Millions have saving of less than £100
Discussion
Willy Nilly said:
If poverty is classed as having 60% of median income, then the remaining 40% will always be classed as being in poverty no matter how much money they have.
OK then, what if everyone earned a specific sum, say £1000 per week. How many would be below the level?Now let's open out the number to between £1250 and £1000 per week. How many would be below the line then, if the mean was £1125.
Let's make it much more realistic. Let's assume that 5% earned £1250, a further 5% earning £1200, a further 10% earning £1150, 15% earning £1100 40% earning £1050 and the remainder £1000. How many below the mean then?
D'you see that relative poverty need not always be with us?
sidicks said:
"Poverty" is fairly unambiguous. However, having been all but eradicated in first world countries, certain people sought to create a new metric (relative poverty) in order to justify their political opinions.
There are numerous different definitions of relative poverty, not a single agreed metric. The UK definition referred to above is different than the OECD version.
The definition used in the instance quoted is not ambiguous. There might be variations, but it was clear which definition was being used.There are numerous different definitions of relative poverty, not a single agreed metric. The UK definition referred to above is different than the OECD version.
You think poverty has been eradicated. Now there's a pleasant thought. Must look out for that world.
That people don't see it around them is part of the problem.
I have an advantage on you in the sense that in a previous role I used to have to visit all sorts. There are those who have to make a decision as to whether to eat or to clothe. It happens. It is happening in an area that you go into.
TheLordJohn said:
Granfondo said:
How much cash do people carry about in their wallets these days?
My Dad; £300 at all times. 'Just in case'... Don said:
FN2TypeR said:
Then again, I'm from Yorkshire and I live in Scotland, so every pound is a prisoner, as you can probably well imagine 
Love that.I'm half Scots and half Welsh and twice as mean as either...
VeeDubBigBird said:
The article appears to be a scare tactic to get people to open a savings account, as the final tone of the article sounds more like marketing than research.
Did their research only involve saving accounts or were standard bank accounts included?
This, I suspect. Similar "surveys" have being doing the rounds in the US/on reddit, explicitly as "savings accounts". No sDid their research only involve saving accounts or were standard bank accounts included?
t, they're just a second checking account now. You want ROI, you need something riskier/less liquid. Want a buffer zone, no incentive to not have it in a checking account, or lean on credit if you're brave.First rule of marketing surveys: they are always statistically useless. Always always always always always always.
Shall we go on to whatever it is the Mail is saying causes/cures cancer next?
Derek Smith said:
The definition used in the instance quoted is not ambiguous. There might be variations, but it was clear which definition was being used.
It's a definition of relative poverty and hence is massively flawed.Derek Smith said:
You think poverty has been eradicated. Now there's a pleasant thought. Must look out for that world.
I said 'all but eradicated' in the first world, and I stand by that.Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
How does anyone who works manage to have no savings these days?
MAS "For some on low incomes, saving is a real challenge as they may simply lack the income needed to save at all."Quite possibly because they may simply lack the gumption to live within their means, not at the limit of them.
What chances those 16 million living on the edge lack a very decent smartphone, don't have a large telly, never buy and wear bling, but do maintain fags and booze habits, buy expensive
If it's the person's choice to live on the limit and the limit walks through their door one day, it's OK because others will pick up the tab. Another reason why the edge isn't a scary place for many edgers.
Those who choose to step away from the edge aren't entering pissing contents, it's a matter of different margins for different income levels and different essential outgoings for different folks.
My son-in-law is a professional carer for those unable to look after themselves. He is well qualified for his post and has a non related degree. He is a supervisor.
He hasn't had a pay rise in the 6 years he's known my daughter. He has no chance of buying or renting a house near where he lives so fares are a factor as well as high rents. He doesn't drive a car, smoke or drink. His hobbies are easy enough to service without money apart from smart phone technology. However, his fees are little higher than mine and these are paid for by his relatives, as is the hardware.
He has savings that he brought to the relationship but these haven't been added to. He has no spare money. He would have to break into his savings if he wasn't married.
His position will soon disappear, although he'd still have the same responsibilities as no one else has the qualifications and as they'll have to pay for it themselves, with no extra money at the end of it, they won't. He'll be on a no worsening clause and given that there won't be any pay rises for years, his pay level is safe, but the col rises and he'll have to jack it all in and go for a different job. Oddly enough, he'll be better off, probably considerably so, and then he'll be able to save.
Those he is looking after will then have no one qualified for the emergencies and they'll have to depend on the ambulance service. They do currently when he or the other supervisor isn't there.
It's a very pleasant thought, wish really, that people can move away from the edge, and it is likely my son-in-law will, but not by cutting back as there's little meat. He will do it by stopping doing a job that is highly skilled but poorly paid. No one cares about those at the bottom on the pile, I mean apart from those helping them.
Move away from the edge? Ha! He'd have been quite happy to continue in a post that he loves and does well if only the pay was sufficient to enable him to save a little. Even not pay enough for that. He feels he will be abandoning his charges but he can't afford to subsidise the unit.
And he is one of those better off in his department. There are two levels below him who work full time. There are part timers below that, some of whom are paid minimum wage. This whilst caring for some people who can be extremely difficult.
Some people have no idea what it is like for the lower paid.
Still, when your taxes increase to fund the ambulances and health care that these people will require, feel reassured that all the ones who did a much better job and at lower cost are now safely earning enough to have savings.
I was poorly paid in the 70s. I did without a landline, a TV, car, holidays and such. I was given food parcels by my parents. I didn't drink or smoke, and didn't go out of an evening. I did have savings but had to eat into them just to keep my head above water. I probably lacked gumption to cut back on, let's see, well that's difficult to say. Clothes possibly, but then the local charity shop might have gone out of business.
I have an idea of what it was like to have no chance of savings.
The part that got cut was that given all employers now have to provide one of these mandatory pension schemes which, as I understand it, are now mandatory for employees as well, I don't see how anyone who works can have no savings, even if they've only got their mandatory pension.
Kermit power said:
You're missing my point though, Derek. Not your fault, but for whatever reason, nobody seems able to read the second sentence in my post before responding to the first one!!
The part that got cut was that given all employers now have to provide one of these mandatory pension schemes which, as I understand it, are now mandatory for employees as well, I don't see how anyone who works can have no savings, even if they've only got their mandatory pension.
The employee can opt out!The part that got cut was that given all employers now have to provide one of these mandatory pension schemes which, as I understand it, are now mandatory for employees as well, I don't see how anyone who works can have no savings, even if they've only got their mandatory pension.
Don said:
TheLordJohn said:
Granfondo said:
How much cash do people carry about in their wallets these days?
My Dad; £300 at all times. 'Just in case'... Kermit power said:
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Kermit power said:
How does anyone who works manage to have no savings these days?
MAS "For some on low incomes, saving is a real challenge as they may simply lack the income needed to save at all."Quite possibly because they may simply lack the gumption to live within their means, not at the limit of them.
What chances those 16 million living on the edge lack a very decent smartphone, don't have a large telly, never buy and wear bling, but do maintain fags and booze habits, buy expensive
If it's the person's choice to live on the limit and the limit walks through their door one day, it's OK because others will pick up the tab. Another reason why the edge isn't a scary place for many edgers.
Those who choose to step away from the edge aren't entering pissing contents, it's a matter of different margins for different income levels and different essential outgoings for different folks.
My son-in-law is a professional carer for those unable to look after themselves. He is well qualified for his post and has a non related degree. He is a supervisor.
He hasn't had a pay rise in the 6 years he's known my daughter. He has no chance of buying or renting a house near where he lives so fares are a factor as well as high rents. He doesn't drive a car, smoke or drink. His hobbies are easy enough to service without money apart from smart phone technology. However, his fees are little higher than mine and these are paid for by his relatives, as is the hardware.
He has savings that he brought to the relationship but these haven't been added to. He has no spare money. He would have to break into his savings if he wasn't married.
His position will soon disappear, although he'd still have the same responsibilities as no one else has the qualifications and as they'll have to pay for it themselves, with no extra money at the end of it, they won't. He'll be on a no worsening clause and given that there won't be any pay rises for years, his pay level is safe, but the col rises and he'll have to jack it all in and go for a different job. Oddly enough, he'll be better off, probably considerably so, and then he'll be able to save.
Those he is looking after will then have no one qualified for the emergencies and they'll have to depend on the ambulance service. They do currently when he or the other supervisor isn't there.
It's a very pleasant thought, wish really, that people can move away from the edge, and it is likely my son-in-law will, but not by cutting back as there's little meat. He will do it by stopping doing a job that is highly skilled but poorly paid. No one cares about those at the bottom on the pile, I mean apart from those helping them.
Move away from the edge? Ha! He'd have been quite happy to continue in a post that he loves and does well if only the pay was sufficient to enable him to save a little. Even not pay enough for that. He feels he will be abandoning his charges but he can't afford to subsidise the unit.
And he is one of those better off in his department. There are two levels below him who work full time. There are part timers below that, some of whom are paid minimum wage. This whilst caring for some people who can be extremely difficult.
Some people have no idea what it is like for the lower paid.
Still, when your taxes increase to fund the ambulances and health care that these people will require, feel reassured that all the ones who did a much better job and at lower cost are now safely earning enough to have savings.
I was poorly paid in the 70s. I did without a landline, a TV, car, holidays and such. I was given food parcels by my parents. I didn't drink or smoke, and didn't go out of an evening. I did have savings but had to eat into them just to keep my head above water. I probably lacked gumption to cut back on, let's see, well that's difficult to say. Clothes possibly, but then the local charity shop might have gone out of business.
I have an idea of what it was like to have no chance of savings.
Clearly from the stats as well as from PH comments there are people who exercise choice to remain at or near the edge.
marcusgrant said:
most of the time, nothing.
most places take card and as I get paid into my bank account, unless there's a reason to get cash I won't bother, cash seems to get spent a lot easier as well, just disappears!
That is the absolute opposite of what I experience. most places take card and as I get paid into my bank account, unless there's a reason to get cash I won't bother, cash seems to get spent a lot easier as well, just disappears!
If you have to take the cash out the bank and hand it over physically, it's a lot more difficult to spend.
Sticking a card in the machine doesn't feel like you're spending money. Ergo, it's more easily done.
Hence why idiots get in so much credit card consumer debt.
Is there anything worse than the idiot who wants to pay for a £1.80 steak bake in Greggs on a debit card!?
TheLordJohn said:
That is the absolute opposite of what I experience.
If you have to take the cash out the bank and hand it over physically, it's a lot more difficult to spend.
Sticking a card in the machine doesn't feel like you're spending money. Ergo, it's more easily done.
Hence why idiots get in so much credit card consumer debt.
Is there anything worse than the idiot who wants to pay for a £1.80 steak bake in Greggs on a debit card!?
If the kit is properly specified and sorted, then contactless is instant and much quicker than cash.If you have to take the cash out the bank and hand it over physically, it's a lot more difficult to spend.
Sticking a card in the machine doesn't feel like you're spending money. Ergo, it's more easily done.
Hence why idiots get in so much credit card consumer debt.
Is there anything worse than the idiot who wants to pay for a £1.80 steak bake in Greggs on a debit card!?
(I'm currently involved in a project to replace over 400 payment terminals with contactless right now!)
Edited by Trabi601 on Sunday 2nd October 22:50
TheLordJohn said:
That is the absolute opposite of what I experience.
If you have to take the cash out the bank and hand it over physically, it's a lot more difficult to spend.
Sticking a card in the machine doesn't feel like you're spending money. Ergo, it's more easily done.
Hence why idiots get in so much credit card consumer debt.
Is there anything worse than the idiot who wants to pay for a £1.80 steak bake in Greggs on a debit card!?
Greggs is one of the very few places I still pay with cash, but it would probably be quicker to pay by card using the contactless tap and pay thing.If you have to take the cash out the bank and hand it over physically, it's a lot more difficult to spend.
Sticking a card in the machine doesn't feel like you're spending money. Ergo, it's more easily done.
Hence why idiots get in so much credit card consumer debt.
Is there anything worse than the idiot who wants to pay for a £1.80 steak bake in Greggs on a debit card!?
Was in there yesterday and paid contactless from my phone. People apologise now if they don't have contactless payment before you even ask and that's in a small town in Lancashire
Its pointless carrying cash.
Car parking was paid by Ringgo as I arrived and before I'd switched the car off.
Its pointless carrying cash.
Car parking was paid by Ringgo as I arrived and before I'd switched the car off.
andy-xr said:
Was in there yesterday and paid contactless from my phone. People apologise now if they don't have contactless payment before you even ask and that's in a small town in Lancashire
Its pointless carrying cash.
Car parking was paid by Ringgo as I arrived and before I'd switched the car off.
What happens if you card stops working? or the power is out?Its pointless carrying cash.
Car parking was paid by Ringgo as I arrived and before I'd switched the car off.
I usually take £100 out at the cash machine and then when it gets down to £20, I take another £100 out.
I travel a lot with work, I always keep a payment card and some cash in a different place to my wallet that carries my usual payment, so if I lose my wallet I'm not in deep s
t. I learned that one the hard way!Don said:
turbobloke said:
BOR said:
SPS said:
And 100 people have billions and pay bugger all tax so it's all"OK" then - NOT!
Capitalism. Works very, very well for some people, for the rest, not so much.Better with Corbyn but it'll do.
t. Just like Democracy. It's better than the alternatives.It might be s
t but if you look at the standard of living of the citizens over time capitalism has delivered for the many, rather than just the few, over and time again. I'm looking at the results, not the fantasy. If the side effect is a few billionaires I'll take that "downside" for the fact that I have food on the table and cars in my driveway as do the vast majority here in the UK. Every last one of us won life's lottery just being British. I'm so grateful as should everyone be who gets to live on this Island Shangri-La.Ari said:
RYH64E said:
Take home pay on £100k is only £65k, less rent, travel and other costs, doesn't leave a huge amount when rents are London rents.
I love Pistonheads! 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff