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.

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.

There is a lot wrong with this. Minimum wage does not mean minimum skills anymore. Employers are wanting more and more while still paying a low wage. Also a couple both earning a full time low wage income probably won't qualify for benefits let alone lone live off them. They will also be work hard and paying taxes too.

That is due to But Jeremy Putin and But Covid Corbyn.

I love migrants, I have been one, and so has Rishi.

The government has a plan for a high wage economy, and for that to happen people have to realise that it is not good enough to work a few hours for the minimum wage each month. There are 24 hours in a day, their country needs them to boost GDP, where is their patriotism?

Its important that employers keep paying the minimum wage, that way a few people can very much richer on the back of the work of everyone else.

It is the will of the people.

I am pretty sure your analysis here is complete bollocks.

Taxes have risen due to our stagnant economy and our aging population, not our birth rate. The costs of pensions, benefits and healthcare for chronically unwell and disabled older people have doubled in the last thirty years or so.

The costs of benefits for working age families have not doubled. Any increase there has been does not go directly into the pockets of those families but is paid to their private landlords in Housing Benefit.

So public money goes straight into private hands to provide a basic need which is overinflated and often substandard. Failing to provide social housing is fucking expensive.

The issue I have is that when defining poverty, there needs to be a clear and regular metric. The report shows

“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.”

So the metric of poverty is not that somebody has no food or heating, which is, I think, what most people would expect poverty to be. Every year the metric changes, and poverty basically includes “keeping up with the Joneses”; if a family can’t afford a car or a holiday, they are in poverty. It’s a joke.

The more high earners we have, the higher the average salary figure climbs so the more “in poverty” lower earners appear to be, but that’s a relative figure not absolute. For example, if 10 people earn £100000, the average salary is £100000, and everyone is equal. If one person goes on to earn £1000000, the average salary becomes £190000 so 9 people are “in poverty”.

But that does not mean they need a food bank or are unable to heat their home

Seeing the number of food banks and the fcat there are now more food banks than MacDonalds, I’m not quite sure what the point you are trying to make.
That they are poor but arent starving so that ok?

@cakeorwine you realise that we have an increasing number if people hospitalised sure to malnutrition right? Those are people who can’t feed themselves, even with food banks.
Same with heating the house. I mean yes we can go back to houses with ice on the inside of the window. My dh grew like that after all. In the 1970~1980.
But really do you think it’s ok?? Do you you will know?

I'm a civil servant earning £22,840 full time. I have 2 school age children. The Government pay poverty wages.

So the metric of poverty is not that somebody has no food or heating, which is, I think, what most people would expect poverty to be.

That’s true for relative poverty, not absolute poverty.

And yes people ARE going hungry in the U.K.
You can make your self feel better by saying it’s not true poverty because they can still eat - aka we haven’t seen a famine in the country yet.

But saying it’s all about ‘ keeping up with the Jones’ is disingenuous

The median is used not the mean, by the way.

I get so sick of hearing about all the external factors which apparently alone have created the economic shitshow this government is presiding over. They always blame global factors.

But when the global financial crash happened and Gordon Brown increased our national debt by spending billions to prop up UK financial systems, all you heard was how it was all purely down to Labour government incompetence.

Lying wankers. I hope the stupid British voters who fell for their Tory nonsense have woken the fuck up.

But at what point do we look at two similar households with similar incomes, one of which can meet their needs and one can’t, on the same income? People make choices and we don’t always have all the information, but more and more we see some families where parents do drink and smoke and don’t feed and clothe their children and we say they are in poverty, but the children have no say in the fact that the parents are choosing that poverty.

The example above cites parents going without food in order to provide for their children. You have nicely moved the Overton Window there.

Overton Window?
Could you explain what you mean? (Genuine question, I’m not British and have never come across that experession)

But we don’t have enough information to say whether you’re in poverty or not, because we only know your wages, and the poverty metric is household income. What’s your gross (equivalent) household income?

From Liam Thorpe's article

Professor Taylor-Robinson told those gathered at The Spine on Wednesday that the austerity policies of these recent governments - from enormous local council cuts, to the two-child limit and benefits cap - have directly led to the deaths of children. It doesn't get more stark than that.

(Professor Taylor-Robinson is not only Professor of Public Health and Policy at the University of Liverpool but is also Professor of Child Public Health at the University of Copenhagen. Somehow he also finds the time to work clinically as a consultant in public health at Alder Hey Children's Hospital.)

Nothing there said the parents aren’t eating, i said they aren’t feeding or clothing their children, and are choosing their luxuries above that. Perhaps I should have said adequately feeding and clothing.

@usernamealreadytaken i can see we’re back to parents who are drinking and smokin..
Surprised you haven’t also said taking drugs and have the latest iPhone.

I mean Obvioulsy, where you live in the country has no impact - eg see the cost of renting a house depending on the area.
Past events don’t have any impact either - eg being of work for a few months and getting in debt or having to move several times (that costs money!) etc…

Etc….

You’re right. Some people who ON PAPER have similar wage manage when others don’t. Dig just a little bit and you’ll notice that actually they are not in similar position at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#:~:text=The%20Overton%20window%20is%20an,public%20to%20expand%20the%20window.

Screenshot taken a few minutes ago. Says a lot

You're being obtuse.

I am not the world renowned JRF but I get that they work these things out statistically, measuring people's incomes against expenditures on average. They have a quantified list of 'basics'. No one includes cigarettes and alcohol in basics.

There was a large number of children who schools discovered had no internet, no tablets, no laptops n their homes during lockdowns. I am sure you think if one lives in poverty one should not own a smartphone, or have a laptop - but there are are many ways in which our society is structured that make these necessities.

Okay, so let’s look at availability of cheaper housing (fewer immigrants driving up house prices) birth rates (clue, they have fewer children), and where the money comes from - fossil fuel anyone?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/18/return-of-victorian-era-diseases-to-the-uk-scabies-measles-rickets-scurvy

For Marmot, the surge in infectious diseases reflects the cost of living crisis and decade-long cuts to social services and public health, which have left Britain with one of the poorest and most vulnerable populations in Europe.

Oh goodl. I have wanted to have a discussion about why it is necessary to have a million empty homes in the country.
Do you think the current housing distribution crisis is sustainable?

I have an enormous completely platonic crush on Professor Sir MM.