UN to investigate extreme poverty in the UK

[Ultrafunkula]

Digga said:

It merely correlates with the variations in earnings of the top few percentile of workers. (Clearly, it causes a lot of confusion.)

It certainly confuses me!

[roachcoach]

andy_s said:

I think most people would interpret 'extreme poverty' in the common use way, so it's not unreasonable to compare with places where 'proper' extreme poverty is much more widespread.

Wholeheartedly agree. Using hyperbolic language like this dilutes a very important message for the rest of the world and limits engagement to those in the UK needing assistance. You're not going to sit with a straight face and suggest families in the UK are in the same state as those in failing African states/yemen etc and certainly not to the point the UN are involved.

Terrible situations certainly do exist in cases in the UK, but they (without exception) represent a failure of the systems/process, as opposed to a lack of system/processes to prevent this.

If we have 'extreme' poverty then the rest of the third world needs a new definition.

[Murph7355]

Digga said:

It merely correlates with the variations in earnings of the top few percentile of workers. (Clearly, it causes a lot of confusion.)

It can be impacted by any element of the dataset.

[JagLover]

Digga said:

It merely correlates with the variations in earnings of the top few percentile of workers. (Clearly, it causes a lot of confusion.)

The "poverty rate" is a reasonable tool in measuring inequality. There is a relative aspect to how inequality of income affects people so it is a valid tool for public policy.

Using it on its own, or as a measure of "extreme poverty" is highly misleading. In Monaco the guy in "poverty" is the one who can only afford a small yacht.

The best way of illustrating this is the chart posted which showed a large drop in "poverty" as most peoples real incomes declined in the recession. The fact that median earnings fell reduced "poverty" highlights its limitations.

When the Living wage foundation calculates a "living wage" it does so by reference to costs faced by households in a given region. If calculated correctly a reference to such a measure is going to be far more useful as a measure of "poverty" than 60% of median income.

Edited by JagLover on Monday 19th November 12:45

[otolith]

Twitter page of the rapporteur. That doesn't look like a civil servant. That looks like a political activist.

https://twitter.com/Alston_UNSR

[JagLover]

Relative poverty

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-fact...

fullfact said:

A more general problem with these figures is that a low income doesn't necessarily imply a low standard of living. The ONS uses the "60% of the median" benchmark to indicate whether someone is 'at risk of poverty'.

Because, to take one example, if you have paid off your mortgage 60% of median income is plenty to have a comfortable lifestyle, and this scenario probably describes many coming up to retirement and working part time.

[oyster]

Deep Thought said:

Pigdoguk said:

Riley Blue said:

Poverty, especially child poverty, is no laughing matter. My O/H has dealt with it in the past and it can be heartbreaking; one boy of seven or eight was asked what would make a big change to his life. His reply, "An alarm clock because then I wouldn't be late for school and not get in to trouble." She discovered his parents were alcoholics who stayed in bed most of the time and didn't have money to feed him, it all went on booze.

So scoff away, it's a real problem even in the UK and probably not far from where you live.

Sorry I dont agree, that is not poverty, that is a sad set of parents.

+1

That's ok then. fk 'em then.

[98elise]

JagLover said:

Relative poverty

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-fact...

fullfact said:

A more general problem with these figures is that a low income doesn't necessarily imply a low standard of living. The ONS uses the "60% of the median" benchmark to indicate whether someone is 'at risk of poverty'.

Because, to take one example, if you have paid off your mortgage 60% of median income is plenty to have a comfortable lifestyle, and this scenario probably describes many coming up to retirement and working part time.

I actually think my mother would be defined as living in poverty. She's retired and lives on her own (mortgage paid off) She gets state pension + small work pension. I know that it's a little over £1000 per month, however she says she's never had so much disposable income.

She just needs to pay the bills and buy food. Beyond that everything else she does is pretty low cost.

I must rember to tell her that's she's classed as living in poverty.

[Rovinghawk]

oyster said:

That's ok then. fk 'em then.

I think the attitude is less "fk'em" and more "this doesn't need the intervention of the United Nations"

[andy_s]

oyster said:

Deep Thought said:

Pigdoguk said:

Riley Blue said:

Poverty, especially child poverty, is no laughing matter. My O/H has dealt with it in the past and it can be heartbreaking; one boy of seven or eight was asked what would make a big change to his life. His reply, "An alarm clock because then I wouldn't be late for school and not get in to trouble." She discovered his parents were alcoholics who stayed in bed most of the time and didn't have money to feed him, it all went on booze.

So scoff away, it's a real problem even in the UK and probably not far from where you live.

Sorry I dont agree, that is not poverty, that is a sad set of parents.

+1

That's ok then. fk 'em then.

No one said 'fk 'em'.

Giving more money to an alcoholic dysfunctional family probably isn't the best of ideas though, it certainly won't help the kid.

[Toltec]

JagLover said:

Relative poverty

https://fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-fact...

fullfact said:

A more general problem with these figures is that a low income doesn't necessarily imply a low standard of living. The ONS uses the "60% of the median" benchmark to indicate whether someone is 'at risk of poverty'.

Because, to take one example, if you have paid off your mortgage 60% of median income is plenty to have a comfortable lifestyle, and this scenario probably describes many coming up to retirement and working part time.

A family with children on above median income with a mortgage, credit card debt and car loans are probably more 'at risk of poverty' than your pensioner. They may well have less disposable income and savings available too.

[anonymous-user]

Ultrafunkula said:

Digga said:

It merely correlates with the variations in earnings of the top few percentile of workers. (Clearly, it causes a lot of confusion.)

It certainly confuses me!

It's 60% of the median income not mean/average so, all other things being equal the income of the top 1% (or 10% etc...) makes no difference. In the UK the median disposable household income is about 28k so they are using a disposable income of roughly 17k as the poverty threshold.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 20th November 15:41

[kurt535]

98elise said:

kurt535 said:

Some genuinely sad responses on here mocking the real poverty that exists in our country. Shame on you. It’s amazing how certain threads on PH draw scum in who revel in their assumed superiority over others.

Do you know anyone in real poverty? Do they have access to food, water, shelter, education? Do they have a mobile phone.

There are definitely people going through hardship, however nobody is denied the basics.

Some people mock, because others try to liken being poor in the UK to genuine poverty. If you want to see real poverty you will need to travel abroad.

Speak to one of those people and tell them that in the UK you can just arrive at your local council office saying you are homeless and they will provide you with accomodation. You will be given money even if you choose not to work. You will be educated at no cost, and any hospital in the country will give you treatment at no cost. They would rightly be amazed that such generosity exists.

I do see poverty, frequently, as a volunteer case worker for an armed forces charity. many i see in trouble are/were working but get kyboshed by, for example, an illness to someone in their family affecting their ability to maintain employment. I see debt a lot too which is accrued as people try to continue to keep the family functioning. Ultimately, the situation always filters down the the children who do start to experience changes on their life that affects their mental, physical and social development. the person on here scoffing at a child asking for an alarm clock has lived a very sheltered, scum ball existence as Ive seen the very same thing being asked for where one parent is exhausted from caring for the other so the eldest (11) became responsible for helping and getting their siblings up but kept over sleeping from tiredness caused by working to support the family in the house. the stress on the family's face was hateful to see, including their deteriorating living conditions. i have witnessed it with recently released prisoners too. their chances of making it back in civvie street are stacked against them meaning their slide into sleeping rough, unable to secure employment, eat properly, keep themselves clean, etc dramatically raises their chances of re-offending. As I personally have bad memories around Xmas, I normally work either Xmas eve or Xmas day at a homeless/low income all day event. It is humbling preparing/serving @ 500 xmas lunches to the guests who come from all walks of life. i have observed so many with mental health issues wholly unable to navigate any proper support via 'care in the community' they end up sleeping rough, without medication leading to them becoming a danger to themselves and other people. my son's rugby club has a very high level of children in it from very low/no income families. to their eternal credit, the club identified this and ensures there is a hot meal not just after a match but also a training session to ensure the children weren't then depleting family reserves when they got home. the perception here of bens scroungers with flat tv's and new cars is undoubtedly out there; the govt definitely and rightly went for them but in the process the welfare benefits reforms have smashed into the most needy and, ironically, those who are working and trying to stand up to be counted. the result? poverty.

[JuniorD]

good post^

Poverty is real.

Though I still think you could take manys a PHer (the usual hard nosed, cold hearted types who have so got their st together they are out of touch with reality) and physically bring them to these unfortunate poverty stricken people to see with their own eyes and yet they'd still refuse to attribute their plight to actual poverty.

[andy_s]

JuniorD said:

good post^

Poverty is real.

Though I still think you could take manys a PHer (the usual hard nosed, cold hearted types who have so got their st together they are out of touch with reality) and physically bring them to these unfortunate poverty stricken people to see with their own eyes and yet they'd still refuse to attribute their plight to actual poverty.

Yes, a very good post, but no one has denied the existence of poverty, no one has dismissed all who are not well off as being scroungers, no one has said that the system is perfect and no one has said that it's all the fault of the people concerned or indeed all the people concerned are there due the same circumstances.

Your assumptive derogatory characterisation of people that question whether we have a massive problem with 'extreme poverty', irrespective of how you define it, is typically exaggerated and again, probably counter-productive as a result.

[Digga]

andy_s said:

JuniorD said:

good post^

Poverty is real.

Though I still think you could take manys a PHer (the usual hard nosed, cold hearted types who have so got their st together they are out of touch with reality) and physically bring them to these unfortunate poverty stricken people to see with their own eyes and yet they'd still refuse to attribute their plight to actual poverty.

Yes, a very good post, but no one has denied the existence of poverty, no one has dismissed all who are not well off as being scroungers, no one has said that the system is perfect and no one has said that it's all the fault of the people concerned or indeed all the people concerned are there due the same circumstances.

Your assumptive derogatory characterisation of people that question whether we have a massive problem with 'extreme poverty', irrespective of how you define it, is typically exaggerated and again, probably counter-productive as a result.

Not even skeptical about the existence of, rather that the graph even characterises it, rather than merely expressing some other statistical data.

If ever actual poverty and hardship spiked, it surely must have been in and after the GFC in 2007-10. That these graphs show something else means, to my mind, they are actually illustrative of something else.

[Brave Fart]

Kurt535, that's a good contribution, thank you. A couple of points in response:
1) Phiip Alston pretty much says that poverty is a political choice. Your examples seem more to do with mental health and the twists and turns that life chucks at some folk. The UN report seems to want to blame the UK government; it's a piece of left wing activism and incredibly unfair.
2) the UN like to refer to "extreme poverty" and that deliberate choice of words rankles with people like me. Even the most tragic of souls in the UK live in a society that tries to support and offer food/shelter/clothing etc. Would the equivalent of the rugby club exist in Sierra Leone? I doubt it.

No-one sensible denies that poverty exists in the UK. It annoys me that the UN says it's politically motivated, and extreme. I disagree on both counts.

[andy_s]

Brave Fart said:

No-one sensible denies that poverty exists in the UK. It annoys me that the UN says it's politically motivated, and extreme. I disagree on both counts.

Thank you for boiling down my rankle to this pithy epithet.

[JagLover]

andy_s said:

Brave Fart said:

No-one sensible denies that poverty exists in the UK. It annoys me that the UN says it's politically motivated, and extreme. I disagree on both counts.

Thank you for boiling down my rankle to this pithy epithet.

One sentence summary for the thread

[kurt535]

Brave Fart said:

Kurt535, that's a good contribution, thank you. A couple of points in response:
1) Phiip Alston pretty much says that poverty is a political choice. Your examples seem more to do with mental health and the twists and turns that life chucks at some folk. The UN report seems to want to blame the UK government; it's a piece of left wing activism and incredibly unfair.
2) the UN like to refer to "extreme poverty" and that deliberate choice of words rankles with people like me. Even the most tragic of souls in the UK live in a society that tries to support and offer food/shelter/clothing etc. Would the equivalent of the rugby club exist in Sierra Leone? I doubt it.

No-one sensible denies that poverty exists in the UK. It annoys me that the UN says it's politically motivated, and extreme. I disagree on both counts.

id have to shine a torch on IDS for kick starting the approach so id argue it has been politically motivated and, sadly, whether it labour or conservative, they have their agendas.

as for extreme, hell, i must spend my time in the wrong swimming pool because my cases never seems to diminish! Ive got a case work report alongside me right now ive got to put together and one of my recommendations ill be putting my back behind is seeing if i can snaffle the teenage children a respite holiday from their frankly nightmare homelife they have clearly endured for years and years. being allowed to be teenagers isn't an option for them i fear.