UN to investigate extreme poverty in the UK
Discussion
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.
May ai ask, why did you take the time for that dig rather than using it to eradicate poverty?What are you doing on here, when you could be doing something worthwhile?
Do you honestly think doing sod-all while pretending you are superior makes you look good?
Derek Smith said:
- - - -
It's the Victorian attitude that the poor are poor because they are feckless. The comparison with the situation in third-world countries is quite obscene. I wonder if such posters would agree that, in comparison to the situation in these countries, they are unseemly rich. Or rather, I don't.
I've seen poor people. Poverty exists. Many don't agree with the definition. That seems to them to solve the problem.
Not sarcasm. Just a reasonable comment on what some of the posters on here are saying.
I think you have to put the points in the current context - it's backlash from such reports, and further illustrates why these hyper-reports that read more like yellow journalism than academic deep-dive are counter-productive.It's the Victorian attitude that the poor are poor because they are feckless. The comparison with the situation in third-world countries is quite obscene. I wonder if such posters would agree that, in comparison to the situation in these countries, they are unseemly rich. Or rather, I don't.
I've seen poor people. Poverty exists. Many don't agree with the definition. That seems to them to solve the problem.
Not sarcasm. Just a reasonable comment on what some of the posters on here are saying.
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.
Let's bear in mind that we in the UK enjoy a privilege of being in a stable, secure country with a functional (I know...) government, an ever increasing standard of living, a raft of legal protections for the individual, a welfare state, a national health service and countless organisations, charities and quangos upon which to fall in times of need whether by fault or fortune. So again, not unreasonable that people shy away from using 'extreme poverty' to describe the poor in the UK.
Just to be clear - I do indeed think there are people that both need and would benefit from better and more help, directly and indirectly, but I don't think this report helps with that at all.
Who knows, maybe the UN will airlift in a few bags of grain with the £100m we pay them every year... (sarcasm)
andy_s said:
I think you have to put the points in the current context - it's backlash from such reports, and further illustrates why these hyper-reports that read more like yellow journalism than academic deep-dive are counter-productive.
<snip>
I see no reason to ignore history. The Victorian poor were seen as a lower form of life; lazy, good for nothing, and always demanding help. History doesn’t repeat itself; people remain the same. It is easy to blame rather than try and understand, let alone actually do something about it. <snip>
The press indulges in hyperbole regarding those whom they paint as feckless. I could live on minimum wage I reckon, but I doubt if I could go anywhere, or buy shoes. But then I have no rent/mortgage.
Not liking a definition is rather odd. It has a meaning. There are lots of phrases that defy the OED. I used to teach what an arrestable offence was, and many recruits were upset that there were offences that were arrestable which did not come into the definition. I used to ask them: What does it matter to you? Get over it.
Many on here suggest that the problem is the lack of social care. So? How does that change matters? In my days on the beat I used to find the left-overs of the war, like a bomb-site. Abandoned to rot as hardly anyone gave a damn. They got a lot of help for the Sally Ann, and the charity organised health care as well. They have not gone away. They are there, like dark matter in one way; invisible. But they have no influence.
We’ve had a recession. The poor were hit hard. We are now out of recession, according to those who know, and some of the support the government is giving is being reduced.
Who cares? After all, those who are struggling intellectually or mentally are smoking fags. They bring it all on themselves.
The old soldiers? Well that’s the responsibility of the cash-starved forces. Nothing to do with us.
The poor are there, all around us, but we can, thankfully, ignore them. It's all their fault.
Derek Smith said:
You came into this discussion a bit late. It has all been solved by the PH keyboarders. Everyone is well fed, well housed and able to better themselves. Even the historic imbalance between the right wing press and the left has been eradicated it seems.
Nothing to see here. We can rejoice that a problem that has been with our society for hundreds of years has been solved at a time of austerity. It’s a miracle.
Does it not get boring making things up to pontificate about? Nothing to see here. We can rejoice that a problem that has been with our society for hundreds of years has been solved at a time of austerity. It’s a miracle.
Derek Smith said:
...
Not liking a definition is rather odd...
The definition is idiotic. Anyone with a gcse level grasp of maths should understand why. If the problem of particulary child poverty (in its true sense) is one of neglectful parenting, substance abuse, poor education, etc... then using a bad measure of income inequality to measure it is simplistic nonsense. As defined the easiest way to reduce 'poverty' is to engineer a massive recession and bring down the median income and 60% threshold! The biggest drops in 'poverty' in the last 20 years were in 2008/9/10! Not liking a definition is rather odd...
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th November 00:03
fblm said:
Derek Smith said:
...
Not liking a definition is rather odd...
The definition is idiotic. Anyone with a gcse level grasp of maths should understand why. If the problem of particulary child poverty (in its true sense) is one of neglectful parenting, substance abuse, poor education, etc... then using a bad measure of income inequality to measure it is simplistic nonsense. As defined the easiest way to reduce 'poverty' is to engineer a massive recession and bring down the median income and 60% threshold! The biggest drops in 'poverty' in the last 20 years were in 2008/9/10! Not liking a definition is rather odd...
Edited by fblm on Sunday 18th November 00:03
Some other things with not liking this definition
- the "relative" part of it, which is very fundamental even if we accept the use of the word "poverty", seems very rarely used
- it cheapens the use of the word "poverty" in legitimate circumstances
- it encourages the victim complex...my kids don't live off donuts because I'm a s
t parent, it's because I'm in extreme poverty (have you got a light mate?)A friend volunteered to help his local CAB when he retired. About this time last year he told us the story of a guy asking for help because he was in serious debt.
He was working 4-days per week on minimum wage, so earning about £900 per month. He asked the guy about his monthly outgoings expecting his rent, council tax, food, petrol etc etc. His list was -
SKY TV £60
His mobile contract £60
His wife’s mobile £40
His daughter’s mobile £30
Even my saintly friend thought WTF am I doing here? I am certain if there was a handy food bank, he would probably give it a try and in doing so meet the UN’s definition of absolute poverty.
Poor education and lifestyle choices seem to be a route cause of some of the UK’s relative poverty. I confess to not having the faintest idea of how to break out of this downward spiral. It is not just about money.
He was working 4-days per week on minimum wage, so earning about £900 per month. He asked the guy about his monthly outgoings expecting his rent, council tax, food, petrol etc etc. His list was -
SKY TV £60
His mobile contract £60
His wife’s mobile £40
His daughter’s mobile £30
Even my saintly friend thought WTF am I doing here? I am certain if there was a handy food bank, he would probably give it a try and in doing so meet the UN’s definition of absolute poverty.
Poor education and lifestyle choices seem to be a route cause of some of the UK’s relative poverty. I confess to not having the faintest idea of how to break out of this downward spiral. It is not just about money.
fblm said:
Derek Smith said:
...
Not liking a definition is rather odd...
The definition is idiotic. Anyone with a gcse level grasp of maths should understand why. If the problem of particulary child poverty (in its true sense) is one of neglectful parenting, substance abuse, poor education, etc... then using a bad measure of income inequality to measure it is simplistic nonsense. As defined the easiest way to reduce 'poverty' is to engineer a massive recession and bring down the median income and 60% threshold! The biggest drops in 'poverty' in the last 20 years were in 2008/9/10! Not liking a definition is rather odd...
Edited by fblm on Sunday 18th November 00:03
You suggest it has something to do with maths. Nonsense. If you said it was poor English then you might have had a point, but the phrase has a clear and precise meaning. Why can't you accept it?
Again you come in with reasons for the poverty. The parents are neglectful. They are on drugs. Blaming again. You then, rather oddly, suggest poor education. If poor education has a role to play - I don't know if it has any more than you do - then so what? It is a reason.
You can't have a definition of income inequality blamed for using a measure of income inquality.
It is a definition. Just run with it.
And then you, after blaming neglectful parents and those on drugs, you come up with:
fblm said:
Does it not get boring making things up to pontificate about?
You know irony isn’t about ironing, don’t you?My apologies for the greatest sin of all it seems; coming up with a contrary point of view.
Derek Smith said:
...
It's a definition of income inequality....
Then why not call it this instead of "poverty"/"extreme poverty"/etc?It's a definition of income inequality....
(As for "blaming"...isn't that what you're doing? You just aren't blaming the "victims" (allegedly)....what is the correct level of income inequality that we should be aiming for?)
Derek Smith said:
It's a definition of income inequality.
I'd say it's a measure of income inequality, which is being used as a proxy for 'poverty', to manipulate 'useful idiots'.Derek Smith said:
You suggest it has something to do with maths.
It is; the threshold is 60% of the median of household income. It's not difficult.Derek Smith said:
Again you come in with reasons for the poverty. The parents are neglectful. They are on drugs. Blaming again. You then, rather oddly, suggest poor education. If poor education has a role to play - I don't know if it has any more than you do - then so what? It is a reason.
The income of the household is irrelevant if the parents are neglectful for whatever reason. If parents are neglectful you're damn right we should blame them. ''Relative poverty'' tells you absolutely nothing about deprivation; you could double everyone's income in the UK and the same number would be in ''poverty''. Derek Smith said:
You can't have a definition of income inequality blamed for using a measure of income inquality.
What? For a supposed writer of some kind you don't articulate your argument very clearly.Derek Smith said:
My apologies for the greatest sin of all it seems; coming up with a contrary point of view.
Your view, as usual, is a load of anecdotal verbose waffle. The very statistic you expect us to uncritically accept as somehow useful contradict your own comments. No child should be growing up deprived in the UK; using BS income statistics is not part of any solution.Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 18th November 21:18
Ultrafunkula said:
fblm said:
Possibly. But not according to the stupid definition of poverty you apparently accept.
That rise seems to tally with the start of the European migrant crisis.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff