Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not understand luxerys these days and poverty.

156 replies

milton2591 · 27/11/2013 20:43

what do you class as luxury's ?
what do you class as living under the breadline?

OP posts:
dashoflime · 28/11/2013 18:53

hardboiledpossum So pleased you've found you can claim! It was worth posting the link then Grin

ThenSheSaid I think we discussed pets in a previous thread. The consensus was that they are a luxury before you get them, but a non negotiable responsibility afterwards.

YourToastMildred love the links!

changeforthebetter · 28/11/2013 20:32

Throckenholt - as a child, you may have been perfectly content. As the parent of such children, you would not be. You would be wracked with worry about extra expense (new boiler) and fretting about making the money last the month.

Do you really think that kids can grow and thrive with just enough money, food and heat?

Darkesteyes · 28/11/2013 21:26

Applauds Yourtoastmildred.

AngiBolen · 28/11/2013 21:41

Agree with what youretoastmildred said.

Recently my DC's had a PJ day at school for children in need. I was thankfull that I work, and we can afford extras like PJ's that are presentable in public. I over heard two mothers who I know from where their husbands work (work which provides housing so no mortgage unless they own another home) who were discussing the need to buy new PJ's. Yes, they too could afford to for this occasssion, all be it begrudingly....but what about families who can't? It's about being able to participate in society, not just about "luxuries".

youretoastmildred · 28/11/2013 22:37

Anyway if we're on the subject of affordable or unaffordable luxuries, the people making the monumentally terrible decisions on that front are the policy makers who are trashing the planet by refusing to rein in the market. In particular, US, Australia and the UK - or in other words, the rich - by refusing to even slightly mitigate flying all the fucking place and the other insane luxuries we now have, by global and historical standards, are making us the generation that will make the planet uninhabitable. People will look back on us as absolutely crazy, bonkers decadent cruel selfish people, a generation of Caligulas. Anything that the poor do is a drop in the ever rising ocean compared to that.

LaFataTurchina · 28/11/2013 23:02

In my mind the bare essentials are: enough nutritional food (so probably not the cheapest version of everything), not worn out clothing, a safe warm home, can afford public transport or running a small car.

Things I think everyone in the UK should be able to afford, and I would consider myself living in relative poverty if I couldn't afford them: 1 family holiday a year, for children to be able to do at least one extracurricular activity, access to leisure/entertainment - i.e. you can afford to go the the cinema or a cheap restaurant a handful of times a year.

Luxuries: 'frivolous' things like manicures, designer handbags, games consoles.

What I'd really like is for the gap between the poor and the rich to narrow.

TheFabulousIdiot · 28/11/2013 23:06

I woud say being able to afford an Internet connection and a television subscription is a luxury for people who are living below the breadline,

PomBearWithAnOFRS · 29/11/2013 00:02

"Recently my DC's had a PJ day at school for children in need. I was thankfull that I work, and we can afford extras like PJ's that are presentable in public."
My DCs school did the same, but we didn't have the £2 to give them. One went in his uniform because he was too upset at the thought of "cheating" to just wear the pjs, and the other went in pjs and never worried. I worried myself sick all day in case "they" asked for the £2 when I dropped off or picked up because the thought of having to say, aloud, that I just didn't have it to spare was excruciatingly embarassing Confused

fatlazymummy · 29/11/2013 00:08

People can be sanctioned (JSA) through not having access to the internet. Many companies recruit mainly online, and without internet access it is impossible to apply for enough jobs.
Some schools are also now saying home internet access is essential.
Therefore it can't really be classed as a luxury.

IneedAsockamnesty · 29/11/2013 01:42

I think it can be quite hard to just list stuff that's luxury or not as so much is dependant on the situation,

Like tv's someone who can barely afford to leave the house would probaly class that as an essential.

And transport if your isolated either by distance or life.

Stuff you would normally snort at like cleaners are essential for people who are physically unable to do it themselves.

Earningsthread · 29/11/2013 01:50

Time would be a luxury to me.

Time to read a novel, cover to cover. Time to paint my toenails. Time to pootle around in the garden. Time to walk the dog. Time to sort through the books and get the rugs cleaned.

I don't need money. I have plenty of it. I cannot imagine what I could possibly want that costs money that I cannot have, without being needy and grabby.

The thing I would like is time.

Grennie · 29/11/2013 02:04

I agree with what people are saying are luxuries or essentials in the UK.

But it is relative. I have friends in third world countries with internet access, but no running water. They would think we are all living in luxury.

catsmother · 29/11/2013 09:20

Earnings - this thread is about luxuries in relation to poverty, i.e. what are the absolute necessities, and when does something become a luxury. Obviously, apart from the very obvious things like food, shelter and warmth, whether or not you classify anything else as a "luxury" is subjective ..... you can also argue re: food, for example, that particular foodstuffs are luxuries compared to the minimum needed for survival and so on.

You say that having more time would be a luxury for you - but also say that you have "plenty" of money. I can therefore only assume that you must have significant demands on your time for either work or personal reasons, and I do appreciate therefore how you might wish there were more hours in the day. However, if you do have "plenty" of money which, as you say, allows you to have whatever you want (and that anything further would be "needy and grabby") you are obviously in a very fortunate position and although I know I'm making assumptions here, I'd guess that having "plenty" of money does allow you to, in effect, "buy" some time back for yourself - if you want - even if it's not as much time as you'd like.

By raising the issue of time though, you do bring something up which affects many people who are poor and/or struggling financially. I think that there's a misconception amongst some that being poor automatically equates to being unemployed, ergo, those people must have plenty of time. Of course, that's not necessarily true anyway but also overlooks the fact that many poor people are actually working - and, when they can get it, working as many extra hours as they possibly can for the chance of a little more money. Fact is, being poor can be terribly time consuming, so it's a double whammy ..... not only do you struggle to pay for basic necessities, you also have so little time that you don't even have the "luxury" of being able to read a good book or to take your kids to the park ....

.... if you're poor, food shopping can be terribly time consuming. You meal plan, work out a budget, and then potentially spend time checking prices and offers online before spending a penny. You don't have the convenience - and speed - of calling into one supermarket and chucking whatever you want into your trolley, job done. Instead, it's likely you'll visit several different shops (assuming you live somewhere where you have a choice) which takes yet more time. Once there, you check the "bargain corner" before doing anything else, and will also be scouring the shelves for offers and "manager's specials" that won't have been online. Often you find that what you budgeted isn't enough because yet again an item (or items) have gone up - so you have to think on your feet re: replacing it with something else more affordable. You also spend ages checking the so-called special offers - because labelling is so often crap and what initially seems like a good buy isn't. You do all this because you have to - because you're accounting for every £ - and it's time consuming.

If you're poor, and you can't afford public transport, or petrol for non essential journeys if you have a car (e.g. for work), you end up walking as much as you possibly can. Which, regardless of how good the exercise is for you, is time consuming. (... and of course your world utterly shrinks). Even if you can afford to use public transport sometimes, yet again you're hit by extra consumption of your time - because unless you live in a large city with very good transport links - it's unlikely that public transport will get you exactly from A to B - you'll undoubtedly have to spend more time walking at either end - and it's extremely unlikely that your journey will be exactly at the time you need it to be ...... or, for that matter, on time.

If you're poor, you'll be trying to minimise - obviously - any avoidable expense - which can mean that working couples end up doing opposite shifts to one another to reduce childcare costs as much as possible. Which means you can be like ships that pass in the night - for years on end - and have no time with which to nurture your relationship, no time to have even a short chat. You have all but no time to spend together as a family - the kids will rarely see their parents together. That sort of working pattern can be extremely damaging - especially so IMO to the adults' relationship .... it becomes "what relationship?" because there's no time for one.

If you're poor, you end up spending time, not money, on stuff which many better off people don't have to do. Instead of replacing household items that are falling to bits or not working properly, you endeavour instead to fix it yourself. Which admittedly can be rather satisfying when you succeed, but which often takes a large chunk of time if you don't know what you're doing, have to research beforehand and/or lack confidence or the right tools. Ditto DIY jobs that many people wouldn't think twice about calling a tradesman for that an expert could do in 15 mins but which takes you far far longer. And similarly, if you're poor, you will be far more likely to spend yet more time altering and/or mending clothes because you simply can't afford new - or secondhand - replacements. Chances are that when you do buy clothes for your kids you'll always get them as big as you can to extend the period they can be used for - but in doing so you'll also condemn yourself to many evenings taking hems up and down.

There are loads of other examples ........ making homemade presents because you can't afford to buy stuff in shops, spending longer cooking because cheaper ingredients often need more care and attention (e.g. it takes little time or skill to grill a steak or a piece of salmon, but making a stew takes longer), growing your own veg to try and save a bit of money, and many more - all these take time. And I fully appreciate that many people - who don't actually need to - may well choose to follow some of those ideas for the satisfaction of saving money and/or doing something yourself, but personally, I think there's a huge difference - psychologically - between choosing to be frugal, and being forced into it. If you choose to be thrifty, you have the reassurance and security of knowing that if, one day, you get fed up with it, or if you're ill, or if you need to be somewhere else, you can nonetheless jump into your car - or splurge on a time saving takeaway without it breaking the bank.

So yes - time is a huge luxury if you're poor. I fully accept that many people - whatever their finances - lack time, but clearly if you have no disposable income - at all - you'll never have the luxury of buying yourself time. Nor will you have the consolation of thinking, unlike someone who has no money worries, "well, I wish I had more time but at least I have a decent roof over my head, at least I can get myself from A to B in comfort and at my convenience, at least I can eat tasty and nutritious food, at least I can dress myself and my kids in a good standard of clothing".

One final thought re: having time and being poor is that very often you don't even have enough to sleep - with all the health issues that can bring. Either because you're working every hour you can to make ends meet, or, because if you're in the unfortunate position of having to worry about money all the bloody time it is almost impossible to ever relax properly and that means that when you go to bed, however tired you really are, you can lie there half the night fretting and in great anxiety because tomorrow will be yet another day when you don't have enough money, don't have enough time and you can't see an end to it.

ProfondoRosso · 29/11/2013 09:38

Completely agree with you re: time, catsmother. I've definitely been more time poor when I've been financially poorer. Shopping does take far longer, because you know you need to get to the big Tesco for the 22p pitta bread, when it would be much more convenient to go to the M&S Simply Food nearby, but you can't justify spending 80p on them.

And you leave the house earlier because you walk or use public transport. A 20 minute drive from my work to my parents' house is 1.5 hours by bus.

Trills · 29/11/2013 09:44

Probably repeating but it does bear repeating - the Rowntree Foundation calculator is based on surveying people to find out what they think is an acceptable standard of living.

Not the minimum you could live on, but what you should be able to afford to be comfortable.

If you can't afford to spend £X on clothe per month, or £Y on social activities, then even if you are personally OK with that, "most people" would not be.

catsmother that is a very nice long post :)

Trills · 29/11/2013 09:50

mildred Thanks for the link on the logic of poor people.

This article is written as humour but has a lot of truth in it - the stupidest habits you learn growing up poor

WooWooOwl · 29/11/2013 10:01

It's also worth remembering that organisations such as the rowntree foundation are basically no more than think tanks and campaign groups. Their opinions are not the only valid opinions, and they are not a definitive authority on a subject.

It irritates me when posters say things like 'The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says xxxxx' as if that means they are automatically 100% correct in their opinion and no other POV is worthy of consideration.

I don't like relying on think tanks to form my opinions.

catsmother · 29/11/2013 10:03

Sorry Trills .... I do like to get on my soap box every so often.

Don't even get me started on the "luxury" of social interaction - or lack of - which affects so many poor people. It's not about having a swish social life, but bottom line, about making contact with, connecting with and getting (and giving) support to other human beings - which ultimately reinforces your sense of self worth and confidence. That can be pretty much impossible if you have no disposable income .... not only can you not afford a social activity, you can't afford to get there in the first place, let alone a babysitter if required. And unless you live in a big city, and/or unless the weather's good, there are very few social activities readily available if you literally have no money.

Now that would be a very long post indeed.

Social interaction is a given taken for granted by many - and why not, time and again, studies (and common sense) show that most people need regular and pleasurable social interaction. It shouldn't be a luxury .... but many people simply can't achieve it. You end up with both family relationships and friendships shrivelling away because you have no money, and maybe no time either, to nurture them. You end up being unable to offer support and company, for example, to ageing relatives because you can't afford to travel to them - and then you feel like a heel.

I hate the fact that a pretty basic human need like that has become a "luxury" for many.

IneedAsockamnesty · 29/11/2013 10:05

Woowoo. Its quite usual for people to only use that line when then are talking about stats.

Under those circumstances given who gives them the numbers to start with then yes they are correct.

There is a difference between the foundation talking about facts and opinion they tend to be very clear when highlighting which one they are using.

Trills · 29/11/2013 10:06

I liked it! It was informative and interesting!

expatinscotland · 29/11/2013 10:32

Try finding a job with no net connection when your town's only library is shut and there are no cares offering WiFi. Also if you are JSA or work-focused ESA you have to search online.

youretoastmildred · 29/11/2013 10:34

Trills, that was a great link. The bit where the kid said "It's ok I don't really need a new bedspread" was a bit teary though
(I am such a soft touch on Fridays. I work from home and everything I have been feeling all week surrounded by people sits inside me and then on Fridays when I am alone EVERYTHING makes me cry)

youretoastmildred · 29/11/2013 10:38

the thing is, these are not "terrible decisions". They are rational decisions in a certain context.
It's like depression, or other illness. You make decisions according to what you can cope with and what the outcome will be for you. so when people blether on about lost opportunities because you didn't do a thing or make a thing happen, you know that they don't know, because if you had tried to go to that party / accepted that promotion / not called in sick, you would be collapsed shaking and crying somewhere in public, losing your dignity / job.

Grennie · 29/11/2013 10:55

There is a difference as well when most people around you are poor, to when your friends and family are not poor. Social activities if you are all poor-

  • come round and watch a film together on tv
  • come round for a coffee
  • go round charity shops together
  • walk in the local park
  • come round and play board games together

I have had a social life when I had very little money. But my friends didn't have money either. So we were all happy to do things that didn't cost anything/much. And we all lived within walking distance.

It is different if all of your friends want to do things that cost money. Which is why relative poverty matters.

catsmother · 29/11/2013 11:01

Yes Grennie - agree that if you live within walking distance of friends and family you are of course more able to keep in touch and actually see each other, and share experiences. If you can't afford to get to where the people you want to see are though, you're pretty much stuffed but doing things together and making memories is what glues people together IMO.

Swipe left for the next trending thread