Could YOU live off £53 a week
Scroll to see replies
Its also well known that poverty adversly affects mental health and poor people are more likely to suffer from psychosis (longitudinal studies having demolished the social drift hypothesis).
No, you're arguing against the evidence for political reasons.
No, you're arguing against the evidence for political reasons.
Original post by Kibalchich
Which doesn't refute what I'm saying at all. Income which is related to what class you are born into.
Clearly not if you move class. And it's exactly related to what you said because you said wealth, not income.
If it was easy to escape poverty, then we would see wealth become more evenly distributed. This does not happen.
Not necessarily, it would only require that rich people also become poor sometimes. And this does happen also.
Heritability does not equal genetics. Richard Bentall in "Doctoring the Mind" (referring to a paper by Turkheimer) points out that heritability of IQ is higher in wealthier families and lower in poorer families. Which is the opposite of what you would expect if intelligence was genetic.
Why would we expect heritability of IQ to be higher for rich people than poor people if it were genetic? Surely it just would be the same.
I think this evidence is fairly clear that IQ is significantly heritable with some environmental impact that is only very significant at extremely low levels of income (ie. low enough that there is not a stable food supply). Twin studies within "normal" first world families have shown little or no difference.
They also track with poverty. Its well known that poverty adversely affects intellectual development
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/64555.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8560214
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/64555.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8560214
The first study just assumes achievement differences are environmental and reasons backwards, the second is talking about a third world country.
Original post by College_Dropout
Use less electric
No mobile
No bus
No toiletries
The question was if you can live off £53, not if you can live off £53 while maintaining luxurys.
No mobile
No bus
No toiletries
The question was if you can live off £53, not if you can live off £53 while maintaining luxurys.
You have to have a mobile for employers to phone you, or at least a landline which can be more expensive. You would also probably need internet to look for jobs.
Carrying shopping for miles while walking is going to be pretty difficult. Particularly if it's raining. Also to the job centre, and to job interviews. You're not going to get the job if you turn up soaking wet. A decent umbrella can cost around £10...
Toiletries are essential. Unless you think that a job is going to be given to the person with greasy hair who smells because they can't wash. Or a woman who would have to spend 5 days a month on the loo/in the shower or whatever while she has a period because sanitary products are classed as toiletries (and they're also pretty expensive and have VAT on them, although not at the full rate). And you can get quite cheap toiletries in some places but using a sub-standard shampoo often means you have to wash your hair twice as often which means you'd probably have been better off buying the expensive stuff, if you get a cheap soap you'll probably have to supplement it with a moisturiser or have your skin crack and get sore because it's really dry...
I don't think you know what a luxury is.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
Clearly not if you move class. And it's exactly related to what you said because you said wealth, not income.
Not necessarily, it would only require that rich people also become poor sometimes. And this does happen also.
Not necessarily, it would only require that rich people also become poor sometimes. And this does happen also.
If what you say is true, we would still expect wealth to become more evenly distributed, but what we actually see is it being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
Original post by Observatory
Why would we expect heritability of IQ to be higher for rich people than poor people if it were genetic? Surely it just would be the same.
Exactly.
Original post by Observatory
I think this evidence is fairly clear that IQ is significantly heritable with some environmental impact that is only very significant at extremely low levels of income (ie. low enough that there is not a stable food supply). Twin studies within "normal" first world families have shown little or no difference.
Not true. Longitudinal studies have shown that poverty adversely affects IQ. Its also known that emotional factors influence IQ. None of this is particularly controversial.
Original post by Observatory
The first study just assumes achievement differences are environmental and reasons backwards, the second is talking about a third world country.
You haven't even read the studies.
Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: the influence of social and family risk factors.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8436039
Intelligence Quotient Scores of 4-Year-Old Children: Social-Environmental Risk Factors
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/79/3/343.short
Brooks-Gunn, J, Klebanov, P, & Duncan, G 1996, 'Ethnic differences in children's intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics', Child Development, 67, 2, pp. 396-408
Gottlieb, G, & Blair, C 2004, 'How early experience matters in intellectual development in the case of poverty', Prevention Science, 5, 4, pp. 245-252
Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
Turkheimer, E, Haley, A, Waldron, M, D'Onofrio, B, & Gottesman, I 2003, 'Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children', Psychological Science, 14, 6, pp. 623-628, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 April 2013.
There's loads of studies that show the adverse effects of poverty on intelligence. As I said, this is not remotely controversial, its well established in psychology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8436039
Intelligence Quotient Scores of 4-Year-Old Children: Social-Environmental Risk Factors
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/79/3/343.short
Brooks-Gunn, J, Klebanov, P, & Duncan, G 1996, 'Ethnic differences in children's intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics', Child Development, 67, 2, pp. 396-408
Gottlieb, G, & Blair, C 2004, 'How early experience matters in intellectual development in the case of poverty', Prevention Science, 5, 4, pp. 245-252
Scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins from the National Collaborative Perinatal Project. A substantial proportion of the twins were raised in families living near or below the poverty level. Biometric analyses were conducted using models allowing for components attributable to the additive effects of genotype, shared environment, and nonshared environment to interact with socioeconomic status (SES) measured as a continuous variable. Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with SES. The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
Turkheimer, E, Haley, A, Waldron, M, D'Onofrio, B, & Gottesman, I 2003, 'Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children', Psychological Science, 14, 6, pp. 623-628, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 7 April 2013.
There's loads of studies that show the adverse effects of poverty on intelligence. As I said, this is not remotely controversial, its well established in psychology.
(edited 11 years ago)
Let's be honest, the '£53 a week' isn't £53 at all.
1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.
2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.
The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.
No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.
2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.
The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.
No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
What's wrong with walking or maybe save up for a bicycle.
Original post by james1211
Depends. Stuff like the bus can get very expensive.
A bus pass for a week for me is £20.
A bus pass for a week for me is £20.
Original post by JJMS
5 grams of heroin, a can of Dr. Pepper and a pot noodle.
Ask the shop to fill the pot noodle up for you.
Ask the shop to fill the pot noodle up for you.
5 grams of heroin is about £250
Original post by A Mysterious Lord
Let's be honest, the '£53 a week' isn't £53 at all.
1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.
2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.
The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.
No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
1. The bottom rate of JSA is now £56.25.
2. Once you sign on, you also qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit and free NHS prescriptions/dental care.
The '£53 a week' is just what the claimant receives in cash, when in reality it's far higher. If I didn't have to worry about rent, council tax and healthcare then '£53 a week' is easy - I was on less than £30 a week in my second year of uni, '£53 a week' would have been lovely.
No doubt I'll be negged to hell and back for pointing this out.
Water, gas, electric, telephone, public transport, clothes, shoes...
It can be done for a short while. Its easier to do when there is an end in sight (like being a student). Living on that little for months, a year, two years with no end in sight?
Original post by mathslive101
What's wrong with walking or maybe save up for a bicycle.
It would take me an hour and a half to walk and a bicycle is hopeless when it's wet. You can't exactly make a great impression at work when youre drenched and muddy.
Original post by Kibalchich
If what you say is true, we would still expect wealth to become more evenly distributed, but what we actually see is it being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
This is just wrong. Here are two perfectly consistent possibilities where income inequality increases even though the poor person moves up in socio-economic class:
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £200k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £2,000/yr
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £100k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £5m/yr
Exactly.
Not true. Longitudinal studies have shown that poverty adversely affects IQ. Its also known that emotional factors influence IQ. None of this is particularly controversial.
Not true. Longitudinal studies have shown that poverty adversely affects IQ. Its also known that emotional factors influence IQ. None of this is particularly controversial.
You're missing the point: I grant that environment may have some effect, which is accentuated at extremes, but there is also a 50-100% heritable component. It doesn't have to be 100% to be relevant. Even studies that claim particularly low heritable components rarely go below 50%.
You haven't even read the studies.
How do you think you know that? Could you quote specific passages that contradict my interpretation.
Original post by Kibalchich
Water, gas, electric, telephone, public transport, clothes, shoes...
It can be done for a short while. Its easier to do when there is an end in sight (like being a student). Living on that little for months, a year, two years with no end in sight?
It can be done for a short while. Its easier to do when there is an end in sight (like being a student). Living on that little for months, a year, two years with no end in sight?
Hmm, you've got me on that one, I didn't consider that
Original post by Observatory
This is just wrong. Here are two perfectly consistent possibilities where income inequality increases even though the poor person moves up in socio-economic class:
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £200k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £2,000/yr
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £100k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £5m/yr
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £200k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £2,000/yr
-------------- -- Time 1 ---- Time 2
Person A -- £5,000/yr -- £100k/yr
Person B -- £100k/yr -- £5m/yr
What? That doesn't even make any sense. You're flailing. We see wealth and resources concentrated in fewer hands. No amount of flailing will get us away from this fact.
Original post by Observatory
You're missing the point: I grant that environment may have some effect, which is accentuated at extremes, but there is also a 50-100% heritable component. It doesn't have to be 100% to be relevant. Even studies that claim particularly low heritable components rarely go below 50%.
You're missing the point that heritability is not the same as genetics. There are also many flaws with heritability studies, not least that they tend to miss gene x interactions. You're also making the fundamental error that heritabilty estimates translate directly to percentages of heritable components. It doesn't. The calculation of h2 is the percentage of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes given certain assumptions. If the environment is highly variable (like socioeconomic background), then its value will vary. Like in my point about heritability of IQ in richer or poorer families.
Original post by Observatory
How do you think you know that? Could you quote specific passages that contradict my interpretation.
Because I didn't link to the full papers. Did you read the full papers?
I mean, blimey, even something like height is an interaction between genes and environment! The idea that genes determine things completely is really not taken seriously by anyone any more, except for people who cling onto the idea for political reasons.
Original post by Kibalchich
What? That doesn't even make any sense. You're flailing. We see wealth and resources concentrated in fewer hands. No amount of flailing will get us away from this fact.
The point being, even if this is true (kinda but not really) it isn't incompatible with what I said being true.
You're missing the point that heritability is not the same as genetics. There are also many flaws with heritability studies, not least that they tend to miss gene x interactions. You're also making the fundamental error that heritabilty estimates translate directly to percentages of heritable components. It doesn't. The calculation of h2 is the percentage of variation in a trait that can be attributed to genes given certain assumptions. If the environment is highly variable (like socioeconomic background), then its value will vary. Like in my point about heritability of IQ in richer or poorer families.
There are studies where the environment is explicitly controlled for, ie. twin studies where genetically identical twins are adopted by families with different incomes. It remains possible that pre-birth environment could have an effect, but that's it. There are also studies that try to correct for this, and still find a large genetic component.
Because I didn't link to the full papers. Did you read the full papers?
The full text is linked directly from both pages. Did you even read them before linking the abstracts?
Original post by minimarshmallow
You have to have a mobile for employers to phone you, or at least a landline which can be more expensive. You would also probably need internet to look for jobs.
Carrying shopping for miles while walking is going to be pretty difficult. Particularly if it's raining. Also to the job centre, and to job interviews. You're not going to get the job if you turn up soaking wet. A decent umbrella can cost around £10...
Toiletries are essential. Unless you think that a job is going to be given to the person with greasy hair who smells because they can't wash. Or a woman who would have to spend 5 days a month on the loo/in the shower or whatever while she has a period because sanitary products are classed as toiletries (and they're also pretty expensive and have VAT on them, although not at the full rate). And you can get quite cheap toiletries in some places but using a sub-standard shampoo often means you have to wash your hair twice as often which means you'd probably have been better off buying the expensive stuff, if you get a cheap soap you'll probably have to supplement it with a moisturiser or have your skin crack and get sore because it's really dry...
I don't think you know what a luxury is.
Carrying shopping for miles while walking is going to be pretty difficult. Particularly if it's raining. Also to the job centre, and to job interviews. You're not going to get the job if you turn up soaking wet. A decent umbrella can cost around £10...
Toiletries are essential. Unless you think that a job is going to be given to the person with greasy hair who smells because they can't wash. Or a woman who would have to spend 5 days a month on the loo/in the shower or whatever while she has a period because sanitary products are classed as toiletries (and they're also pretty expensive and have VAT on them, although not at the full rate). And you can get quite cheap toiletries in some places but using a sub-standard shampoo often means you have to wash your hair twice as often which means you'd probably have been better off buying the expensive stuff, if you get a cheap soap you'll probably have to supplement it with a moisturiser or have your skin crack and get sore because it's really dry...
I don't think you know what a luxury is.
Would you die if you didnt have any of the above? The question was if you can live off it. I dont think you understand what the question was.
As a student I live off about maybe 60 a week not including bills.
It would be easy to cut down on things and live on 53 a week, but I don't think I could include bills in that easily...
internet is at the cheapest 10 - 15 a month
mobile for me is 15 a month
so that's already about 8 a week which is doable, but water electricity and gas are probably a lot, and I couldn't afford that.
It would be easy to cut down on things and live on 53 a week, but I don't think I could include bills in that easily...
internet is at the cheapest 10 - 15 a month
mobile for me is 15 a month
so that's already about 8 a week which is doable, but water electricity and gas are probably a lot, and I couldn't afford that.
Original post by College_Dropout
Would you die if you didnt have any of the above? The question was if you can live off it. I dont think you understand what the question was.
You wouldnt die, no. However you'd need these things in order to get a job to get off having to claim benefits. Unemployed people in my area are able to use the internet for free for job search in some areas, but this may not be the case elsewhere. How likely is someone going to get a job if theres no way for an employer to get in contact and/or they stink (therefore not making a good impression) due not being able to afford to wash?
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
