How the term 'poverty' has changed

Yes, the idea of "poverty" has indeed changed over time; and I, for one, think that is a good thing.

My mum grew up in a house with only an outside toilet and no central heating. I remember visiting my grandparents and, even until the 1980s, there was still only an outside toilet and no central heating.

I am very glad that our ideas of poverty have moved forward.

This idea of what a concept (eg "poverty") means changes over time in many different areas, not just poverty, to take account of changes in social standards and attitudes.

To take an extreme example, the concept of "cruelty" is the same today as it was when the Bill of Rights 1688 forbade the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments". But changes in social standards mean that punishments which would not have been regarded as cruel in 1688 will be so regarded today.

Or how about the concept of a child's "welfare"? That word was used in section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, now section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The concept of "welfare" is, no doubt, the same today as it was in 1925 but the content of that concept has changed and continues to change.

A child's welfare is to be judged today by the standards of reasonable men and women in 2025 – not by the standards of their grandparents (or maybe now, great grandparents) in 1925 or their parents in the 1980s.

The concept of "poverty" is no different.

*If your partner works for the emergency services then surely he must be on at least the national average?

Unless he's a new starter, police men, ambulance staff, firefighters etc get at least that. Not really poverty.*

It's like Keir Starmer trying to make out that he grew up in poverty despite both his parents having decent professions! They were just an average family.

If your partner works for the emergency services then surely he must be on at least the national average?

Unless he's a new starter, police men, ambulance staff, firefighters etc get at least that. Not really poverty.

It's about relative poverty within the UK and the comparison is the gap between the current haves and the have nots, not necessarily between poverty now and poverty then.

I wasn't talking about homelessness itself, but rough sleeping and I made that clear so don't mis-quote me.

I would almost describe myself as 'in poverty' now. I work three jobs, one full time, one night shifts and one cleaning job in the early mornings- I still can't afford to provide myself with three (home cooked, from scratch) meals a day- I go without so my family don't have to.

I rent, so therefore can't sublet a room, my rent is over a grand a month, my council tax is £200pm. That's without bills, basic necessities such as a phone bill and transport (transport of which I have cut down to the bare minimum, I take two trains and a 20 minute walk to work- there are no jobs closer to home that wouldn't mean taking a pay cut).

My partner works for the emergency services and earns less than I do. He saves lives and puts his life at risk each day, to earn pennies.

This past month, I couldn't afford to purchase sanitary products for myself- doing so would mean taking money out of the food pot.

I wouldn't blatantly describe myself as in poverty, as there are many thousands of people worse off than me, and although I go without, I manage just fine; however I find your comments outdated, and frankly blind to the current financial climate.

Because they prefer not to have the crap beaten out of them, their scant possessions stolen, or assaulted. Please don't assume that all homeless folks got there because of addictions or fecklessness, and I really hope you're never ever put in that position yourself.

I think if you read the post it explains that taking in lodgers historically was a very normal and common thing to do and probably solved the housing problems at that time. It is no longer seen as normal practice for some of the reasons you state but also because of the welfare state it no longer was necessary.
We often comment on women who never worked, letting out rooms to lodgers in the middle of the 20th century was a side hustle for many women. They were already looking after one man for nothing, why not take in paying lodgers and make a bit of money yourself. In fact in slightly better off households they were referred to as “paying guest”.Being a landlady was a career for many women.
I don’t think that OP is suggesting that we all rent out space in our houses, but it was incredibly common in all levels of society in the past.
It’s quite interesting that many pp find it so shocking and it puts them firmly in the younger generations who have no memories of the practice.
I remember Coronation Street in the 60s and 70s several of the fictitious households had lodgers. No one questioned it or thought it weird since it reflected real life in the working classes. There are still plenty of people who rent out rooms to other working people but maybe you don’t move in those circles.

My DS’s friend is buying a house to do up where they are students, he works for his dad in construction when not at uni so it’s a joint enterprise to get him on the property ladder. They will spend the summer renovating and move in next academic year. DS will be his lodger along with several others. Their rent will pay the mortgage. DS will probably spend his 20s either lodging with friends or renting off landlords. Or if lucky buying a property but letting out rooms. It’s just what young professionals do.

We live rurally where many people have annexes that they rent out on a commercial basis to earn extra income. I think that with the social mobility that lead to house ownership the working classes are very snobby about sharing their homes, since a generation or two ago it would have indicated that they needed extra money.

There are plenty of threads on Mn where people have suggested taking in a lodger to solve a financial problem. No one bats an eyelid if that person is a middle class divorcee who is struggling to pay the mortgage, but god forbid we suggest useful ways to ease the burden of poverty to the unfortunate. It’s almost like you don’t want them to climb out of the poverty trap.

I don't think you both are talking about the same things as each other maybe.

In living memory it was common to have a lodger. It is still fairly common to have a lodger. I know lots of people with lodgers. It is maybe less common with young children in the house due to awareness of safeguarding risks. The thing is they are all renting out an entire room.

We have to go back a long time ago to find it was common for a family living in one room, to rent out a corner of that room and section it off with a curtain. It's not a useful way out of poverty. I very much doubt most landlords would allow a sublet of this nature. I know the people living in temporary accommodation like a hotel room would not be allowed to do this.

I don't agree that a smartphone is a necessity. There must be a lot of older people who have an older mobile or a landline which suffices to contact people and can't be bothered with the internet.
In fact till roundabout the 70s there were whole rows of houses in some areas where nobody had a phone.

Also the moaning around “people wouldnt let out a room these days” - how many times did people let our rooms to creeps weirdos and people who’d prey on and abuse their children? Let’s not be dicks and say people in poverty should compromise safeguarding of children

I think if you read the post it explains that taking in lodgers historically was a very normal and common thing to do and probably solved the housing problems at that time. It is no longer seen as normal practice for some of the reasons you state but also because of the welfare state it no longer was necessary.
We often comment on women who never worked, letting out rooms to lodgers in the middle of the 20th century was a side hustle for many women. They were already looking after one man for nothing, why not take in paying lodgers and make a bit of money yourself. In fact in slightly better off households they were referred to as “paying guest”.Being a landlady was a career for many women.
I don’t think that OP is suggesting that we all rent out space in our houses, but it was incredibly common in all levels of society in the past.
It’s quite interesting that many pp find it so shocking and it puts them firmly in the younger generations who have no memories of the practice.
I remember Coronation Street in the 60s and 70s several of the fictitious households had lodgers. No one questioned it or thought it weird since it reflected real life in the working classes. There are still plenty of people who rent out rooms to other working people but maybe you don’t move in those circles.

My DS’s friend is buying a house to do up where they are students, he works for his dad in construction when not at uni so it’s a joint enterprise to get him on the property ladder. They will spend the summer renovating and move in next academic year. DS will be his lodger along with several others. Their rent will pay the mortgage. DS will probably spend his 20s either lodging with friends or renting off landlords. Or if lucky buying a property but letting out rooms. It’s just what young professionals do.

We live rurally where many people have annexes that they rent out on a commercial basis to earn extra income. I think that with the social mobility that lead to house ownership the working classes are very snobby about sharing their homes, since a generation or two ago it would have indicated that they needed extra money.

There are plenty of threads on Mn where people have suggested taking in a lodger to solve a financial problem. No one bats an eyelid if that person is a middle class divorcee who is struggling to pay the mortgage, but god forbid we suggest useful ways to ease the burden of poverty to the unfortunate. It’s almost like you don’t want them to climb out of the poverty trap.

Because they prefer not to have the crap beaten out of them, their scant possessions stolen, or assaulted. Please don't assume that all homeless folks got there because of addictions or fecklessness, and I really hope you're never ever put in that position yourself.

Yup no broke person has a spare room to rent out a lot of broke families all live in one small room together.
That aside what kind of advice is it to tell someone with kids to take a random stranger into their personal space?
That's exactly how kids get sexually abused.

Your average potential lodger willing to live in the corner of a broke families home is probably that down on their luck for a reason drugs, alcohol or just being a general scumbag. But sure people like op keep making these threads asking why broke people don't just take in lodgers 🙄 I'm sure the next big step will be asking why broke people don't just sell their kids because that's where this is going.

I keep forgetting that it costs money to turn the cooker on. Does it really cost that much? How do you know how much it costs?

Because they don't want to be tempted themselves because they're former addicts, isn't that right?
Or is it because of the behaviour?

The person who said it’s cheaper to buy bread than make it I disagree. It’s a false economy. Shop bought bread is mostly air but if you make it yourself you can get a nice thick loaf that’s filling