When Beveridge was writing about the Giant of “Idleness” in 1942, his concern was primarily about the unemployment that had scarred the economy for two decades prior to the Second World War. Eighty years on, this is no longer the pressing issue. Today, we have historically high rates of employment, but also our highest ever rates of in-work poverty. The UK is stuck in a lowpay, low-productivity rut. We have a two-tier economy in which far too many people are working in poor quality jobs, with barely any training and little chance of getting on. Growth in the gig economy and short-hours work has brought insecurity to the labour market in defiance of employment protections built up steadily since the Second World War.

Our economic and policy debate has failed to keep up with the reality of today's economy. Today, too often Conservative government ministers trumpet high employment rates whilst many in the Labour Party talk about the need to create jobs. The conversation feels like it is stuck in the 1980s or early 1990s and misses the elephant in the room: too many of those jobs don’t enable people to enjoy a decent standard of living and nor do they provide the security, dignity and prospects for progression to which we should all have access. Today's problem with the labour market is not a shortage of work but a shortage of good quality work: inclusive, decently-paid, and secure, with prospects for advancement. If Beveridge were surveying the labour market today, instead of the unemployment of the 1920s and 1930s, poor quality, insecure work and lack of progression would be the giant he would seek to slay.

We have argued throughout this book that underlying this crisis is the question of power and that the balance of power between low-paid workers and employers has shifted decisively towards the latter. People feel trapped: trapped by the lack of progression options but, most of all, trapped by the lack of alternative jobs that offer a better future. If there is no way out of your current workplace, and your employer knows that, what incentive do they have to try harder to keep you?

It seems fairly obvious that the state should have an interest in promoting good work, decent pay, and better progression. Higher tax revenues and a happier population are two of the obvious benefits.