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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    Oh and if you hadn't noticed there, she isn't even supposed to be in poverty with an income considerably above the average. Capitalism forces us to be wage labourers - if the wages don't cover the basic costs of food and shelter or childcare which facilitates the ability to be a wage labourer, then you are in poverty.
    And communism/socialism was such a brilliant success in the USSR!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    And communism/socialism was such a brilliant success in the USSR!
    I love the part where I recommended communism... oh wait, I didn't.
    I'm saying that the system we live under, love it or loathe it, necessitates wage labour. That is all.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I think I must be hallucinating, reading your posts after I explained it in terms so simple even a child could understand



    Where you took it to imagine I was taking about mean incomes when I was talking about median incomes (see the quote below)



    Please quote the post number where I do this?



    LOL



    Okkkkkk. But nobody mentioned a high income mean but you. In any case, having a high income mean (as in average) can also mean (as in signify) that those at the bottom could be very poor. It's clear you do not understand...



    They can be. But so what? They can also be richer. With 'relative poverty' this is totally and utterly irrelevant as no assessment is made of the ACTUAL levels of income of those at the bottom.

    Take a contrived example of a few million people where the median income in a sample is £30,000. Those at the bottom could be at £29,999.99 or £0.01. Now imagine that the median rises to £35,000. Is it not at all possible that those at the bottom can also have their income rise as well as fall? But with 'relative poverty' that doesn't matter if it does or not, all that has happened is the median has risen, so more are in 'poverty'

    For all you know, their incomes rose by the same amount - even a larger amount in relative terms compared to those at the median, but oh no, the median income has risen, these people below the line are now in POVERTY when they weren't before, in spite of getting MORE money, and often a proportionally larger amount of income (eg a £5,000 raise is a greater proportion of the income of someone on £20,000 than someone on £30,000)

    Unless you are actually going to deny that it is possible to have a high median income and still have relatively well off people at the bottom?

    That is another reason why the definition of 'relative poverty' that takes into account median incomes is *******s.



    Irrelevant. What other people are earning has no basis on the level of poverty you may or may not be experiencing.
    Oh and you claim I'm slow. You're not the exact opposite are you?
    What I wrote was that if the mean income has increased, it might be that people will be better off. With median increase, this is not the case necessarily as you seemed to believe.
    The problem is, and that's what I've been trying to tell you, is that those people at the bottom were indeed poor under Thatcher. It's not that they were slighty under the median income. Of those twelve million, many were significantly under the median income. And don't take income inequality too lightheartedly. Many of society's problems come from it. Whether the underclass is relatively well off or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    I love the part where I recommended communism... oh wait, I didn't.
    I'm saying that the system we live under, love it or loathe it, necessitates wage labour. That is all.
    Oh ok

    Though that's totally unavoidable- even in a socialist society people have to work for their keep
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Oh ok

    Though that's totally unavoidable- even in a socialist society people have to work for their keep
    That's precisely what I mean, we have to work to live and for anyone with children this makes childcare necessary. So to the poster who implied that childcare is some sort of luxury problem I am saying it is not, it is mandated by a society that demands wage labour for survival and this in most cases makes childcare essential.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Yes, once again, because he was at war with Iran. A simple case of an enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is actually a ****.



    You clearly don't know the meaning of the word hypocrite. Supporting Iraq's war against Iran when it's in your best interest to do so, then condemning Iraq's war against Kuwait when it's in your best interests to do so, is not hypocrisy.



    Because he was an ally of the UK during her reign. She's not a flip-flopper.



    Hungary, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Serbia and Afghanistan have better income equality than the UK. Last time I checked those weren't lands of sunshine and roses. I like how you conveniently ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your view.



    What on Earth are you talking about?
    You're the one ignoring facts! Saddam committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during that war with Thatcher's support and her weapons! Is it that hard to understand? He used chemical weapons against civilians, many cities targeted because they had the 'wrong ethnicity'. He was convicted of these crimes and sentenced to death.

    Pinochet helped her but that's not a valid excuse to support a brutal dictator. Stalin was our ally at war, do you see any validity in supporting him long after the war?

    Why are you bringing in ex commie and third world countries into this? Let's be serious. Those countries are under development, wartorn or have significant poverty. Compare the UK to other developed western countries. Those with bigger gaps have the most problems.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am sorry, relative poverty is a term that has been devised as a clandestine way to brand income inequality as poverty.

    Using the measure of relative poverty, North Korea is not a poor country because few of the population have an income significantly below the median. Monaco has a great deal of poverty because even though the bottom earning 10% of the Monegasque population probably earn more than 90% of the population of North Korea, a much greater proportion of the Monegasque population earn significantly below the median earnings of the Monegasque.

    You say:



    The further problem with relative poverty is that someone is deprived of the right to set a low bar. Moving the bar merely changes the level of income inequality that a society tolerates, not the level of poverty. If the rich get richer, the concept of relative poverty means that the poor automatically get poorer.
    Why on Earth would I advocate that? Perhaps you have misunderstood me slightly.
    My point was that while it's true that you can have relative poverty but with the "poor" being well off, this was not the case under Thatcher. Those below the median income were under it quite significantly, and they were what I would call poor. They were practically poorer, not just relative to the growing middle classes.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)

    POVERTY

    1. The state of being extremely poor.
    2. The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.

    Do you really not think these things are present in the UK at the moment? London is rife with it, you might want to look up some of the charities that have ballooned up for starving homes and homeless people.

    I've read through practically all of this thread with some mild amusement. Most of the people attacking Maggy are attacking policies that weren't really hers, and All of the people defending her are using policies that weren't much to do with her. The only real policy that could have directly come from her was the VAT increase, which we all know proved to be a huge mistake. The prosperity experienced under her was a result of policies brought in by the previous government slowly taking effect, and her government capitalised on it by following a huge privatisation policy. By the end of her term her policies had set the country on such a bad path with inevitable crashes that her own cabinet kicked her out. I think the significance of that is always overlooked, everyone else suggested she resign from as early as 1981.

    Anything that has been used to defend her policies was over by the end of her reign. She had ten years in power, and the first few saw massive profits for some and crushing unemployment for up to 5million people (Doubled rates). By the end of her decade of control there was a high rate of inflation and an even higher rate of unemployment, which slowly declined under the next government. She did massive damage to the UK economy and used get rich quick image boosting schemes to make her first years of power successful, which couldn't sustain her for the entirety of her time in power. The only opinion that can be held solely on her policies is that she failed catastrophically.

    And yet people will still defend her, because of some strange sense of undying loyalty. Sit down and ask yourself why you really want to reply to me defending her before you do, because everyone who knows anything about the political history knows it's not to do with an impartial appraisal but some kind of personal bias. Usually I've found it's to do with defending who parents might have voted for, and if it's did chill out - I'm not calling your parents stupid. My Dad voted for Maggy's government too.
    I thought poverty was lack of basic human needs?

    Food, shelter,clothing,water etc etc?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    I thought poverty was lack of basic human needs?

    Food, shelter,clothing,water etc etc?
    In modern day Birtain poverty to some is:

    Not being able to afford the latest blackberry or Nike trainers or the tube*


    *Though I think if you can't afford the tube , you should just use the bus
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, Relative poverty shouldnt be referred to as poverty imo, its just a measure of income inequality.

    Besides in the last 10 years, 9/10 people with below average income have received bigger proportional incomes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    Meh, Relative poverty shouldnt be referred to as poverty imo, its just a measure of income inequality.

    Besides in the last 10 years, 9/10 people with below average income have received bigger proportional incomes.
    The problem is that some people use (relative) poverty as an excuse to commit crime
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)

    POVERTY

    1. The state of being extremely poor.
    2. The state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount.

    Do you really not think these things are present in the UK at the moment? London is rife with it, you might want to look up some of the charities that have ballooned up for starving homes and homeless people.
    I never said they weren't present. I said not being able to afford childcare is not poverty, and figures for 'poverty' under Thatcher are misleading because they are for relative poverty, which is simply having less than 60% of the national median income.


    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    By the end of her decade of control there was a high rate of inflation and an even higher rate of unemployment, which slowly declined under the next government.
    Dubious logic- all good things that happened under Thatcher's reign were the result of the previous administration, but all good things that happened after Thatcher had nothing to do with her.
    Inflation at the end of Thatcher's term was only high compared to the middle of her reign. It was on par with the best of the 70s and way below most of that decade.

    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    She did massive damage to the UK economy and used get rich quick image boosting schemes to make her first years of power successful, which couldn't sustain her for the entirety of her time in power. The only opinion that can be held solely on her policies is that she failed catastrophically.
    GDP and income figures would beg to differ. The only opinion that can be held is that you're talking out of your arse.

    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    And yet people will still defend her, because of some strange sense of undying loyalty. Sit down and ask yourself why you really want to reply to me defending her before you do, because everyone who knows anything about the political history knows it's not to do with an impartial appraisal but some kind of personal bias. Usually I've found it's to do with defending who parents might have voted for, and if it's did chill out - I'm not calling your parents stupid. My Dad voted for Maggy's government too.
    I want to reply because you're talking gibberish. I like the whole 'My dad voted for Maggy so therefore that makes me more qualified if I don't like her' nonsense.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    You're the one ignoring facts! Saddam committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during that war with Thatcher's support and her weapons! Is it that hard to understand? He used chemical weapons against civilians, many cities targeted because they had the 'wrong ethnicity'. He was convicted of these crimes and sentenced to death.
    No kidding Sherlock, we're all well aware of Saddam's crimes. Although he was actually convicted of the Dujail massacre, not anything you mentioned.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Pinochet helped her but that's not a valid excuse to support a brutal dictator. Stalin was our ally at war, do you see any validity in supporting him long after the war?
    No, I don't. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. I never said she was an angel, no politician is, but her support of Pinochet most certainly does not invalidate her acheivements.

    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Why are you bringing in ex commie and third world countries into this? Let's be serious. Those countries are under development, wartorn or have significant poverty. Compare the UK to other developed western countries. Those with bigger gaps have the most problems.
    Talk about duking the stats. So in other words you'll simply ignore anything that contradicts your logic?
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    I never said they weren't present. I said not being able to afford childcare is not poverty, and figures for 'poverty' under Thatcher are misleading because they are for relative poverty, which is simply having less than 60% of the national median income.




    Dubious logic- all good things that happened under Thatcher's reign were the result of the previous administration, but all good things that happened after Thatcher had nothing to do with her.
    Inflation at the end of Thatcher's term was only high compared to the middle of her reign. It was on par with the best of the 70s and way below most of that decade.



    GDP and income figures would beg to differ. The only opinion that can be held is that you're talking out of your arse.



    I want to reply because you're talking gibberish. I like the whole 'My dad voted for Maggy so therefore that makes me more qualified if I don't like her' nonsense.


    :blah: Blah passive aggressive nonsense and made up figures blah blah. I don't respond to losers who insult over the Internet thanks very much, grow up. This is exactly what I was talking about, people who feel for some warped reason like they're Thatchers personal retinue and have to defend her despite the fact they don't know why. Seeing as you're so upset you're clearly personally biased and incapable of looking at something objectively with the historians.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by css88)
    Now now, absolutely no need for that sort of tone. As a very wise professor once said to me, it is no one else's job to do your scholarship for you. I don't particularly have the time to find you academic journal pieces and I can't offer you the access that my university affords me, so in any case it wouldn't really even work. If you want quick links online you're unlikely to be reading much peer reviewed, credible work.
    I'm sorry, but who are you to be speaking like you have set me an assignment? You are not my professor, I don't have to do scholarship for you. You made the assertion that there is a raft of research out there, and I asked for references so that we could define the debate.

    As it stands, it is up to you to provide an abstract/summary of the relevant material so it can be discussed further!

    (Original post by css88)
    'Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative
    poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those
    commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect,
    excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.' (JRF).
    Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You might just as well have said that you accept the 'relative poverty' definition without the need for all that name dropping. I have already done relative poverty to death in previous posts though - showing the way it to be calculated is complete and utter nonsense.

    (Original post by css88)
    This, as you have rightly said lends itself to a flexible notion of poverty, meaning that as incomes increase a % will always be considered in poverty no matter what their income. One of the great issues re: poverty as a discourse is this. The fact that this way of regarding poverty can produce outliers or guaranteed poverty, despite income level, does not mean that no people live in poverty. You conspicuously ignored the existence of fuel poverty and the deaths caused by it. I recently read an international development piece where aid workers observed that, in essence, the main difference is that the global North is much better at hiding its poor than the global South. Just one other opinion but I doubt your self-proclamation that poverty doesn't exist is any more valid, or that you have done any real work or research on this area. Reading the Telegraph doesn't count y'know.

    Okay, lets make this real then. Put a face on it and you can tell me how not poor people are.
    Single mum, 1 year old identical twins, husband left her. Earns £30k from a decent job she worked hard to get. She takes home, after tax, student loan and pension deduction about £1760 a month. She has to put her children into fulltime childcare to do this. The cheapest childcare she could get comes to £375 a week (£1625 pm) and the rent on her horrible, ex-council flat in a run-down block comes to just £1100 (bargain!). Luckily the state helps her out and she gets support towards those crazy childcare costs of about £230 a week (£1005.33 pm), and lets not forget that £33.40 in child benefit a week (£144.73 pm) She then has to legally pay £90 in council tax a month.
    So where are we at now? lets see..
    Income:
    £1760 + £1005.33 + £144.73 = £2910.06. Lucky lady!

    Then, outgoings, keep it simple to start:
    Rent: £1100, Childcare: £1625, Council Tax: £90 = £2,815.

    So, that leaves her with £95.06 per month for gas, electricity, food, clothes for her growing children and this is all assuming it's totally fine with her to walk 20 miles to work and back a day. Don't forget, once you are late at nursery it is standard to start charging by the minute. Get your running shoes on!

    You can argue that she should move somewhere cheaper, be a stay at home mum, never had children etc etc but at the end of the day she did it all right. She got married, she had a good job and so did hubby, they only wanted one child but got blessed with two. She didn't know he'd run away with someone else, leave the country and pay no child support. If she moves away her mum can't help her anymore and she will have no support network. Some people do have to face incredibly difficult circumstances and just because their faces don't fit with your images of Dickensian poverty doesn't mean it doesn't feel like it to them.
    So now you have redefined poverty to your own personal definition, which seems to be something along the lines of people who feel poor.

    I refer you back to Mr Filan of Westlife. Is he poor? Why? Why not?

    LOL. Talk about putting your foot in it. You go on to originally define poverty as relative poverty of those with below median incomes and then come up with an example of someone who would not even be counted in the relative poverty statistics because she has an above median income!

    Straight away, the indicators of poverty have become utterly meaningless.

    It's people like you who are defining poverty in this way who are responsible for the ballooning of the welfare state to levels we have today.

    The road to a welfare heaven is paved with good intentions. Almost since its inception the welfare state has taken on a momentum of its own.The safety net principle has all but gone through the window and the question of benefits has become instead a matter of ensuring adequate lifestyles often indefinitely regardless of whether beneficiaries work, don't work, are disinclined or willing to work.

    They are all lumped together in a heterogeneous group. The system does not allow judgments. Once the decision is made to "eliminate poverty" in this manner there is no end to it. Group after group is identified as being deprived. Every time one turns on a TV or radio discussion someone is holding a banner for this group or another pleading as to how they are deprived and disadvantaged. The number of these groups and the size of them grows every year.

    Political parties follow the public mood. In a democracy they'd be foolish to follow any other course. As the system expands, more and more electors become embraced in full or more usually part dependence on the benefits system and we move one step nearer towards the client state.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Oh and you claim I'm slow. You're not the exact opposite are you?
    What I wrote was that if the mean income has increased, it might be that people will be better off. With median increase, this is not the case necessarily as you seemed to believe.
    The problem is, and that's what I've been trying to tell you, is that those people at the bottom were indeed poor under Thatcher. It's not that they were slighty under the median income. Of those twelve million, many were significantly under the median income. And don't take income inequality too lightheartedly. Many of society's problems come from it. Whether the underclass is relatively well off or not.
    You don't make sense. Of course it is not necessarily the case whether we are using mean or median. That is the WHOLE POINT of my objection to using 'relative poverty' as any sort of benchmark for anything.

    So why bring 'mean' into it?

    If the mean income increases, it is entirely possible that those under the mean figure have not had their incomes increase whatsoever, or even decrease. It's possible that it has risen, but by no means certain.

    Now replace mean with median and the same applies (even though in every one of my original examples I was talking about median average and you got it into your head that I meant mean average.

    This is GCSE level maths...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    :blah: Blah passive aggressive nonsense and made up figures blah blah. I don't respond to losers who insult over the Internet thanks very much, grow up. This is exactly what I was talking about, people who feel for some warped reason like they're Thatchers personal retinue and have to defend her despite the fact they don't know why. Seeing as you're so upset you're clearly personally biased and incapable of looking at something objectively with the historians.
    Ha! You, a historian! You dismiss my argument as nothing more than rhetoric, conjecture and insults yet you respond with the exact same. Pretending to be morally superior doesn't win arguments. And what made up figures are these? Are you denying the huge growth in GDP and income under Thatcher? Are you seriously denying that? Go on, this should be fun.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why people diss Thatcher. She was the best thing to happen to this country. I hope David Cameron goes on to beat her 11 year reign at the helm. Mind you, he has already been Leader of the Conservative Party for 8 glorious years. How time flies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am sorry, relative poverty is a term that has been devised as a clandestine way to brand income inequality as poverty.
    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.

    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.

    Of course poverty in the UK doesn't mean people are starving in the streets (although the growing use of food banks casts doubt even on that assertion) and yes, it's all relative. But so what??

    It's a pretty standard US-developed right-wing excuse that poverty in the West is not real poverty because people have a TV or can eat a meal every day. It excuses action.

    People who are poor in our society cannot, for example, maintain a properly healthy diet for long periods and also heat themselves properly now. Benefit levels are too low and food and energy prices have soared. The price of salads, fresh vegetables, meat and fish, for example, have all risen sharply. They now form a larger percentage of average income than for more than 20 years. Literally, winding the clock back to Thatcherism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No kidding Sherlock, we're all well aware of Saddam's crimes. Although he was actually convicted of the Dujail massacre, not anything you mentioned.



    No, I don't. I fail to see what point you're trying to make. I never said she was an angel, no politician is, but her support of Pinochet most certainly does not invalidate her acheivements.



    Talk about duking the stats. So in other words you'll simply ignore anything that contradicts your logic?
    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
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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