not make more sense to invest in those in precarious jobs and let the money flow horizontally, across the general population?
The Great Resignation is not a macro-level phenomenon akin to the act of children defying their parents in want of a new toy. It is the natural human search for decency and fair conditions. Working conditions, in respect to stability and predictability, have greatly declined over recent years. This has been brought about by the waning supports provided by governments to those who are dependent on them. The reason why these precarious jobs are undertaken is because they have become a necessity for survival – to pay rent, to pay for tuition, to pay for groceries, and so on.
The pandemic has shown us that governments are ready to act and support us when required. When a job that treats us with inhumane expectations and rewards is not a necessity anymore, it is to be expected that there will suddenly be no one willing to work and for staff shortages to become the norm. The issue does not lie in the ordinary individual who is making the rational decision not to work due to the returns not being worth their time, but in how the government manages its expenditure and who it truly benefits.
