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.

I think there are measurements that look at housing costs as well.
Owning your house outright is fine - but you can still also be in poverty if you own your own house but have a low income.

I think one of the more interesting scales is the amount of disposable income you have - and that can be before / after housing costs and other costs such as food. I know that there are a lot of people who have a negative disposable income

"The Asda Income Tracker is a measure of ‘discretionary income’, reflecting the amount remaining after the average UK household has had taxes subtracted from their income and bought essential items such as: groceries, electricity, gas, transport costs and mortgage interest payments or rent. The Income Tracker measures the amount left over to spend on discretionary purchases such as leisure and recreational goods and services."

PowerPoint Presentation (scene7.com)

Well somebody had better tell the DWP that they are measuring poverty all wrong because the stats come from them.

Quite.

The sensible folk of Mumsnetland don’t have kids because they can’t afford them, then discover they still have less disposable income because they are paying more in taxes to fund those that can’t afford to have kids but still have them.

@cakeorwine that's awful that some people are actually in negative after paying for the basics.
We are low income and are probably classed as in poverty but still have a little disposable income for treats or whatever. It must be incredibly stressful if you haven't got enough to even cover the basics.

It is shocking - and again, it would be interesting to see how that varies with age group, location etc

It's the cost of housing, cost of food etc. All adds up.

A lot of people are clearly doing ok They have a good level of discretionary income. But the people who are struggling aren't seen as much

@cakeorwine Housing is definitely thw biggest issue. Private rental/mortgage costs esp in the south east are ridiculous. They can be someone's entire full time wage!. More social housing and a regulated private rental sector would help so much with this.

@JessS1990 was that sarcasm? I earn min wage and no I don't live off benefits because I don't get any
I wish I could get a better paid job but I can't find anything

So true.

And it's not something that's being addressed or talked about that much. It's all very well putting up NMW but compared to the costs of housing, that's a drop in the ocean for some

My hairdresser, a young woman, married with a baby, living in a terraced house in a relatively poor area, cannot afford to cover their bills and have been relying on family to buy them food and help them out. They live a very modest lifestyle, no luxuries, just paying the usual council tax, utilities etc. Both parents work, baby in part time nursery because grandparents also have to work.

Can't afford food. What type of poverty would this be?

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

No... that's destitution.

Yes, whihc is why this government ought to focus on the equality gap but it won't.

Absolute poverty shows those whose wages have stagnated whilst others have their wages go up and up.

On another thread I noted that whenever anyone starts a thread using empirical data from standard official sources(even ones the government uses- in this case the IFS) all people want to do is quibble over the methodology and data, often based on very little quantitative knowledge.

The definitions of poverty used in thsi study are standard international measures of poverty. Even the government accepts the statistics as robust and uses the definitions.

The big society wide problem is poverty itself, not the definition of poverty. We shouldn't be moving goalposts to deny a reality for so many people, including 4 million children.

The basic definition JRF uses in its anti-poverty strategy was broadly defined in the original Trustees paper in September 2012:
‘When a person’s resources (mainly their material resources) are not sufficient to meet their minimum needs (including social participation).’

So, poverty. (Joseph Rowntree Foundation)

More and more people cannot afford basics. This affects lone parents the most. In a recent study 65% of lone parents said they have gone without food themselves in order to feed their children.

I do think the "household income" is confusing - as people think of their actual income versus the definition of equivalised income.

This is interesting from the Child Poverty Action Group

HBAIpovertyexplainer.pdf (cpag.org.uk)

""Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong."

There is a good discussion of the pros and cons of different measurements

If those whose wages have stagnated had just got on their bike as Norman Tebbit suggested...

Agreed. I suspect it is the descriptor rather than the absolute value that causes people to pause though. Absolute poverty in global terms, is not having shoes, or food, or clean water, or free medical treatment, or education. Not having a social security system. Dying of preventable diseases etc etc. When people see the same term used for poverty in this country it is obviously not the same. I think that is the confusion.

These figures are pretty meaningless when talked about in countries like the UK because nobody is in absolute poverty. I'm not downplaying how relatively poor some are, how much of a struggle it is to get through the month but it's not absolute poverty, it's relative poverty they have because they can still access healthcare free at the point of us, something other nationalities even rich ones do not have, education is free until 18, benefits are available for everyone who is legally entitled to support (yes there's exceptions but this statement isn't about illegal immigration) benefits are not high but they cover rent, basic bills and basic food needs. The single thing that primarily causes families to be in such a horrible financial situation is debt, debts taken on when times were better and worse debts from orgs that prey upon those with low incomes and poor financial terms understanding causing them to be handing over huge portions of their meagre benefits in repayments, causing them to take out more debt etc ...

Solve debts you mostly solve extreme poverty in the U.K. - I'm a debt counsellor! And yes we need far better protection for the vulnerable from loan sharks in corporate clothes!

@brytersky

I'd be interested to know if she is like my clients, servicing loans that just keep growing because of high interest rates. It's criminal as far as I'm concerned.

Devil is in the details when it comes to these situations and as I sit down and look at peoples situations, I see that so often it's the outs that are the problem, debts

@Piggywaspushed I will look at the IFS study definitions later but the specific problem for me as an Economics teacher is that the accepted international definition of "absolute poverty" involves the people (mostly in e.g. sub-Saharan Africa) living on less than $1 a day equivalent.

The above has reduced significantly in recent decades in many countries.

So to describe people in the UK as living in absolute poverty muddies the waters significantly when trying to accurately describe poverty and discuss which policies would be best.

The policies here in the UK would obviously need to involve the housing market as others have said. That's the cost that's spiralled and what sits behind a lot of the inequality, along with stagnated real wages, energy costs, etc. Plus the difficulty of accessing public services meaning that they are only available in theory when it comes to actually getting them.

But global poverty is different. Western countries can't be measured by the definitions used in sub Saharan Africa. Poverty looks different in different countries. It's always relative to what things cost, transport, housing , fuel. Otherwise we would always be able to say no one in the UK is poor because looks at the slum dwellers in Mumbai...

$1 a day in the very poorest of communities possibly goes as far as a far greater amount in the UK?

These figures are pretty meaningless when talked about in countries like the UK because nobody is in absolute poverty.

That just isn't true. You can't change to definition to suit your own!

I could tell you of children in this country without shoes and eating very little. Malnutrition is on the rise. We have rickets and scurvy being observed by doctors in the UK.

It is utterly pointless to compare us to those in the very poorest countries. What is under discussion is UK poverty.

@mitogoshi
"Solve debts you mostly solve extreme poverty in the U.K. - I'm a debt counsellor! And yes we need far better protection for the vulnerable from loan sharks in corporate clothes!"

Yes - but debt for the poorest is often paying back benefits. When it takes 6-9 weeks+ to get any money through and you have to borrow benefits to eat and heat, then you start off with debt to the govt.

Nevermind corporate loan sharks, our taxpayer funded benefit system is not doing its job to begin with.

And if you want to find real poverty look in one parent households.

.

Yes that is true that how far money goes is important - a concept called purchasing power parity.

Although the $1 a day poverty measure does use purchasing power parity (in as much as 'purchasing' is even relevant in economies with a lot of subsistence agriculture, informal employment etc).

The point is relevant in the UK too though. Using the teaching pay scale as an example, a teacher on main scale in the NE of England may be on the same pay band as a teacher in Kent just outside the fringe area, but their money would go a lot further on housing.

I'm going to agree with the wise debt counsellor -- the devil really is in the detail here in terms of addressing the problems effectively.

I also don't disagree that relative poverty in the UK has increased, of course.

It is so disappointing that real wages are STILL not back to where they were in autumn 2008.