Two Systems, One Story

 Last week marked the conclusion of the Workforce Economic Inclusion and Mobility (WEIM) research collaboration between CHASM and CSD (Washington University in St. Louis). This project provided a detailed account of financial precarity in the UK and USA, through a cross-national partnership spanning two contrasting systems. Through detailed analysis of representative data using mutually agreed analytical frameworks, the project offered a rare opportunity to examine employment precarity, access to benefits, financial services use, and insecurity across both countries. The findings underline both the pressures experienced by low-wage workers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The fourth and final joint research brief brings various strands of the project together, to compare the realities of work and financial vulnerability in the two economies. Despite key differences in aspects of their social protection systems and employment legislation, the findings reveal a shared story of instability, limited protections, and heightened exposure to financial shocks.

Key Findings:

Unstable Employment
• In the US, precarious employment was the norm among low-wage workers. Only 28% of low-wage US workers reported stable, permanent jobs with predictable schedules.
• In contrast, in the UK, 16% of low-moderate income workers (particularly younger and minority ethnic groups) were in precarious roles, such as zero hours or temporary contracts.

Uneven Access to Benefits
• A minority (41%) of US low-wage workers had access to essential employer benefits including health insurance and sick leave. Many also faced “benefits cliffs”, losing public support if earnings increased slightly.
• Although the NHS provides universal healthcare, many precarious UK workers lack equal access to sick pay, holiday pay, or employer supported financial benefits due to the nature of their contract.

High-Cost Credit and Limited Financial Tools
• Precarious workers in both countries relied more heavily on high-cost credit—Buy-Now-Pay- Later (BNPL) products, payday loans, or other short-term borrowing—to absorb shocks than those with more secure work.
• In the US they were also less likely to hold traditional banking or retirement accounts.

Widespread Financial Insecurity
• Only 36% of US low-wage workers had emergency savings.
• UK precarious workers were substantially more likely to fall behind on bills and to seek debt advice.

Across both systems, job insecurity emerged as the strongest predictor of financial hardship, from food insufficiency to chronic arrears.

In a period defined by economic turbulence and post pandemic uncertainty, the transatlantic collaboration stands out as one of the few contemporary research programmes providing novel insights into the relative circumstances of low-wage and precarious workers across both countries. This partnership offers rare insight into how workers are navigating unstable employment, volatile incomes, and uneven access to financial and social protections - issues that have intensified since COVID-19. By examining the findings and their implications side by side, the project introduces a comparative vantage point that deepens our understanding of the structural sources of insecurity, extending what any single country study could reveal.

United States of Volatility

For anyone paying even passing attention to events in the United States during 2024–26 it was clear that the environment in which the US research was conducted shifted dramatically during the life of the project. From 2025 onward, US higher education faced the largest set of federal interventions in modern history. Changes to funding, immigration rules, DEI policies, and research governance reshaped institutional priorities and introduced new constraints for scholars.

At the same time, the passage of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) in July 2025 radically altered the welfare landscape. Deep cuts to Medicaid, intensified eligibility checks, and new work reporting obligations are projected to push 10–12 million Americans out of healthcare coverage - particularly those with unstable hours or holding multiple part time jobs. In other words, precisely the populations at the centre of the WEIM project.

These political shocks reverberated widely, influencing the research landscape and bringing into sharp focus the interplay between contemporary social science and the policy turbulence and labour market precarity it explores.

Comparisons Aren’t Odious

While the US experienced acute disruption, the UK has faced its own political and economic flux, reinforcing the analytical value of examining how different systems can create or increase vulnerabilities. The final research brief’s comparative analysis makes this clear, with healthcare offering a particularly salient example.

The US system ties coverage to employment and insurance markets; workers in precarious jobs are at constant risk of losing healthcare access through no fault of their own. In contrast, the NHS provides healthcare at the point of use, irrespective of employment status. The US and UK systems are so fundamentally different that, at first glance, meaningful comparison seems awkward. One system individualises risk, the other pools it collectively - a pertinent distinction as questions about the NHS’s direction persist. Yet when we look at the lived experiences of low‑wage and insecure workers, the outcomes begin to converge in striking and unmistakable ways: chronic stress, financial strain, deteriorating mental health, and a sharply reduced capacity to absorb shocks. Even with free healthcare at the point of use, an overburdened NHS with its long waiting lists and limited access to timely support - particularly for mental health - demonstrates that collective provision cannot always mitigate the strain generated by precarious work. In other words, the health and financial wellbeing of precarious workers look remarkably similar across two very different systems - a reminder that further individualising risk will compound insecurity, but that universalism alone cannot offset the wider pressures created by insecure working conditions.  Governments and employers play a pivotal role in removing these pressures.

So here the strengths of a comparative lens come into focus. The convergence of outcomes makes clear that these vulnerabilities do not stem solely from the individual architecture of healthcare or welfare provision. Rather, they reflect deeper, structural labour market conditions that transcend national boundaries: instability of hours, volatility of income, and the steady erosion of employer provided security. Viewed this way, comparative research moves beyond ranking one system against another; it becomes a means of uncovering the shared structural pressures that shape workers’ lives regardless of differences in institutional design, tracing the deeper roots of insecurity. Understanding these shared pressures is crucial for designing policies that can withstand the realities of modern labour markets, where instability increasingly travels across borders.

Transatlantic Exchange

As the CHASM-CSD partnership concludes, it leaves a clearer sense of how low wage and insecure work is experienced in two different national contexts - and how, despite those differences, similar pressures emerge when employment is unstable. Working comparatively has highlighted that while institutional arrangements shape the contours of support, labour market conditions drive insecurity in ways that cross national boundaries. Recognising how these forces interact across contexts offers a useful foundation for thinking more clearly about the challenges facing low wage and precarious workers today. These insights clearly highlight the potential benefits of targeted support for precarious workers in both countries that helps them to build financial security and avoid problem debt.