(text reads)
NewsThump There aren't any children really in poverty in the UK, look up how they measure "poverty" it's a section on income that's below the median household income. Unless you make everyone earn the same there is always going to be "poverty". But it doesn't mean kids aren't being fed and clothed, having a roof over their head, having access to schooling and education or going on holidays. It's just redistribution of income with no measurement of real outcomes. It's BS.
Comments like this are always amusing, because they highlight a level of mathematical and economic ignorance that otherwise gets missed. So we appreciate you being so willing to publicly display your own ignorance for the rest of the group.
Firstly, no, it's not anyone earning less than the median income. It's anyone earning less than 60% (sixty per cent) of the median income. And so because it's a percentage of the MEDIAN income, it's actually possible for NO ONE to be below that 60% line. It's not a mathematical certainty that anyone will be below that line. To make it even more obvious, if people across the country had a median income of £100 a week, then anyone earning less than £60 is in poverty.
Now, because this is a median average, NOT a MEAN average, it is entirely possible for everyone to be above that 60% line. If it were a mean average, then the bottom X% of earners would always be "in poverty", regardless of what they earned, but using median average puts a "line in the sand" beyond which every earner can move to take themselves out of poverty without affecting the median income. If you don't know how median averages work, imagine if you were to line up every worker in the UK, from highest weekly wage to the lowest. At the top end you have footballers, with f1m+ a week, at the very bottom you have the lowest paid jobs in the country on, say, £50 a week. When you line everyone up in wage order, you find the person in the middle, exactly halfway between the top and the bottom, earns £100 a week. Let's call this person "Anthony" in our example.
Now, to the left of Anthony are all the people earning more than him, and to the right are all the people earning less than him. The number of people on the left and right is the same, because he is the "median." Now, let's put the poverty line at 60% of the median (Anthony's wage), so it becomes £60 a week. Everyone to Anthony's right with less than £60 a week is "below the poverty line". Now, let's find a way to give everyone with kids who earns below £60 a week, some form of benefits that tops their wages up to, say, £61 a week, What happens then is that all of those people who were under £60 a week, are now at at LEAST £61 a week, and technically no longer "below the poverty line*. Now the exciting bit!
The interesting thing about median averages, is that the median income (Anthony) is STILL the median income. The median average hasn't changed AT ALL, because Anthony is STILL the middle carner when everyone is lined up from highest carner to lowest earner - all that has happened is that the very lowest earners have got a tiny little bit closer to his earnings to lift them out of poverty. They sill earn a lot less than him, they're still have below median average wages, they just aren't below the 60% poverty line.
This is why - theoretically - EVERYONE can be above the poverty line. There is no mathematical or economic certainty that means there will ALWAYS be some people living below the poverty line. Now, whether you want to help those people in poverty, or not, is obviously a political question, not a mathematical one. You can of course argue that you don't want to help these people, that is your right, but hopefully you've learned enough to realise you were completely wrong about the fact that there is "always going to be poverty". Thank you for coming to our TED Talk.