[marcusfox]

Because average wages are dropping, the number of children living in poverty has dropped significantly. So apparently, as everyone has less money, those with the least are now less poor.

All this does is prove yet again, that the way so called poverty is measured is stupid.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Because average wages are dropping, the number of children living in poverty has dropped significantly. So apparently, as everyone has less money, those with the least are now less poor.

All this does is prove yet again, that the way so called poverty is measured is stupid.

Yet when IDS points this out, he is attacked by the Guardian, who claimed he was 'blaming poverty on the poor'. Absolute definitions of poverty are the only realistic measure. Relative poverty is just a statistical tool used by leftist parties to justify making us all equal and poor.

[OU Student]

The poverty line is based on 60% of the median income. It doesn't take into account things like the amount living in a household, etc.

[callum9999]

I've been saying this for years - it's absolutely rubbish. And it doesn't help that the media never use the correct term - it isn't poverty, it's relative poverty - VERY different.

Though the cause is of course admiral, I've grown up - as far as the Government/charities etc. are concerned - in poverty. Yet I've never once been hungry (due to not being able to afford food), we have unlimited clean water piped to the house, the house is heated when cold, we've had bikes, computers, TVs, games consoles etc. Yes we could never afford to run a car and didn't go on foreign holidays etc. - but my life was perfectly fine and as it was for a period completely paid for by the government (and therefore taxpayers), I don't think I could have asked for more.

While there are people worse off than that, it shows that the official statistics are just plain wrong and need to be completely scrapped and reworked.