Maggie

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I'm sure there are more examples out there. Anyone?

USA. Serious.

 

[SteveAWOL]

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/2222

Poor kids: trends in child poverty in Britain, 1968-96

According to Family Expenditure Survey (FES) data, child poverty (with a poverty line defined at half mean equivalised household income) has risen markedly in Britain in the last 30 years. By 1995-96, around one in three - or 4.3 million - children were living in poor households. This compares with child poverty rates of one in ten, corresponding to 1.4 million children, in 1968.

The employment position of the household is seen to be important, with over half of poor children in 1995-96 living in households with no adults in work. If an absolute, rather than a relative, poverty line is utilised, child poverty remains stagnant since the late 1970s, following a period of rapid decline from 1968, despite considerable rises in average living standards. This reveals that the income position of households with children has been falling relative to that of childless households over time. Finally, looking at expenditure patterns and comparing their trends with income-based poverty measures tends to reinforce these findings.

...2. Changes over Time in the Extent of Child Poverty
If households with equivalised6 AHC income below half the national average are defined as poor, FES data show that the number of children living in poor households increased massively from 1.4 million to 4.3 million between 1968 and 1995–96.7 Table 1 shows that this corresponds to a rise in the child poverty rate — the percentage of children living in poverty — from about one in ten in 1968 to just under one in three by 1995–96. The year-on-year variations in this trend are clear, with the proportion of children in poverty showing only a moderate rise in the 1970s but increasing at a rapid rate thereafter.


...In terms of international comparisons, the rate of change in the incidence of worklessness among households with children between 1985 and 1996 is shown in Figure 4. In 1996, the highest level of worklessness is in the UK. Moreover, the fastest rate of change over this 11-year interval is also in the UK, with an absolute change of almost 5 percentage points. In other countries, both the level is lower and changes over time have been much more moderate, with falls actually occurring in some countries Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal).

 

[SteveAWOL]

20% of British children 'living in poverty' - Home News - UK - The Independent
Nearly half of all children in Britain's most deprived urban areas are living below the poverty line, new report reveals *| Mail Online

The Campaign to End Child Poverty published figures today showing that 20.2 per cent of British children are classified as below the poverty line, before housing costs. In eight areas of large cities, more than four out of every 10 children lived in poverty in 2012, the research showed. But that is a decrease on the 19 parliamentary constituencies that had 40 per cent of children living in poverty in 2011.

The poorest constituency for children was Manchester Central, with nearly half (47 per cent) of children living in poverty. More than four in 10 children were living in poverty in Belfast West (43 per cent), Glasgow North East (43 per cent), Ladywood, Birmingham (42 per cent), Liverpool Riverside (42 per cent), and Middlesbrough (40 per cent).

In London, 40 per cent of children were living in poverty in Tower Hamlets, 42 per cent of children were below the poverty line in the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow while 41 per cent were living in poverty in Poplar and Limehouse. (Tottenham 36%)

The situation has broadly improved since 2011, except in some areas of the North East of England. In Saudi Sportswashing Machine, 38 per cent of children were poor in 2012, compared with 29 per cent in 2011, while in Middlesbrough the figure rose to 40 per cent from 38 per cent in the previous year.

Child poverty was the lowest in Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's Sheffield Hallam constituency (below 5 per cent). It was also under 10 per cent in Prime Minister David Cameron's Witney constituency, the report said.

The figures revealed the wide disparity in poverty rates across the UK and within regions. For example, in London, Poplar and Limehouse has a child poverty rate of 41 per cent compared to just 7 per cent in Richmond. In the North West, whereas 38 per cent of children in the local authority area of Manchester are poor, in Ribble Valley the figure is just 7 per cent.

In the figures, children are classified as being in poverty if they live in families receiving out of work benefits or in-work tax credits where their reported income is less than 60 per cent of median income.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

You said you're 19. Well mate, you have written words there hitch give me GREAT hope for th future. As long as there are peopl like you hi still care about others, nd as long as there are people like you who see the bigger picture, I think we'll be OK.
A great heartfelt post.
Thank you Sir!

Yes vey well said.

 

[scaramanga]

"When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.[41]

While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe."

Taken from wikipidea: Before anyone says it's unreliable I think it is as it has a refference directly to the Wall Street Jounral. Only problem is you have to be a subscriber to get on there so I can't get on, though if anyone has a subscription by any chance you should be able too as it looks like the article is still in existence.

Thatcher was in power a long time ago, and yes I agree every government since her has had a chance to deal with it. I'm unsure on the latest statistics in recent years (though as a sociology student I perhaps should be!) but I'd guess it's either the same or it went down slightly since Thatcher. Under the early new years of New Labour I'd guess it was probably lower than under Thatcher but then higher towards the end of New Labour's time and till today. But your right, governments aren't tacklng this right at all. New Labour is really a different labour all together and their "thid way" seemed to be mannaged terribly with ideas capable of winning elections but ones that didn't work in practice.

But the way the current Conservative government is going about things is awful now. On one hand you've got them whacking people with a stick saying "lazy welfare scroungers, get back to work now!" and on the other hand you've got them making little or no effort to actually create jobs for these people to do. A asda opened up recently near mine and there were jobs going but there were 1,000 applicants for it. Same happened when they opened a Premier Inn. 50 or something jobs and 800 applicants. I don't see how anyone on benefits is supposed to go back to work under these circumstances. And the government is choosing the worst time possible to try and get people off welfare, it is indeed a big problem in sociey (though I'd contest how big it is in comparsion to what the media and government seem to think it is) but with the way things are now I know university graudates, and even one or two master degree graudates, struggling to find work. They're having to take jobs at Tesco's working on tills and stacking shelfs if they can because there's no work about, or doing casual work for agencies. If these uni graudattes can't get work then how the bloody hell is someone who's been living on dole their whole entire lifesupposed to get one?! If they think it might be a bit risky to give a job to a university graduatte wha are the chances of them opening up their arms to someone who has never worked a day in their life?! Create jobs for these people to do and then you can start getting them back to work, otherwise don't be suprised when people aren't finding jobs.

There's also some calls from some to scrap welfare all together. I don't think this is the case for the majority but I can't think of a worse idea. I'd rather drag along a few people who are preapared to live on welfare their lifes, which is a minority, then turn to an american style system where we see an increase in gang crime, burglary and mugging and people left without a safety net with increasing segregation in citys. It's all well and good to say "we're not going to give you this and that anymore" but if those people really are that lazy your not going to be to happy when they're breaking into your house to nick your tv's and any valuables they can lay their hands upon to make up for the loss in benefits. Yeah some people are lazy which is why if you take away their dole they're just going to find another easy way of making up their losses by taking away YOUR luxuries. Even then some would say "well get alarms, CCTV etc." which is fine for those who can afford it. It would deter crime, it would deter it so much so that these people looking to rob a house will just go and rob a working class person's seeing as they can't afford the target hardening.

You have to be very careful with stats like these. Rather than rely on the headline figure, try to look at what makes up the stats and see if the author's opinion matches reality.

Take the following example (based on reality):

The poverty line is based on median income. A new PM takes power and a few people move to the top of the chain and start to earn a lot of money (the influx of city traders for example). The median income shoots up and thousands of families who were just above the border line are now in 'poverty'.

However, the PM also sorts out the problem of rampant inflation, so those families who were able to buy less and less with their wages every year can now buy exactly the same as they could before. So instead of getting poorer they are staying level, but according to stats are now in poverty.

Conversely, New Labour decided a target of theirs was to reduce child poverty. So what they did was to find a few thousand families just below the poverty line and increase their income very slightly to remove them from poverty. So whilst the child poverty figures have fallen, they've actually made no material changes to anyone's lives.

You can also reduce child poverty by fudging the economy. Ruin it enough and you'll take everyone 'out of poverty' whilst making everyone poor.

 

[Richie]

Gotta agree with Scara here. Always be very dubious when people talk about the level of poverty in any country. The use of median income is a horrible measure as it is a moving target.

For example, if the wealthy get better off the poverty level will go up and with it, the numbers of those in poverty. However if prices and their income have stayed constant, have they really become any poorer? I'd argue they haven't.

It should really be a measure comparing disposable income to the prices of essential goods and services (food, housing, fuel etc), although I'm sure there are flaws using that metric too.

 

[Richie]

But the way the current Conservative government is going about things is awful now. On one hand you've got them whacking people with a stick saying "lazy welfare scroungers, get back to work now!" and on the other hand you've got them making little or no effort to actually create jobs for these people to do. A asda opened up recently near mine and there were jobs going but there were 1,000 applicants for it. Same happened when they opened a Premier Inn. 50 or something jobs and 800 applicants. I don't see how anyone on benefits is supposed to go back to work under these circumstances. And the government is choosing the worst time possible to try and get people off welfare, it is indeed a big problem in sociey (though I'd contest how big it is in comparsion to what the media and government seem to think it is) but with the way things are now I know university graudates, and even one or two master degree graudates, struggling to find work. They're having to take jobs at Tesco's working on tills and stacking shelfs if they can because there's no work about, or doing casual work for agencies. If these uni graudattes can't get work then how the bloody hell is someone who's been living on dole their whole entire lifesupposed to get one?! If they think it might be a bit risky to give a job to a university graduatte wha are the chances of them opening up their arms to someone who has never worked a day in their life?! Create jobs for these people to do and then you can start getting them back to work, otherwise don't be suprised when people aren't finding jobs.

I'll make 2 points from this.

1) It's not the governments responsibility to create jobs. It is their responsibility to create an environment where the private sector can create jobs IMO.

2) I know a lot of recent university graduates being a recent post graduate myself, and the only ones I know who are struggling to find a job are those who didn't get good grades (2:2 or worse) or did a degree with low job prospects to begin with (Illustration for example). Nobody who I know from my degree (Computer Science) or other science degrees with good results have struggled.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I'll make 2 points from this.

1) It's not the governments responsibility to create jobs. It is their responsibility to create an environment where the private sector can create jobs IMO.

2) I know a lot of recent university graduates being a recent post graduate myself, and the only ones I know who are struggling to find a job are those who didn't get good grades (2:2 or worse) or did a degree with low job prospects to begin with (Illustration for example). Nobody who I know from my degree (Computer Science) or other science degrees with good results have struggled.

Number 1 is certainly the truth, if you want your country to be part of the global markets. Relying on a government to actually supply people jobs is a bad idea.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Gotta agree with Scara here. Always be very dubious when people talk about the level of poverty in any country. The use of median income is a horrible measure as it is a moving target.

For example, if the wealthy get better off the poverty level will go up and with it, the numbers of those in poverty. However if prices and their income have stayed constant, have they really become any poorer? I'd argue they haven't.

It should really be a measure comparing disposable income to the prices of essential goods and services (food, housing, fuel etc), although I'm sure there are flaws using that metric too.

The poverty discussion in the western world is a bad joke. For the last 20 years every year I volunteer to help out in less fortunate countries. If you aren't less than 10 days away from starving to death on an almost constant basis you are not in poverty. People in the western society don't know how lucky they are. I did two stints with inner city kids. One was DC the other was in London. I will never volunteer to help inner city kids again. They don't know how lucky they are compared to people who live in real poverty without opportunities and yet they expect and demand people to help them and always look to others for excuses as to why their lives are failing rather than look inwards.

 

[thfcsteff]

You have to be very careful with stats like these. Rather than rely on the headline figure, try to look at what makes up the stats and see if the author's opinion matches reality.

Take the following example (based on reality):

The poverty line is based on median income. A new PM takes power and a few people move to the top of the chain and start to earn a lot of money (the influx of city traders for example). The median income shoots up and thousands of families who were just above the border line are now in 'poverty'.

However, the PM also sorts out the problem of rampant inflation, so those families who were able to buy less and less with their wages every year can now buy exactly the same as they could before. So instead of getting poorer they are staying level, but according to stats are now in poverty.

Conversely, New Labour decided a target of theirs was to reduce child poverty. So what they did was to find a few thousand families just below the poverty line and increase their income very slightly to remove them from poverty. So whilst the child poverty figures have fallen, they've actually made no material changes to anyone's lives.

You can also reduce child poverty by fudging the economy. Ruin it enough and you'll take everyone 'out of poverty' whilst making everyone poor.

You're right re: stats. Thatcher and her YTS scheme kept u employment figures far far lower than they realistically were for years. In some cases it would've been called slave labour actually, but there we go, definitions and all that. I'd like to note that 'New Labour' and Bliar were a concept and creation she claimed great credit for, thus the tactic was surely learned??? I think, for me, it was the cut and thrust of young Craig's jib, his handle on the social behaviour/social responsibility side of things which gave me great hope mate...

 

[thfcsteff]

The poverty discussion in the western world is a bad joke. For the last 20 years every year I volunteer to help out in less fortunate countries. If you aren't less than 10 days away from starving to death on an almost constant basis you are not in poverty. People in the western society don't know how lucky they are. I did two stints with inner city kids. One was DC the other was in London. I will never volunteer to help inner city kids again. They don't know how lucky they are compared to people who live in real poverty without opportunities and yet they expect and demand people to help them and always look to others for excuses as to why their lives are failing rather than look inwards.

I think you make excellent excellent points on the one hand, yet on the other there is the reality of everyone's situations. A poor person in a 'developed' nation doesn't suffer any less simply because they aren't poor in a 'developing' one which would make their current situation look princely. It's all relative and it's all about context...

 

[spitshine]

No such thing as poverty in UK. There is a huge safety net in this country should you fall on hard times.

 

[Roy1983]

No such thing as poverty in UK. There is a huge safety net in this country should you fall on hard times.

Yes, which far too many take advantage of. Good point well made.