Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    For the umpteenth time. Jesus...

    The term 'relative poverty' is meaningless as an indicator of poverty because more people are in 'relative poverty' when everyone is richer, and less people are in 'relative poverty' when everyone is poorer.

    The median wage has fallen because wages have fallen across the board, so in theory, everyone should be in more poverty than they were before.

    But oh no, because the median wage has fallen, there are less people falling into what constitutes 'relative poverty'. It has dropped from 18.7% to 16.2%.

    Get it yet?
    Once again, please stop being offensive, there is absolutely no need!

    Absolute poverty is not going up because we have all (or all of us except the wealthiest) got poorer since 2009 is hardly cause for celebration!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Please desist from using such offensive language in a public thread.

    Yes, I didn't see that line item in the earlier post and it isn't in the one I replied to.

    You are assuming she gets full HB support for her rent? Isn't that a pretty unlikely assumption? HB does not fully compensate private rent in almost all cases.
    I actually took the time out and used the Government's Benefits calculator.

    I assumed she was unemployed with no other income, as most unemployed people are (at least undeclared, in any case) input all the data, including her £1100 a month flat.

    Who am I to set out how much the rent costs? Whatever it was, the Government's Benefits calculator has assessed her as being FULLY entitled to all her rent to be covered.

    Once more, it isn't MY imaginary example...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I actually took the time out and used the Government's Benefits calculator.

    I assumed she was unemployed with no other income, as most unemployed people are (at least undeclared, in any case) input all the data, including her £1100 a month flat.

    Who am I to set out how much the rent costs? Whatever it was, the Government's Benefits calculator has assessed her as being FULLY entitled to all her rent to be covered.

    Once more, it isn't MY imaginary example...
    OK, fair enough.

    Was it you who or the previous poster who made the assumption that she was fully unemployed? I'm not going off to check detailed tables now, but I believe that the data shows that it's the working poor and working lower-middles who are suffering the most in terms of childcare support costs, for what it's worth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Once again, please stop being offensive, there is absolutely no need!

    Absolute poverty is not going up because we have all (or all of us except the wealthiest) got poorer since 2009 is hardly cause for celebration!
    Irrelevant. Relative poverty has dropped.

    Odd that you place so much stock in the term 'relative poverty' when something shows that it has increased (your previous link to CPAG) regardless of the reason (the fact that incomes had previously been rising).

    Yet when we as a nation have all gotten poorer due to average incomes dropping, in spite of the fact that this causes the number who are in relative poverty to decrease, (which according to your logic should be a good thing) this fact is swept under the carpet and it's now 'absolue poverty' that matters.

    I'm really enjoying watching you attempting to wriggle out of admitting this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Are you being serious Winston? The Dujail massacre was one of many massacres occuring during the war.
    You are the one ignoring anything which contradicts your point. Very few politicians praise dictators once retired.
    My point was that the Dujail massacre was the only crime Hussein was prosecuted for. I was pedantic so to speak.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    You keep ignoring the fact that western countries with small social gaps have far less crime than those with larger gaps. Compare the UK and US to Sweden, Norway, Denmark.
    Do that "Sherlock" and get back at me
    As I have pointed out, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are simply three you have cherry picked.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    OK, fair enough.

    Was it you who or the previous poster who made the assumption that she was fully unemployed? I'm not going off to check detailed tables now, but I believe that the data shows that it's the working poor and working lower-middles who are suffering the most in terms of childcare support costs, for what it's worth.
    It was me. Which to be fair, isn't much of a stretch when you consider that in the example she is a single mum with two children.

    Why should she work and have all those extra outgoings when she gets all that without having to lift a finger (looking after the children at home doesn't count, obviously I mean going out and working.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Irrelevant. Relative poverty has dropped.

    Odd that you place so much stock in the term 'relative poverty' when something shows that it has increased (your previous link to CPAG) regardless of the reason (the fact that incomes had previously been rising).

    Yet when we as a nation have all gotten poorer due to average incomes dropping, in spite of the fact that this causes the number who are in relative poverty to decrease, (which according to your logic should be a good thing) this fact is swept under the carpet and it's now 'absolue poverty' that matters.

    I'm really enjoying watching you attempting to wriggle out of admitting this.
    Enjoy it, because nothing of the sort is happening, but another offensive remark that serves no debating purpose.

    There's no sweeping under the carpet. I suspect the figures for this year when they come out will show that poverty as defined by the government will have increased yet further, despite the current government's best efforts to make most people poorer, some will have beaten the game and got poor even more rapidly!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    It was me. Which to be fair, isn't much of a stretch when you consider that in the example she is a single mum with two children.

    Why should she work and have all those extra outgoings when she gets all that without having to lift a finger (looking after the children at home doesn't count, obviously I mean going out and working.)
    Can you run the figures from those tables you're using for her position if she was working and earning a modest salary, let's say £15K, adding in her WTCs? I believe it will be more but she will be penalised on the childcare side, correct?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Single mum, one year old identical twins, husband left her.

    Unemployed.

    Child Tax credit £114 per week
    Housing Benefit £253.85 per week
    Council tax benefit £0 - It has just been abolished.
    Child benefit £33.70 per week
    Jobseekers £71.70 per week

    That is £494.96, a week, less housing benefits, equivalent pre tax (including student loan and 5% pension contribution) income of approximately £38,000.

    Minus the housing benefit and money due on council tax, (£253.85 + £20.77 = £274.62 weekly) this leaves £220.34 a week (multiplied by 4.3) or £947.46 monthly.

    £95 a month? Why is she bothering with work? Because as a single mother with two children, it would be ridiculously easy to contrive a situation where she were not easily employed and eligible for TEN TIMES the figure you quoted.

    No child care requirements either. Walking 20 miles to work and back a day? Yeah right, in your dreams.



    If I was a single mum of two, I would not be on £95 a month, FACT.



    LOL, at least it was actually based on reality, unlike your one above. What if he just 'feels' poor?
    Sadly, this example is based on reality. I know these figures because I know this person. You may be right, that if she didn't work she would be financially better off. As fullofsurprises said, however, housing benefit is often not as much as rent may actually cost. I wasn't making claims that the our welfare state is good/bad, I was making the point that poverty exists. I'm not arguing that it only exists amongst those classified as in 'relative poverty' by official statistics. On the contrary, I am saying that many people are vulnerable to poverty and that it does exist. This is the key point that I have tried to make - that not being able to feed oneself, heat ones home, clothe oneself, house oneself... is poverty. Some people in the UK find that one, or all, of these apply to them. Therefore, poverty, to whatever extent, does exist in this country. You may not personally feel that this is the case, but if an individual meets any or all of those criteria then they are definitionally in poverty. Even just in terms of dictionary definitions.


    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Overgenerous, certainly as I have just surely demonstrated above.



    I don't agree with every single point the Conservatives are pushing, just as I'm sure you don't agree with every point Labour are pushing (or do you?)

    I have provided evidence to back up all my points where requested. Including demonstrating more than adequately that the term relative poverty is meaningless because more people are in relative poverty when everyone is richer, and less people are in relative poverty when everyone is poorer.

    As a final note, I too have spent times on extremely low income and have only survived because of the generosity of friends and family. However, it doesn't make me in 'poverty'.
    I have never claimed to belong to any political party. I have never claimed to be Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat.. anything. In fact, I make it my business not to subscribe to any political party. The point I make about Cameron is that he isn't pushing a point, he's talking about British poverty in a casual sense because of the consensus that exists amongst most people that it exists. You are, in my view, quite out of the ordinary to make the claim that it does not. Maybe the term 'relative poverty' is useless because it isn't an accurate measurement and can include outliers. This still doesn't add up to poverty not existing and you still haven't addressed fuel poverty. Why? probably because its sound, agreed upon evidence. You backed yourself into a corner by making a very bold statement that is almost impossible to prove. I accept your points re: definitions/measurements but in no way, that poverty doesn't exist.

    We can, I think, agree to disagree on this issue but thanks for the debate in any case.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Enjoy it, because nothing of the sort is happening, but another offensive remark that serves no debating purpose.

    There's no sweeping under the carpet. I suspect the figures for this year when they come out will show that poverty as defined by the government will have increased yet further, despite the current government's best efforts to make most people poorer, some will have beaten the game and got poor even more rapidly!
    I was laughing because while CPAG was saying that 'relative poverty' was increasing - this meant that 'absolute poverty' was decreasing as wages went up. However no surprise that you pick whichever one suits your point of view.

    Full of surprises says "The people at the bottom are less well off because of 'relative poverty' " when incomes rise across the board (yet being better off in reality)

    Full of surprises says "The people at the bottom are less well off because of 'absolute poverty' " when incomes fall across the board (yet this brings them out of 'relative poverty')

    It leads me to believe that whatever happens to all incomes across the board, rising or falling, you will still find some way to claim that 'the poor are worse off because of 'absolute/relative poverty'

    You just use whatever definition is convenient to you, regardless of what is happening to incomes in reality!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I was laughing because while CPAG was saying that 'relative poverty' was increasing - this meant that 'absolute poverty' was decreasing as wages went up. However no surprise that you pick whichever one suits your point of view.

    Full of surprises says "The people at the bottom are less well off because of 'relative poverty' " when incomes rise across the board (yet being better off in reality)

    Full of surprises says "The people at the bottom are less well off because of 'absolute poverty' " when incomes fall across the board (yet this brings them out of 'relative poverty')

    It leads me to believe that whatever happens to all incomes across the board, rising or falling, you will still find some way to claim that 'the poor are worse off because of 'absolute/relative poverty'

    You just use whatever definition is convenient to you, regardless of what is happening to incomes in reality!
    It's a fair criticism that if poverty retreats, that should be stated. I think we should wait and see though, as I said, I seriously doubt that either relative or absolute poverty are in decline.

    Given that Cameron is trying to reintroduce hardcore Thatcherism, a key component of which was to squeeze the bejesus out of those incomes derived from the state, I am confident that poverty will sharply increase, along with other glad tidings of social collapse such as increased homelessness, suicide, depression and crime. They are such strong hallmarks of a Tory period in office that the party ought to consider making logos out of them and displaying those on election leaflets. Someone sleeping in a doorway for example, or being thrown out of their lifelong home in London and deported to Peterborough. (This latter one is actually happening - the new 'trial' London Boroughs that are road-testing the bedroom tax are working with Peterborough to house the socially cleansed poor out of their Boroughs.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    London is where the crisis usually emerges, but I've read that HB is woefully deficient for the private sector outside London, although landlords are of course adjusting their rents to factor in HB.
    Considering that London's house prices are 3 times the national average- it's likely the few people affected outside the M25 must have been living in relatively luxurious accommodation!

    I'm sure you're sources are exaggerating- the HB cap is more than sufficient for most of the UK especially as there are areas where houses still go for under 80k!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    Under Thatcher, the rich became richer, and the poor became richer.

    No.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    That's a bit of a tautology isn't it? Of course 'poverty' is a manifestation of 'inequality', by definition? :confused:

    The truth is that 'poverty' is always and in all places and societies, a relative concept. One is poor compared to those who are not.

    No it isn't.

    One is poor relative to a standard of wealth or income considered by a society to be necessary to not be in poverty. The number of people falling above or below that standard is irrelevant to this. Otherwise one has the absurdity that provided everyone is in penury, no-one is.

    In every country, or at least every country with some kind of intelligent government, the authorities and official statisticians make an effort to define 'poverty' for their country, based on what is considered to be the minimum acceptable standard of living. When people, including government officials, admit that at least a million children are still living below the poverty line, they haven't just dreamed it up - they accept this definition.
    But that produces the nonsense that child poverty fell in 2011, not because poor families became wealthier but because rich ones became poorer.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Considering that London's house prices are 3 times the national average- it's likely the few people affected outside the M25 must have been living in relatively luxurious accommodation!

    I'm sure you're sources are exaggerating- the HB cap is more than sufficient for most of the UK especially as there are areas where houses still go for under 80k!
    I wasn't talking about the new cap, but about the pre-existing insufficiency of HB in relation to private rents - it has always been lower than private rents in all areas, for all but the absolute dreggiest of squalid bedsits, etc.

    One of the most bizarre consequences of the new restriction on rooms and the cap is that local authority bills for rehousing in London will soar, because the LAs are still under a legal obligation to provide a roof for those families with young children, disabled family members, etc. So they are switching to the horrible and ridiculously overpriced cheap 'hotel' (hotel is too nice a word for what they are) beds in London at insane cost to the council tax payer.

    This presumably won't last - IDS will want legislation capping LA payments for emergency rehousing. So, as widely predicted, this time next year we will be seeing large numbers of families with young children living rough in London, something not seen here since before the First World War and on a par with Mumbai, Nairobi and Lagos.

    I watched Boris on Mayor's QT the other day and he had absolutely no answer to it, when before he had sworn there would be no social cleansing - the relocation to Peterborough and other distant towns is the only plausible escape mechanism currently available.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Are you being serious Winston? The Dujail massacre was one of many massacres occuring during the war.
    You are the one ignoring anything which contradicts your point. Very few politicians praise dictators once retired. You keep ignoring the fact that western countries with small social gaps have far less crime than those with larger gaps. Compare the UK and US to Sweden, Norway, Denmark.
    Do that "Sherlock" and get back at me
    Hmm but (relative) poverty is no excuse for crime
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Eh? You are the one concentrating on semantics. You are the one who keeps trying to hammer home the difference between mean and median as though it were somehow relevant to my argument.

    9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Median value 5, mean value 5. A contrived benchmark for comparing whether future examples increase or reduce relative poverty.

    20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 4, 3, 2, 1. Median value 12 mean value 10 - median value rises, but people below the median are still the same as before, yet relative poverty has increased without any change in income.

    4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1. Median value 3, mean value 3. Median value has fallen, those at the bottom are still earning the same, but apparently are better off because less are assessed as being in relative poverty.

    9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4. Median value 8, mean value 6.6. Median value has risen, but more are in relative poverty in spite of them earning much more than they were before.
    And stillll you are trying to give me a maths lesson. Stop focusing on means, I know what it means! Pardon the pun and reply to my argument instead.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Hmm but (relative) poverty is no excuse for crime
    I didn't say it's an excuse, but that is reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)

    Enemy naval vessel gets sunk in war. Shock. Horror. Help. Police.
    Your flippant post doesn't hide or refute the fact that it was a war crime and dozens of mothers are now without their sons and dozens of children grew up without a dad.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    My point was that the Dujail massacre was the only crime Hussein was prosecuted for. I was pedantic so to speak.



    As I have pointed out, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are simply three you have cherry picked.
    I never claimed that Hussein was convicted of anything else.

    No, they are examples of other western nations like Britain with similar systems but smaller social gaps. The result? Less crime!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.