14 million in poverty

[Yellow Bear]

9 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Just for the sake of argument what do the massive believe poverty should mean ? Bloated stomachs walking bare foot with flies round the mouth or having to go to food banks

OK then put up - what do YOU consider poverty to be

[hambone]

I think my opinion as to what equals the poverty line differs from the mediam income thing. A lot of families fall into this group and as previously mentioned got the tattoos, sky tv, drink, smoke and use the other recreational yet somehow still fall into the "poverty" category??? 

[Lloyd90]

Lots of people seem to be mixing up relative poverty and absolute poverty. Relative poverty, so even with a good income, IF YOU CHOOSE to have loads of kids, you can say you don't have enough to go around and your hard done by! 

Rubbish, if you choose to have 3-4 kids and you or your partner don't work, don't then wonder how your going to get by and how your going to pay the bills.

The government and the tax payer isn't your child's mother/father and shouldn't be responsible for their every need.

Hamster you seem to be trying to guilt everyone, "oh dear! think of the children!" ... well maybe the parent's should have thought of the children before they had them!! 

 

Relative poverty

Relative poverty generally means that a person can't afford an "ordinary living pattern"—they're excluded from the activities and opportunities that the average person enjoys.

A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income.  

The median is the number 'in the middle' of a set—so half of all households earn more than the median income household, and half earn less.

The government wants to measure spending power, rather than earning power, so it counts incomes after taxes and benefits.

And households need different degrees of spending power to live comfortably, depending on their size and shape. A household with one person in it needs less money to live comfortably than a household consisting of a couple and two children.

So household incomes are “equivalised” in poverty statistics. They’re adjusted to take into account the number of adults and children who live there.

If you want to know where your own household fits in the income scale you need to adjust your income in a similar way. The Office for National Statistics has published an interactive tool that lets you do that.

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty is slightly trickier. The definition used by a number of international organisations (such as the UN and the World Bank) is that you cannot afford the basic needs of life—food, clothing, shelter and so on.

This is absolute in the sense that it’s measured relative to a fixed standard of living, rather than the rest of the population.

This isn’t the definition used by the UK government.

As we explained above, it defines “relative poverty” in comparison to median incomes in the current year.

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Lloyd90

[Hamster]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

OK then put up - what do YOU consider poverty to be

I consider it to be what the experts in those reports have deemed to be the modern day parameters for poverty, in other words what we considered as poverty in the 50's doesn't mean anything TODAY. You can't just dismiss the findings of an official report because it doesn't fit in with your own opinion. 

[grrclark]

Two of the reports you link to Hamster refer to a new measurement of poverty as defined by the social metrics commission which considers poverty in a different way, likewise the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculate it in a different way too, indeed the JRF participated in the establishment of this proposed metric.  These measures are wholly different from what we have used before.

What the stark headline does not make clear is that there are also degrees of poverty, there will be those who fall into that 14.2 million that would not recognise themselves as being in poverty if you asked them, they are maybe a bit pinched and sometimes struggle to make ends meet, but otherwise they still have a house, food, schooling, heating, etc.  There will also be those of course that are in a much worse position that we might ordinarily consider as being poverty stricken.

Poverty is a word that is actually fairly vague in meaning, but has a powerful emotional value, because of that I look at this as yet another example of soundbite journalism that in turn will become soundbite politics and virtue signalling outrage.  This type of journalism really grates on me and even the better quality press outlets increasingly choose to tread that path precisely because of the polarised reaction it generates.  

It is very much the sort of article that provokes a polarised reaction on PW too, however I suspect that you knew that when making it  

[DUNKS]

Hi. Are these figures from people of working age?

Lots of pensioners me included with everything paid for. House, car etc, no need to buy anything new. Good stock of clothes goodies e.t.c. can easily exist on the assumed poverty level. Are we counted to boost the figures?

[Lloyd90]

13 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Two of the reports you link to Hamster refer to a new measurement of poverty as defined by the social metrics commission which considers poverty in a different way, likewise the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculate it in a different way too, indeed the JRF participated in the establishment of this proposed metric.  These measures are wholly different from what we have used before.

What the stark headline does not make clear is that there are also degrees of poverty, there will be those who fall into that 14.2 million that would not recognise themselves as being in poverty if you asked them, they are maybe a bit pinched and sometimes struggle to make ends meet, but otherwise they still have a house, food, schooling, heating, etc.  There will also be those of course that are in a much worse position that we might ordinarily consider as being poverty stricken.

Poverty is a word that is actually fairly vague in meaning, but has a powerful emotional value, because of that I look at this as yet another example of soundbite journalism that in turn will become soundbite politics and virtue signalling outrage.  This type of journalism really grates on me and even the better quality press outlets increasingly choose to tread that path precisely because of the polarised reaction it generates.  

It is very much the sort of article that provokes a polarised reaction on PW too, however I suspect that you knew that when making it  

 

He know's exactly what it would provoke, also why he has refused to write down his definition of poverty, instead giving vague answers and referring to the articles. 

Just trying to stir up trouble. 

[ditchman]

2 hours ago, motty said:

To say that there are 14 million in poverty in this country is absolute bull ****.

lets say "self imposed poverty"..............what the older population view as a luxury....is now viewed by DWP as a necessity or even an eccential item.......

also the culture of "i want it now"..........and easy credit at god knows how many thousand % interest

like many people on here...if i couldnt afford it ...i went without..........i have never bought a new settee in my life....whats the point when you pay £1000 quid for one ...by the time you get it home it is worth £200 quid max at an auction....same with phones and contracts...cars......

Edited November 12, 2018 by ditchman

[Walker570]

39 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

The biggest increase in people using foodbanks has come from people who work.

Then what are they spending their earnings on ???? Surely food in your mouth is first on the list and believe me it does not have to be expensive. Simply watching 'sell by dates' can get you some very good deals and a sack of spuds is only the price of a couple of pints or twenty fags, which are your priorities. 

[Hendrix's rifle]

43 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

The biggest increase in people using foodbanks has come from people who work.

If me and my Mrs packed our jobs in and claimed dole we would have more between us along with the extra time... start spawning kids and we would be rolling in it! Not for me though

[Walker570]

Anyway Corbyn will sort it. He's worked hard all his life, hasn't he.

[grrclark]

3 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

He know's exactly what it would provoke, also why he has refused to write down his definition of poverty, instead giving vague answers and referring to the articles. 

Just trying to stir up trouble. 

That's maybe a bit strong, definitely looking for a reaction, but take a look at so many of the threads that are posted in off topic now that are all the same.  Loads are posts by the perpetually aggrieved and angry that are looking for an echo chamber where other posters can agree and convince them that they are right.

At least Hamid's post is challenging.  Look beyond the sensational headline of numbers and consider what the metrics are saying, the UK does have a very real problem with affordability in day to day living for very many families.  Of course all the headlines are made by debating the extremities of that scale and we will duly trot out the examples from either end of the spectrum of the never had a job lone parent of 6 brats who smokes, drinks, has satellite telly and whines about how hard up they are and of course the genuinely unfortunate family with two working parents doing 4 jobs and still can't make ends meet to support their severely disabled kid and have to rely on food banks.

What we need to realise that the extreme examples are extreme and not reflective of the reality for the masses.  But where is the fun in arguing subtleties? 

[Hamster]

14 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

He know's exactly what it would provoke, also why he has refused to write down his definition of poverty, instead giving vague answers and referring to the articles. 

Just trying to stir up trouble. 

There is absolutely nothing vague about me saying I accept the modern day definition of what those reports are based on. 

And for all your collective information this was on national news and not something I decided to cook up to wind you all up with. 

Yes I did know it would elicit the predictable denials and disparaging responses that it has because unless something literally affects people personally it appears it doesn't or can't even exist. 

[Lloyd90]

2 minutes ago, Hamster said:

There is absolutely nothing vague about me saying I accept the modern day definition of what those reports are based on. 

And for all your collective information this was on national news and not something I decided to cook up to wind you all up with. 

Yes I did know it would elicit the predictable denials and disparaging responses that it has because unless something literally affects people personally it appears it doesn't or can't even exist. 

 

I was under the impression that the whole basis of academic articles was that they create talking points, but they can be critiqued and many will disagree with them.

Yet you seem to be throwing them around like they're concrete fact and can't be disputed... 

10 minutes ago, grrclark said:

That's maybe a bit strong, definitely looking for a reaction, but take a look at so many of the threads that are posted in off topic now that are all the same.  Loads are posts by the perpetually aggrieved and angry that are looking for an echo chamber where other posters can agree and convince them that they are right.

At least Hamid's post is challenging.  Look beyond the sensational headline of numbers and consider what the metrics are saying, the UK does have a very real problem with affordability in day to day living for very many families.  Of course all the headlines are made by debating the extremities of that scale and we will duly trot out the examples from either end of the spectrum of the never had a job lone parent of 6 brats who smokes, drinks, has satellite telly and whines about how hard up they are and of course the genuinely unfortunate family with two working parents doing 4 jobs and still can't make ends meet to support their severely disabled kid and have to rely on food banks.

What we need to realise that the extreme examples are extreme and not reflective of the reality for the masses.  But where is the fun in arguing subtleties? 

Challenging perhaps but as shooting is very much a right wing type person hobby, It's like going to a PETA convention and shouting about the benefits of eating red meat or hunted game, sometimes people just throw stuff out into a crow where they know it will cause controversy.

What is his agenda? 

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

I was under the impression that the whole basis of academic articles was that they create talking points, but they can be critiqued and many will disagree with them.

Yet you seem to be throwing them around like they're concrete fact and can't be disputed... 

Oh no Lloyd, do please disagree with them and critique away, just the odd bit of provable data with facts and figures would be nice though once in a while rather than I knew 3 brothers.............................

ps. I know it wasn't you who said that by the way. 

[Lloyd90]

5 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Oh no Lloyd, do please disagree with them and critique away, just the odd bit of provable data with facts and figures would be nice though once in a while rather than I knew 3 brothers.............................

Provable data? You want quantitative data but seem to want to ignore qualitative data... data that can be observed but not easily measured, is still data. 

When you have hundred's of people personally witness people who make bad choices and waste their money then that is evidence and you can't ignore it. When someone knows 3 brothers that's a one off, yet you could ask almost anyone and they'd have a similar story. 

I was working with a young man just last week earning £200 a week on an apprenticeship as a plasterer, yet thought it was better to sit about smoking weed all day and has now been sacked. He had numerous people helping him and getting his foot in the door, but at the end of the day he has to take some responsibility for himself. He also had £600 the month before, went out and spend it all on designer clothes, then sat around complaining how he doesn't get enough money. 

Many many people have personally witnessed accounts similar to this, all the time, it goes on everyday. Just because someone isn't sat adding it all up doesn't mean that it doesn't. 

You can stick your head in the sand and say it's a one off etc etc, yet almost anyone you know can give you similar examples. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

2 hours ago, Hamster said:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/16/new-study-finds-45-million-uk-children-living-in-poverty

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-poverty-levels-childcare-disability-ocial-metrics-commission-finances-a8540941.html

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-2017

It was the very subject covered on tonights channel 4 news but I'm sure they forgot to factor in PigeonWatch Massive's parameters as to what constitutes poverty. 

 

hello, i watched that Hamster, so much for the Conservatives saying we are going to build a better Britain i have heard that from different Parties this last 50 years, 50 years on we have food banks to help people on moderate incomes let alone those who are caught up with this new benefit system, 

[yod dropper]

Hamster uses the measures of poverty that meant when net incomes fell after the financial crash poverty fell. Now net incomes are rising, poverty rises as well. This is just perverse leftist economic 'logic'.

Expect such nonsense from the conspiracy theorists, the cultural marxists, the anti-Americans, the anti-Israelis, the anti-capitalists, the anti-establiishment, the trustafarians, the anti-MSM, the enlightened, the morally superior, the leftists. They're all one and the same.

On the plus side Hamster, good work on the magpies, very impressive.

[team tractor]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

Lots of people seem to be mixing up relative poverty and absolute poverty. Relative poverty, so even with a good income, IF YOU CHOOSE to have loads of kids, you can say you don't have enough to go around and your hard done by! 

Rubbish, if you choose to have 3-4 kids and you or your partner don't work, don't then wonder how your going to get by and how your going to pay the bills.

The government and the tax payer isn't your child's mother/father and shouldn't be responsible for their every need.

Hamster you seem to be trying to guilt everyone, "oh dear! think of the children!" ... well maybe the parent's should have thought of the children before they had them!! 

 

Relative poverty

Relative poverty generally means that a person can't afford an "ordinary living pattern"—they're excluded from the activities and opportunities that the average person enjoys.

A household is in relative poverty (also called relative low income) if its income is below 60% of the median household income.  

The median is the number 'in the middle' of a set—so half of all households earn more than the median income household, and half earn less.

The government wants to measure spending power, rather than earning power, so it counts incomes after taxes and benefits.

And households need different degrees of spending power to live comfortably, depending on their size and shape. A household with one person in it needs less money to live comfortably than a household consisting of a couple and two children.

So household incomes are “equivalised” in poverty statistics. They’re adjusted to take into account the number of adults and children who live there.

If you want to know where your own household fits in the income scale you need to adjust your income in a similar way. The Office for National Statistics has published an interactive tool that lets you do that.

Absolute poverty

Absolute poverty is slightly trickier. The definition used by a number of international organisations (such as the UN and the World Bank) is that you cannot afford the basic needs of life—food, clothing, shelter and so on.

This is absolute in the sense that it’s measured relative to a fixed standard of living, rather than the rest of the population.

This isn’t the definition used by the UK government.

As we explained above, it defines “relative poverty” in comparison to median incomes in the current year.

 

Your wrong on the children bit.

my mrs wants to work but won’t be able to after having 2 children with me. The child care out weights the wages she’s earning. She’s £30 down a month going to work . I mean if she sits at home and earns nothing  she’s better off. 

Ive 4 kids in total and pay for all of them but we are better off not working. Why shouldn’t we have a little help  . The government would be better off contributing the amount she could claim towards child care. She would then pay tax and NI . No insentive to work . 

As said in a previous thread she’s recently qualified for a government related job while on maternity too so she’s really trying to support our family.

Breeding is a big part of  life and a must . 

[Lloyd90]

1 minute ago, team tractor said:

Your wrong on the children bit.

my mrs wants to work but won’t be able to after having 2 children with me. The child care out weights the wages she’s earning. She’s £30 down a month going to work . I mean if she sits at home and earns nothing  she’s better off. 

Ive 4 kids in total and pay for all of them but we are better off not working. Why shouldn’t we have a little help  . The government would be better off contributing the amount she could claim towards child care. She would then pay tax and NI . No insentive to work . 

As said in a previous thread she’s recently qualified for a government related job while on maternity too so she’s really trying to support our family.

Breeding is a big part of  life and a must . 

See this easily gets emotive and personal... but surely you knew the cost of child care before you had kids? (you must of if you already had 2). And you knew what you both earned? So you surely knew before having those 2 kids that the childcare would be more than your Mrs earned? 

Thing is, as your clearly a hard working fella, when your kids are older I imagine your Mrs will probably go back to work? 

 

Many people are in the position you currently find yourself when having kids, but they know it won't last.

 

Some people won't see the position that you are in as just temporary however, some will see it as a life style, and just bang out some more kids to keep that life style rolling. 

Some people will moan and say isn't it terrible that those kids live in poverty, and yet the parent's continue to pop them out. 

7 minutes ago, team tractor said:

 

Breeding is a big part of  life and a must . 

Is it really?

Some people don't have any kids through choice, they decide not to. 

Some people have 1, or 2, some even have 3 or 4, like yourself. 

Some people have 7, some have 10 or 12 or 15 ... are they all a must? 

Does some one have to have that many kids and then expect to have financial help? What should the cut off be? 

[Bazooka Joe]

49 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Anyway Corbyn will sort it.

You might be right...

The powers that be ignored the electorate & Brexit happened.

They continue to keep their noses in the trough & ignore people just managing on the breadline, then, when election time comes around you'll have Corbyn.

 

[Mice!]

Well that's been an interesting read, i would certainly say there are levels of poverty about but some of it will be down to how you cut your cloth, if that saying is right?

some guys i work with say their skint, but earn exactly the same as me, difference will be in how they live or what debts/ child care their paying etc

Then you will have other people who don't work but still want things so they rack up debt, this might well be the same for people on minimum wage.

I would say that everything is dearer now a days than when i was a kid 40 years ago, we had to make do and save for things and probably made do with a lot less, my kids are probably spoilt but i can. But their also learning the value of things as they grow.

[matone]

8 hours ago, Hamster said:

Precisely, many people considered on or below the poverty line are at work, some do two or more jobs.

`Cut your cloth accordingly` springs to mind ! Too many people living beyond their means is the problem but that`s not poverty ,it`s stupidity !!!!

[Hamster]

1 hour ago, matone said:

`Cut your cloth accordingly` springs to mind ! Too many people living beyond their means is the problem but that`s not poverty ,it`s stupidity !!!!

I'm afraid that simplistic quip doesn't take into account people, perhaps the elderly who have worked and paid taxes for 45 years, who have to ration how many hours they use their heating so they have enough to buy basic foods. PigeonWatch likes to assume that these stats refer to people who don't or refuse to work.

7 hours ago, yod dropper said:

Hamster uses the measures of poverty that meant when net incomes fell after the financial crash poverty fell. Now net incomes are rising, poverty rises as well. This is just perverse leftist economic 'logic'.

Expect such nonsense from the conspiracy theorists, the cultural marxists, the anti-Americans, the anti-Israelis, the anti-capitalists, the anti-establiishment, the trustafarians, the anti-MSM, the enlightened, the morally superior, the leftists. They're all one and the same.

On the plus side Hamster, good work on the magpies, very impressive.

Steady on, admittedly less "aid" to despots could prolly be spent better at home but that's below the belt and diversionary, might even bring out a Mod's stick for derailment. 😃 Why is wanting less poverty and better distribution of wealth and opportunity a bad thing ? How is it "marxism" ? 😴  Does capitalism not care about these things then ? 

The robbing 😂  magpies are easy, they don't have the benefit of the msm behind them brainwashing the victims into actually defending them. 😂 😆 😳 

 

[team tractor]

8 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

See this easily gets emotive and personal... but surely you knew the cost of child care before you had kids? (you must of if you already had 2). And you knew what you both earned? So you surely knew before having those 2 kids that the childcare would be more than your Mrs earned? 

Thing is, as your clearly a hard working fella, when your kids are older I imagine your Mrs will probably go back to work? 

 

Many people are in the position you currently find yourself when having kids, but they know it won't last.

 

Some people won't see the position that you are in as just temporary however, some will see it as a life style, and just bang out some more kids to keep that life style rolling. 

Some people will moan and say isn't it terrible that those kids live in poverty, and yet the parent's continue to pop them out. 

Is it really?

Some people don't have any kids through choice, they decide not to. 

Some people have 1, or 2, some even have 3 or 4, like yourself. 

Some people have 7, some have 10 or 12 or 15 ... are they all a must? 

Does some one have to have that many kids and then expect to have financial help? What should the cut off be? 

We are born to breed. If no one had kids , the human race would die out. 

Anyone that’s trying to work should get help in my eyes. 

My mrs is currently clocking a few hours while I sleep at night protecting us all but it’s a few hours between sleep . She wants to do it full time. Should she sit at home receiving £120 a fortnight? Or would that be better spent on child care so she can pay tax and NI back into the system ? 

Help those that try to help themselves.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by team tractor