As welfare changes kick in, the cautionary tale of "strivers v skivers" is meant to sugar the pill. "Where's the fairness" asked George Osborne in his conference speech last year, "for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits … We speak for all those who want to work hard and get on … They strive for a better life. We strive to help them."

Later, he seized on Mick Philpott as a monstrous illustration of what happens when people live off the state. It's a slippery slope, he implied, from the first benefit claimed, to the multiplication of offspring and slaughter of innocents.

This story of good versus evil tells us that people in paid work are "strivers". They are socially dependable, economically productive, morally righteous and on "our side". People not in paid work are "skivers". They are untrustworthy, unproductive, morally disreputable and not on "our side". Strivers get "nothing for something" because they work, earn, pay taxes and receive no benefits. Skivers get "something for nothing" because they make no contribution to society while depending on state handouts. Dependency is a social evil that becomes a lifelong habit and is passed from one generation to the next.

If you're finding life a struggle you can blame the "skivers", rather than anything else, such as the government's economic policies. And you can rest assured that the government's welfare reforms will stop fuelling wicked, worthless worklessness.

It is a seductive story and it is pure fiction.

First, people hardly ever choose to be in or out of work. They get jobs if there are jobs available and they are able to work. The vast majority of those who are not in paid employment are unable to work because they are disabled or have caring responsibilities, or because there are no jobs around. Sometimes, two or more of these conditions apply at once. At least four people on jobseeker's allowance are chasing every unfilled jobcentre vacancy in the country. In some areas there are more than 20 jobseekers per vacancy. Even in the best of times, it is harder for disabled people and carers to find suitable employment.

There's no evidence that claiming benefits traps people in long-term dependency. Less than half claim jobseeker's allowance for more than 13 weeks and only 10% of all claimants claim for more than a year. The JSA pays only £71 per week or a meagre £56 per week for those under 25.

Does the dependency argument hold for those claiming other benefits? The graphs below show the proportion of people claiming benefits from the DWP in February 2011, distinguished by the types of benefits they claim. The first shows all claims. The second shows claims lasting five years or more.

Pie1 Photograph: guardian.co.uk

More than 80% of those claiming benefits for five years or more are claiming incapacity benefit, disability living allowance, or employment and support allowance. Less than 6% are claiming benefits to help them as lone parents, while only 1% are claiming unemployment benefit. People receiving longterm benefits are those with longterm or severe disabilities, those with physical or mental disabilities who require support as a result of the costs their conditions impose, and those whose caring responsibilities prevent them from being able to work.

Pie 2 Photograph: guardian.co.uk

A strong component of the myth is that a "culture of worklessness" is passed down through generations of benefit claimants. In reality, it is not at all common for children to follow their parents' example and opt for benefits instead of seeking work. An analysis of data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) found that of families with two generations living in the same household, the proportion where both generations had never worked made up less than 1% – around 15,000 households across the UK. The rare cases of "intergenerational worklessness" were more likely to be explained by a lack of jobs than by any preference for claiming benefits rather than working.

Nor are there two separate groups of hardworking goodies and jobless baddies. In reality, people slip between employment and unemployment, often within the space of a few months, as the economy relies increasingly on short-term, low-pay, insecure contracts. This happens even more in areas where the economy is especially weak. In Teesside, one of the UK's struggling economic regions, research has found that, for many people, "shuttling between benefits and jobs" has become their predominant experience of working life.

Perhaps the gravest error of all is the blindness of this fairytale to the value of unpaid work. In real life, the formal economy – in which people work for money – would grind to a halt without all the work that people do for no money at all: caring for others, bringing up children and looking after their families, homes and neighbourhoods. Most of this goes unnoticed, without status or price tag. Yet its value has been estimated at more than 20% of gross domestic product – and that's when hours are priced as if paid at just the national minimum wage. Many people are not in paid work because they have prior responsibilities that involve unpaid labour. The so-called "skivers" contribute a great deal more than nothing for the something they receive.

The division between "strivers" and "skivers", then, is a false one. The majority of jobless people are out of work because they are disabled, have caring responsibilities or simply cannot find a job. All of us depend throughout our life on others' hard work. Some of that work attracts a wage, but that doesn't make it any more valuable. Much of it is unpaid, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. We need a benefits system that respects and supports this interdependence – not one that fosters division, competition and looking after "number one".

• This mythbuster is part of a series co-ordinated by the New Economics Foundation and the Tax Justice Network. You can read the full length pieces here