BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Poverty in the UK

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:36 / 04.07.08
If I were to raise one objection to dizfactor's gratifyingly complete account of the libertarian response to poverty, it might be that it does not mention the UK at any point. To which one might respond that knowledge of the specific conditions of a particular area is not necessary, because the cure for these conditions is always the same - increased participation in free-market capitalism.

Faith-based solutions have, however, often proven to be more effective than medical interventions, so perhaps this makes good sense. It's easy to get bogged down in the details.
 
 
Neon Snake
13:22 / 04.07.08
I'm a little confused.

Hypothetically, I might posit that:

"The UK is a fantastically rich country where everyone has a minimum income enough to provide for all basics, access to free education, health and social housing if required. Unemployment has been consistently low."

Lets say, for argument's sake, that this is completely, objectively, and arguably true.

So what?

What's the "...and therefore, we can conclude that..." that this information leads to?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:48 / 04.07.08
Well, as is covered in the thread, if it is true that absolutely eveyone in the UK has a minimum income enough for all basics, and if poverty is defined as not having a mimimum income enough for all basics, then there is no poverty in the UK.

However, since it is demonstrably not true that everyone in the UK has a minimum income enough for all basics, there is relatively little point in asking what the corollary would be if it were, in fact, true.
 
 
Neon Snake
14:25 / 04.07.08
then there is no poverty in the UK.

But again...so what?

However, since it is demonstrably not true that everyone in the UK has a minimum income enough for all basics, there is relatively little point in asking what the corollary would be if it were, in fact, true.

No, but it is demonstrably true that the UK is far, far closer to a state of zero poverty than many, many other countries. We are in a much better position than many.

(Clearly, we're by no means perfect, and if there are 5 million people who are in state of poverty, then the 'better position' is scant consolation.)

So, what's the correct response to that situation?

To thank our lucky stars and be grateful that we live in the UK (and are not one of the unfortunate 5 million)?

Or are we saying, as hinted above, that were the less fortunate of the world to suddenly economic adopt policies similar to our own, then they would inevitably find themselves in a 'better position'?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:36 / 04.07.08
Well, _we_ aren't saying that. Buk and Dizfactor are saying that. Buk is also saying that as far as he is concerned there is nothing that resembles poverty in a meaningful sense in the UK - that everyone has the resources to ensure an acceptable standard of living. That was the argument advanced at the beginning of the thread, and that is the "so what" - because if it is objectively true, then there is no discussion to be had.
 
 
Fist Fun
13:26 / 05.07.08
5 million people who are in state of poverty

Yeah but I don't get this 5 million people in poverty stuff. If poverty is defined as 60% of the median income then I've spent most of my life on less than that and it has been really, really great and I would never claim to be in poverty.

It completely defies belief to me that 50 quid a week for one person after rent isn't enough to get by on as an absolute minimum. I've done it lots.

I get it that some people are homeless and stuff but, and maybe I'm wrong, it seems that they have problems which means they aren't claiming the benefits they are entitled to or taking advantage of the plentiful supply of jobs. So I would say that isn't a problem of poverty but a problem of mental health or addictions.

People aren't dying of preventable diseases as in other places, kids aren't begging on the street as in other places, it isn't normal for people to live in shanty towns, there is a well developed electrical grid and safe water system.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:31 / 05.07.08
get it that some people are homeless and stuff but, and maybe I'm wrong, it seems that they have problems which means they aren't claiming the benefits they are entitled to or taking advantage of the plentiful supply of jobs.

Maybe you are. Why don't you go and find out?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:01 / 05.07.08
Here's the website for Shelter. Phone them up and ask.
 
 
Neon Snake
21:52 / 05.07.08
Yeah but I don't get this 5 million people in poverty stuff. If poverty is defined as 60% of the median income then I've spent most of my life on less than that and it has been really, really great and I would never claim to be in poverty.

According to the earlier post, where I got the "5 million" statistic from, that number of people are in absolute poverty, not just relative poverty.

It's not that they have 60% of the median wage, or £50 a week or whatever, and are whining that they can't afford the top Sky Plus package.

They're whining that they can't afford bottled drinking water in places like Northampton where you cannot, currently, drink what comes out of the tap.

It's not a nice statistic. It doesn't make me feel very comfortable either. I look around my nice little town, and am relative certain that there are not just 10% of the population living in absolute poverty.

That doesn't make it untrue.

Now imagine that state of the places where these people live, in enough quantity that they make the maths of averages work out. Pretty shitty, huh?
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:36 / 06.07.08
which means they aren't claiming the benefits they are entitled to or taking advantage of the plentiful supply of jobs

%Those darn homeless people, they're either stupid or just plain lazy. Either way they certainly haven't experienced real poverty. Why they could be living like the Kings of Europe on £50 a week, and they don't even have to spend any money on rent so they probably get even more money. Homeless people are, like, the richest people in the world.%
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:38 / 06.07.08
Also, of course, Buk keeps behaving as if, if the borderline for poverty is x pounds per week after rent, then everyone who is counted as living in poverty is having their rent paid and then being handed exactly x pounds, which I don't think is how it works. His protestations of having had a great time living on x pounds fail to take into account that there may be people out there living on less than x pounds.

However, this is a counsel of futility.
 
 
Fist Fun
09:47 / 06.07.08
Now imagine that state of the places where these people live, in enough quantity that they make the maths of averages work out. Pretty shitty, huh?

These people are me and my family. I grew up in these places suffering 'poverty'. It was fine. There was no material want. That is my experience and I appreciate that is limited and that others may have experienced it differently.

A temporary technical glitch in water supply in Northampton is not poverty.

What about you guys? Would any of you say that you have lived in poverty?
 
 
Neon Snake
10:42 / 06.07.08
From back on page one:

Over five million people live in "absolute poverty" in the UK, according to a report published today.

... The definition of absolute poverty is taken from a 1995 United Nations statement, which said it was "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs."

It listed those as a lack of food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and access to benefits.

Now, you said that your situation was the following:

We had everything we needed and I would never compare that to poverty in other countries where food, housing, water supplies, education, health care are not guaranteed.

By implication, you had food, water, education, shelter, access to benefits and education.

These five million were not you and your family, according to what you've said.

You and your family lived in "relative poverty". These five million live in "absolute poverty".

I sincerely don't wish to denigrate the plight of those in relative poverty, but you yourself have posited that there is a huge difference.
 
 
Neon Snake
10:44 / 06.07.08
And no, I've never lived in anything approaching poverty, relative or absolute.

So what?

What conclusion does that lead you too?
 
 
Fist Fun
11:49 / 06.07.08
These five million were not you and your family, according to what you've said.

You and your family lived in "relative poverty". These five million live in "absolute poverty".

What I mean is that I grew up in a single parent family on benefits. So we had the lowest possible income. It was not poverty. So I don't know what else there is.

And no, I've never lived in anything approaching poverty, relative or absolute.

So what?

What conclusion does that lead you too?

I'd just like to get examples of people who have experienced poverty in the UK and what that means to them.

Who are the people in absolute poverty in Northampton then? What kind of hardships are more than 10% of the population suffering from?
 
 
Fist Fun
11:53 / 06.07.08
This was a news report a while ago

link

I watch that and I don't see absolute poverty. All the people featured have acceptable minimum standards of living that I would be happy with, as a minimum and with the desire to work for more, and that people in other areas of the world do not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:08 / 06.07.08
Also, of course, Buk keeps behaving as if, if the borderline for poverty is x pounds per week after rent, then everyone who is counted as living in poverty is having their rent paid and then being handed exactly x pounds, which I don't think is how it works. His protestations of having had a great time living on x pounds fail to take into account that there may be people out there living on less than x pounds.

However, this is a counsel of futility.

Nobody here is saying that nowhere in the world is worse off than Britain, Buk. To do so would make that person a fool. As much of fool, indeed, as one who ignores all evidence in favour of repeatedly saying thanks for that I think everything is fine I was OK when I grew up so everyone else must be fine thanks for that I don't think any of that is true thanks for that I mean I just don't believe that everything is fine and if that happened everything would not be fine but everything is fine so it doesn't thanks for that.

You're not going to listen to anything anyone here says, so I have no interest in talking about my childhood or the childhoods of anyone I know so you can say Thanks for that I think you were fine just like I was because everything is fine in Britain thanks for that.

Now, I suggested above that you call Shelter and ask them whether all homeless people could have homes and jobs and financial support from the government if they only asked. What sort of a response did you get?
 
 
Neon Snake
10:53 / 07.07.08
What I mean is that I grew up in a single parent family on benefits. So we had the lowest possible income. It was not poverty. So I don't know what else there is.

Sure. But that's very different to "absolute poverty", which 5 million people live in, as follows:

"The UN statement defined anyone lacking three or more of the following items as living in absolute poverty: food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and access to social security benefits."

You've lived under what sounds like very trying conditions. There are five million people, reportedly, who live in worse conditions.


I'd just like to get examples of people who have experienced poverty in the UK and what that means to them.

Sure. Why?
I mean, you're asking for personal information regarding our past/present financial circumstances. What are you expecting?

I mean, I somehow doubt (wild and unsupported claim alert!) that any of the people living in absolute poverty are also taking the time to post on Barbelith, you know?

Who are the people in absolute poverty in Northampton then? What kind of hardships are more than 10% of the population suffering from?

Not more than 10%. Around 9%. And I don't know who they are, because I don't live there.

Does that mean that they don't exist?
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:39 / 07.07.08
There was no material want.

I suspect this not to be the case. Unless you took a census or something Buk how could you know there was no material want?

That you can live on £50 a week after bills is great (although I'm amazed anyone would be content with that) but you don't get to speak for everyone.

You don't seem to understand that the definition of poverty might differ depending on which country you're in. Yes people in the UK who are experiencing poverty might be better off when compared with people living somewhere in the Third World who's experiencing poverty. But that doesn't mean they are not in poverty.
 
 
Fist Fun
15:10 / 09.07.08
Ok Evil maybe this is where we aren't understanding each other. I thought absolute poverty was a fixed standard which would apply to all human beings regardless of where they live. So it is not relative in any way.

So from earlier in the thread:
The definition of absolute poverty is taken from a 1995 United Nations statement, which said it was "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs."

It listed those as a lack of food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and access to benefits.

So when you say :
You don't seem to understand that the definition of poverty might differ depending on which country you're in.

You are right I don't understand that and you'll have to explain it to me. How does the definition of absolute poverty/basic human need vary from country to country?
 
 
Fist Fun
15:32 / 09.07.08
Neon Snake: You've lived under what sounds like very trying conditions. There are five million people, reportedly, who live in worse conditions.

They weren't trying conditions at all. It was a rich, plentiful life. I am completely aware of how lucky I am to be born in the UK.

Can you see why I find it hard to believe the five million figure though. Cos if I was in a single parent family surviving on benefits then it is hard to believe that there were millions of people on lower incomes.

Also living in an area of low income I would expect to at least be aware if malnutrition, sanitiation, clean drinking water or lack of access to health care or education was an issue for other people.

Take a look at the video I posted above on the channel 4 website. How would you describe the people in the video? Are any of them suffering absolute poverty as defined by the UN standards?
 
 
Lucid Frenzy
16:37 / 09.07.08
Like other people I'm finding this emphasis on what x-number of pounds you need to get by somewhat strange. I'm really not interested in anecdotes about people getting change for a nine-bob note when they were a nipper.

Beyond subsistence, we're in the world of relative poverty. But so what? Why on earth should the measure of poverty be static? An example, I live in Brighton which is a property hotspot. House prices have risen massively which of course has pushed up rents. Shops have become increasingly yuppified. In some cases people who've been born here and have family links here are being forced to move out. There's now a debate about this, which is almost always phrased in terms of "where will you find a decent domestic cleaner now?"

Also, I'm picking up the implicit notion none of this matters because the poor will eventually catch up. They're just the people a bit thicker than us, who are a bit more lazy in applying for jobs, right? In fact the gap between rich and poor has risen massively since the Eighties, precisely because of the free market policies which are usually paraded as the solution.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:19 / 10.07.08
Buk,

From a post by Neon Snake:

"The UN statement defined anyone lacking three or more of the following items as living in absolute poverty: food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and access to social security benefits."

So someone in the UK might have access to safe drinking water (via public drinking fountains) and health (via the NHS) but no access to shelter, education, or sanitation facilities. This puts them into the UN defined state of absolute poverty, but means they're in a slightly better position than someone in another country who also has no access to food/water/health. However, both are still in absolute poverty.

Clearer?
 
 
Fist Fun
11:54 / 10.07.08
Ok.

Going back to that video from channel 4. What do you think about that? Would you say anyone in the video is in a state of absolute poverty?
 
 
Neon Snake
12:30 / 10.07.08
Can you see why I find it hard to believe the five million figure though. Cos if I was in a single parent family surviving on benefits then it is hard to believe that there were millions of people on lower incomes.

Sure. I find it hard to believe in a lot of things that I've never seen myself. The yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, that kind of thing.

Because, along with the fact that I've never seen them with my own eyes, there is also a lack of reliable reports on them.

However, there is not a lack of reliable reporting on the "absolute poverty" issue; there is, in fact, a whole book about it, the headlines facts of which are available on t'internet.

You lived, survived, and apparently prospered on an amount of income provided to you by benefits. You seem to be having some difficulty understanding that there are people in the country who, for whatever reason, don't get the same level of benefits, or any, or whose costs to live outstripped yours.


Take a look at the video I posted above on the channel 4 website. How would you describe the people in the video? Are any of them suffering absolute poverty as defined by the UN standards?

No, probably not; because the purpose of the video, as stated on the website is "finding out from the people who meet the statistical poverty profile whether they consider themselves poor."

"(They) visited the Orchard Park estate in Hull, where 55 per cent of families are out of work and on benefits - that's double the national average."


As we're trying to point out, meeting the statistical profiles for relative poverty is not the same as living in absolute poverty.
 
 
Fist Fun
12:49 / 10.07.08
Well, Neon Snake, I'm completely stumped as to where the millions and millions of people in absolute poverty are then.

They aren't the people in that video working in low paid jobs or living solely from benefits. So are the five million completely excluded from the benefit system.

You mentioned earlier:
I look around my nice little town, and am relative certain that there are not just 10% of the population living in absolute poverty.

What makes you think that? I don't mean that in any snide way but I am genuinely trying to see your point of view. Have you known people locally who are starving, don't have access to water, didn't have an education or are excluded from health care?
 
 
Neon Snake
12:59 / 10.07.08
What makes you think that? I don't mean that in any snide way but I am genuinely trying to see your point of view. Have you known people locally who are starving, don't have access to water, didn't have an education or are excluded from health care?

I phrased that incorrectly, on re-reading. My mistake. I missed out the word "under", which obviously changes the meaning entirely.

I mean't to write "and am relative certain that there are not just under 10% of the population living in absolute poverty."

There are not many people in my town living in absolute poverty; although there are a few homeless people who I see from time to time, who are, by definition, in absolute poverty.

The importance of that statement was bound up in the question of what conclusion you hope to draw from this discussion.
 
 
Lucid Frenzy
18:09 / 10.07.08
'Relative poverty' isn't about people aspiring to a newer Playstation or a fresher brand of trainers. It's a measure of poverty, where poverty is measured relationally. Some experts believe that is why it is called 'relative poverty', as some form of a clue.

For myself, we all grew up in a shoebox and had to get up half an hour before we went to bed. So I should know poverty when I don't see it.
 
 
Not Here Still
10:15 / 12.07.08
Have you known people locally who are starving, don't have access to water, didn't have an education or are excluded from health care?

Yes.

Dismissing the idea there is poverty in the UK by simply saying "we were poor, but we were 'appy" doesn't really cut the mustard.

Breaking things down into easy to understand pieces:

Simply because you may have lived a wonderful life in a single parent family on benefits, it does does not follow that everyone else who is in a single parent family on benefits must also be living the same wonderful life.

Even if that were the case, there people who are not even in the happy position of being part of a single parent family on benefits.

There are those who - to use that creaking old phrase - "fall through the cracks of society", who cannot or do not benefit from all that which you describe.

As has already been highlighted, there are people who have difficulty engaging with the system - those, for instance, with mental health issues, literacy problems, no fixed address (a simple factor from which a vast number of problems arise), language barriers, a lack of education, a simple unwillingness to put themselves through a process they see as demeaning (people object, for instance, to means-testing), physical health issues they may be unaware of or unwilling to confront.

That list isn't meant to be exhaustive, but is just a few examples off the top of my head as to why people may be living in conditions which are not as idyllic as your personal experience. It is also intended to highlight that, just because systems exist to help people, it does not follow that people will have the ability to maximise their use of them.

Now, it can be can argued that is a system in place, fuck 'em if they can't access it, and poverty doesn't exist as a result.

But that doesn't make it the case.
 
 
Fist Fun
11:30 / 12.07.08
So what you are saying Not Here Still is that the people who are in absolute poverty are those who for whatever reasons are unable to claim the minimum state benefits which would keep them out of absolute poverty.

I can totally see that. I wouldn't say that was a problem of poverty I'd it is a problem because of the issues that make them hard to reach.

But yeah, fair enough, if people have something holding them back from being able to claim the minimum state support then they would clearly be in poverty and have a hard life.
 
 
Fist Fun
14:40 / 25.07.08
Related article.
 
 
teleute
20:26 / 25.07.08
I've been watching this thread with interest but been somewhat cautious about wading into such murky waters. In some respects I've enjoyed reading the views posted because they've challenged some of my own perceptions regarding poverty and need.

I've particularly enjoyed the discourse regarding absolute and relative poverty in the UK. It's made me think that poverty can in some respects be subjective (with regard to education in matters such as arts and education) but there is a fixed line when it comes to financial poverty.

To clarify, I have worked for a number of years for grant making organisations in the UK. I have worked for both statutory orgs and charities who make grants to people in need and local communities. I have seen both the best and the worst in local poverty, including working within the poorest postal district as classified at that time in the UK (Hendon, in Sunderland).

I now work for an organisation straddled between the polar opposite of inequality and wealth, without naming it, it is a charity which receives donations from wealthy individuals to give to the 'deserving poor'. I have assessed what we internally call the 'misery awards', namely grants of about £50-£100 that are given to families with children who cannot afford the basic provisions such as beds for their children or washing machines. I have come to realise that my childhood in a one parent family in social housing at a local comprehensive school was in many ways idyllic. I wasn't dirty. I wasn't sleeping on a floor. I wasn't lacking food. I wasn't living on an estate where I would be routinely threatened. Perhaps this was luck.

However, I have realised reading this thread that what I see on a daily basis isn't absolute poverty, it is generally relative. People do have water and food, even if it is a Greggs special deal of pasty, pop and crisps for a pound. What they do tend to have is specific poverty: in education, in numeracy, in literacy, in ambition. This is real poverty, real inequality in our comfortable, middle class world.

I had an argument yesterday with a comfortably middle class colleague with kids at private school. We give small grants from people who wish to take their kids to Flamingo Land or Digger Land. He scoffs at that, saying they should be told to aspire higher: more educational trips to Wells Catherdral or a university campus. I disagree, a step out of daily reality in the form of a theatre group is so often more effective at raising aspirations than forcing culture down peoples throats (a digression from the thread, I apologise).

But I have enjoyed this thread. My contribution maybe lightweight but I have benefited from the overall discussion, including my professional life.
 
 
Fist Fun
10:52 / 27.07.08
Thanks for that Teleute. Really interesting post and not lightweight at all. Hope you post more.

Really interesting that someone who has:

"worked for both statutory orgs and charities who make grants to people in need and local communities"

and

"seen both the best and the worst in local poverty, including working within the poorest postal district as classified at that time in the UK (Hendon, in Sunderland)"

thinks that :

"what I see on a daily basis isn't absolute poverty, it is generally relative."

For the posters who are claiming, it seems on the basis of a bbc article on a report they have not read, that there are millions of people in absolute poverty in the UK... does this post from someone working closely with poverty change your view?

We can all agree that there is relative poverty and unless they is less inequality then there will always be. I'm not convinced that inequality is necessarily bad though.

Certainly not the inequality we have in the UK. For me, as long as everyone has the basics for a decent life and opportunities for better then inequality isn't bad.

It is interesting that you pick up on education Teleute.

I see that in the third world there isn't enough money to build schools and educate the whole population. Which breeds poverty and lack of opportunity. If they had more money they could provide more and better education and eliminate some poverty and create opportunity.

But in the UK there are school places for every child. It is a legal duty to educate children till they are sixteen, backed up by social services. Schools are massively well funded and free at point of need. I think it costs something like 7 grand of tax money per child per year. Education is a huge political issue which is regularly hotly debated in the press and in parliament. Extra effort and funds are targeted towards schools in poor communities.

So while there may still be many problems with education and illiteracy, numeracy it isn't for lack of funds or effort. It just makes you think...ok, so what else can be done.

I kind of think that the problems we are left with are just the really, really hard to solve ones which are always going to surface. As a civilised society we should still work hard to solve them and vote in ways that reflect that (for me that is voting Labour).
 
 
Fist Fun
14:29 / 04.08.08
."...Yet background predicts who will run the banks and who will clean their floors. It's not happenstance; it is largely pre-programmed. General mobility is a myth. The top 10% of income earners get 27.3% of the cake, while the bottom 10% get just 2.6%. Twenty years ago the average chief executive of a FTSE 100 company earned 17 times the average employee's pay; now it is more than 75 times. Since Labour came to power in 1997 the proportion of personal wealth held by the top 10% has swelled from 47% to 54%."
 
 
Not in the Face
12:17 / 11.08.08
We give small grants from people who wish to take their kids to Flamingo Land or Digger Land. He scoffs at that, saying they should be told to aspire higher: more educational trips to Wells Catherdral or a university campus. I disagree, a step out of daily reality in the form of a theatre group is so often more effective at raising aspirations than forcing culture down peoples throats (a digression from the thread, I apologise).

Has your colleague been to Diggerland? I have walked past it several times and it looks great fun and a visit to a cathedral or university would suffer poorly by comparison, especially if its a one-off. As someone who got taken on lots of 'worthy' days out, the idea of spending a day racing a piece of industrial machinery on a dirt track is much more appealing and probably a better investment of the money.

Although a bit thread rotty its a good example of some of the perception problems in defining poverty by people's behaviour.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply