1 in 5 people in absolute poverty - but it could have been worse say the Tories So that's alright?

[cakeorwine]

Absolute poverty: UK sees biggest rise for 30 years (bbc.com)

Steep prices rises, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, meant hundreds of thousands more people fell into absolute poverty.The figure jumped to 12 million in 2022-2023, a rise of 600,000.This means the rate of absolute poverty in the UK now stands at 18% - a rise of 0.78 percentage points.

Absolute poverty is the measure used by the prime minister when describing the government's record.Even more families would have fallen into absolute poverty had it not been for government support like the Cost of Living payments.Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride - whose department compiled the figures - pointed to the government's "biggest cost of living package in Europe, worth an average of £3,800 per household".The government says that without these measure the increase would have been three times worse.

True - if the Government had not supported people with the energy package, then it would have been worse.

But 1 in 5 people? That's not ok
1 in 4 children are in absolute poverty

Someone who is in "absolute" or "relative" poverty may not be able to afford a living standard that might be expected in a rich economy like the UK.

But that does not mean they need a food bank or are unable to heat their home.When you look at these types of poverty, the increases are more stark."Official income statistics have understated the true increase in deprivation during this period" says Sam Ray-Chaudhuri of think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies.He points out that the rate of food insecurity rose from 8% of individuals to 11% and the proportion unable to heat their home more than doubled from 4% to 11%.Even pensioners saw an increase in the number unable to heat their home adequately, even though the headline measure of poverty fell slightly.

I guess there are a lot of people who are doing ok, thankyou.

But we are supposed to be a "rich" country. However, it's incredibly expensive to live here.

It would be interesting to see how those statistics change around the country and with age and other demographics.

Average UK income is £36,000 I believe.

Poverty is defined as living on 40% less than that (simplified)

So anyone living on £24,000 per annum or less is living in Poverty.

Current NMW / 'Living Wage' is £18,964
(23 years old plus)

So the supposed Living Wage keeps people in poverty.

There are so many jobs out there that pay this pittance, too. It's a fucking disgrace.

I thought it was 60% of the median income.

The report is here

Households Below Average Income: an analysis of the UK income distribution: FYE 1995 to FYE 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Headlines

• there was a decrease in real terms median household income between FYE 2022 and FYE 2023. The decrease was 0.5% before housing costs (BHC) and 1.5% after housing costs (AHC);

• most of the income distribution experienced a fall in real household incomes (BHC), with slightly larger reductions (averaging around 2%) seen in the bottom half of the income distribution, and those in the top 10% of the distribution recording small increases in real terms BHC incomes;

• income inequality (measured by the Gini Coefficient) increased slightly in FYE 2023, both before and after housing costs. The level has remained broadly stable since FYE 2011;

And more

• there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of pensioners in material deprivation compared to FYE 2020;

• estimates of the percentage of children in combined low income and material deprivation have also increased since FYE 2020, but they are stable for working age adults over the same time period;

• the percentage of individuals in food secure households reduced for all age groups, and reductions were greater for those in low-income households. All estimates are at their lowest levels since their introduction in FYE 2020;

Then they have the absolute gall to complain about people being unable to work due to mental illness. Poverty is a destroyer of all aspects of health. The stress alone shortens lifespan as stress affects so much of the body's systems.

I'm totally sickened by the way this country is governed. They're a bunch of psychopaths.

I assumed that absolute poverty referred to a situation in which people could not meet their basic needs, as opposed to relative poverty which was measured in relation to average incomes etc. Is this no longer how the terms are used?

The definitions are in the report

A household is said to be in relative low income if their net equivalised disposable household income is below a threshold set at 60% of median income,

while they are in absolute low income if their net equivalised disposable household income is below 60% of the FYE 2011 median income adjusted for inflation. We also publish measures using thresholds at 50% and 70% below the median.

That's the correct definition of those terms.

It's also the equivalised household income - which is even more confusing - as it's related to household size and composition

while they are in absolute low income if their net equivalised disposable household income is below 60% of the FYE 2011 median income adjusted for inflation. We also publish measures using thresholds at 50% and 70% below the median.

Thank you for clarifying @cakeorwine.

It might be my lack of understanding but this seems to be a pretty arbitrary definition of absolute poverty. Why use the 2011 median for example? Are you able to explain why this is the measure that is used?

No

But I am sure someone can

Thanks!

So if a household has two parents and four children, and the single earner is paid £100k, are they considered to be poor because the income averages to under £17k each?

And is there no adjustment for fully owned housing, or for expensive versus cheap areas? Hard to live on £20k in London, but in some areas it funds comfortable lifestyle.

I'm not doubting that many people are struggling significantly. But it's always helpful to have meaningful data.

The definition of "Absolute Poverty" being used in this instance is farcical.

Annoys the shit out of me.

It's the one that's used by many organisations.

Can you expand on the issue you have with it?

I read an article written by a skint journalist once about how being poor is expensive and it's so true.

All these figures that get flung about on the internet regarding the average wage is such a load of bullshit and doesn't get to the basics of poverty at all

I don't live in a deprived area at all yet in the last few years even with all the government help with extra payments to families I'm seeing more and more people struggle even for the basics like sanitary wear and utilities

A lot of the time some of these families have had to go to lenders to top up pre pay electric or gas or to be able to do a small food shop and have had to Hinton the more expensive convenience shops to do it as they don't have enough for travel aswell.

It just spirals from there.
And it's mentally and emotionally exhausting

Sadly children are growing up in poverty and not being educated against it etc so the cycle repeats.

As long as this country carries on the way it is going the situation is never going to get better and the divide will only get bigger.

They can stick their figures and findings up their ass as far as I'm concerned

Yes. The first adult is given a value of 1.0, additional adults and over 14 children 0.5 and children 13 and under 0.3.

Household income is then divided by this figure to try and reflect both the economy of scale of running one family home vs several but also the increased income needs of that home vs a single adult household.

Our equivalence value is 2.7 so our equivalence income, including both adults and child benefit, is (just) in relative poverty. We actually have a household income which is incredibly healthy for the cheapish area we live in -we are able to overpay the mortgage and have nice but fairly modest holidays. Our income of c. £55k is rightly way way way too high for any support like UC. We do still get CB though.

There is no perfect system as none of it truly reflects disposable income ie after tax inc council tax and housing costs, let alone nuances like childcare and the increased cost of rural vs urban living.

Government policies over the last 14 years, especially in the earlier years, have contributed to the levels of poverty there are. The scale of fuel bill help would have not needed to be anything like the level provided if oil and gas (and other energy companies) had not made excessive profits.

Relative low income measures the number and proportion of individuals who have household incomes below 60% of the median average in that year – and is used to look at how changes in income for the lowest income households compare to changes in incomes near the average.

Absolute low income measures the proportion of individuals who have household incomes 60% below the average in 2010/11, adjusted for inflation

Hope that helps to clarify.

The second one takes in those people who really really cannot afford even many basics.

What I don't understand is why people on the minimum wage don't go out and get a better paying job. Instead they are happy to live on benefits paid by those who work hard earn much more and pay taxes.

Its almost as if it would be better to pay the lower paid more in the first place and the rich slightly less.

The issue I have with it is that it makes the government look bad. The Tories are my superiors, I like to doff my cap to them as I know my place.

While not wishing to minimise a serious problem, I wish the government and their statistical agencies would stop messing about with technical terms.

They are not measuring "absolute" versus "relative" poverty. They are comparing two different measures of relative poverty. It's all relative to an assumed expected living standard.

Having kids now is a luxury.. They're unaffordable if you're not on a good household income.

Because Absolute Poverty (the words themselves) suggest a homeless person not being able to buy something to eat.

If I defined Absolute Poverty as having an income less than 100k and your property value as below 500k would that be OK?

Of course you will say No, but I disagree with the definition for the same reason, just different parameters.

I suspect DH and I would be classed as being in Absolute Poverty by this (ridiculous) definition because of low income. Yet we own our house outright.

And surely people who really ARE in what I would call Absolute Poverty would read this and think WTF.

It's also worth noting that the figures were compiled this time last year, before the relatively high increases in NMW and pensions last April. However, if I understand correctly, because everyone's (many) wages also increased, the median will also go up, so that cancels out the improvement????