The value which society places on work has traditionally been closely associated with the value of individualism and as a result it has had negative effects on the development of social security. (46)It has meant that in the first place the amount of benefits must be small lest people"s willingness to work and support themselves suffers.Even today with flat rate and earnings-related benefits, the total amount of the benefit must always be smaller than the person"s wages for fear of malingering, "The purpose of social security", said Huntford referring to Sweden"s comparatively generous benefits, "is to dispel need without crossing the threshold of prosperity". (47)Second, social security benefits are granted under conditions designed to reduce the likelihood of even the boldest of spirits attempting to live on the State rather than work.Many of the rules surrounding the payment of unemployment or supplementary benefit are for this purpose. Third, the value placed on work is manifested in a more positive way as in the case of disability. People suffering from accidents incurred at work or from occupational diseases receive preferential treatment by the social security service compared with those suffering from civil accidents and ordinary illnesses. Yet, the stranglehold which work has had on the social security service has been increasingly loosened over the years. The provision of family allowances, family income supplements, the slight liberalization of the wages stop are some of the manifestations of this trend. (48)Similarly, the preferential treatment given to occupational disability by the social security service has been increasingly questioned with the demands for the upgrading of benefits for the other types of disability.It is felt that in contemporary industrial societies the distinction between occupational and non-occupational disability is artificial for many non-occupational forms of disability have an industrial origin even if they do not occur directly in the workplace. (49)There is also the additional reason which we mentioned in the argument for one benefit for all one-parent families, that a modern social security service must concentrate on meeting needs irrespective of the causes behind such needs.The relationship between social security and work is not all a one-way affair. (50)It is true that until very recently the general view was that social security "represented a type of luxury and was essentially anti economic". It was seen as merely government expenditure for the needy.As we saw, however, redundancy payments and earnings-related unemployment benefits have been used with some success by employers and the government to reduce workers" opposition towards loss of their jobs.