*Poverty* Do you agree

[geekone]

BBC Scotland say 1-4 children in Scotland live in poverty, which is an aweful statistic and really sad. However they also state "According to the group's most recent figures, a two-parent family with two children of school age would be defined as being in poverty if they are living on less than £413 a week after housing costs."

This seems like a lot of money to me £1652 after housing costs? I don't think that's poverty? In London maybe but Scotland?

I may be wrong and I am happy to stand corrected but wanted to know what you all think.

Like relative poverty.

No it's the poverty part, that has a different meaning to many people

There is a deliberate focus by action groups on relative poverty. they believe a focus on absolute poverty detracts from arguments about how many people are drifting away at the middle:

absolute poverty should always be falling, and that that’s the “bare minimum” one can expect, adding: “Focusing on absolute poverty tells us nothing about how many people are drifting further away from the middle today.

and this isn't all about Scotland , by the way. The UK as a whole has worse child poverty figures with 30% of children living in poverty - relative or otherwise.

What would you like user as a term?

Just look up the definition and try to learn something!

How about the lovely old fashioned term 'living below the breadline' ??

I’m suprised at how much car insurance some people pay.

My Husband and I live on £2128 a month, we live in a 4 bed house, 3 children, run 1 car, ( not boasting ) and live relatively well, that's why I find that report hard to take seriously. Ok a holiday is a treat as is after school clubs and weekends away but no way do I think we are in relative poverty

Well, no, of course you aren't because that's more !!

really sass : areas where poverty is higher have very high insurance premiums, funnily enough...

Piggywaspushed only a bit more, I consider myself lucky

But it is poverty. It's a poverty of experience and opportunity, and a poverty of aspiration.

For example, a kid now is expected to have access to a computer and internet to complete homework projects. Local libraries with computers are quite a rare thing these days - so you can't just pop to the library after school and work there.

What happens when the laptop in that kid's family breaks, and they simply can't find £150 to buy a cheap replacement on Ebay? (which could well be false economy, as it's a gamble as to whether it will work after the year's guarantee)

How do they do their homework?

How do they research and apply for work experience, if they're teens at that stage?

All these things severely limit your ability to get on track for the supposed 'good job', even if for simplicity's sake we're assuming that 'good jobs' are a realistic prospect for most young grads.

So being able to pay rent and buy food is not the full story of poverty. The truth is you need a bit more cash to be able to avail of the opportunities of a developed society.

It is most definitely poverty when people are shut out from being able to improve things for themselves and enrich their lives, from a lack of money.

It's not just about kids either - think about people trapped in low wage jobs. Just try getting a 'better' job if you are shaky on the most basic computer skills, like Word or Excel (or more increasingly, Google office) because you don't have a computer, the item deemed a luxury because it's not food or rent or clothes

Or you can't afford appropriate clothes or shoes for an interview.

But hey, as long as you have a roof and beans on toast and a warm jumper - couldn't possibly be poverty, could it.

Piggywaspushed That's before Tax

Thing is with income, you don't need big increases to feel significantly better off. Even £50 a month, very month makes a big difference overall.

To go from not being able to afford any social outings without deducting it from the food budget, to a being able to have day out twice a month feels really luxurious. But it isn't.

user do I really need to repeat that the quoted amount is the very top end of the relative poverty scale?

My grandparents’ generation knew good old fashioned poverty. No school as they worked full time as children, and the whole family had one room, with another branch of the extended family in the next room and so on.

There’s no way I can ‘feel poor’ with that as the alternative, which is why our feelings aren’t a good way to measure it.

It's f ridiculous. If everyone drives a BMW in your road and you have a Ford, you are in relative poverty. When you go to places and see REAL poverty, you wouldn't DARE call this poverty. These people are probablh within the top 5% in the world's wealth ffs.

I think that it's important to remember that of the 1/4 children living in poverty the majority will be in families with significantly less than £413 per week. It's easy to quibble over those at the very top end of the definition and argue about whether they should or shouldn't be included in the statistics, but those people are only a small part of the picture. The majority are getting by on much less than that.

Piggywaspushed I can assure you we live on way less than £413 a week after housing costs

Wow this grew arms and legs.

Just to be clear as much as I don't think £413 per week after housing costs (which I think include council tax and water rates) is poverty I also think that there are too many people in this country who are in poverty and I am not just talking homeless or starving or no clothes. I mean the old person scraping by with their little portable heater and their £1 microwave meals wondering if they can afford milk this week. Or the women who prioritise food over sanitary product (just an awful choice). Those too embarrassed to claim any extra benefits or those who work but fall between the cracks, or the family of 4 where the parents worked but lost their jobs and sacrifice their own food to feed their kids and give them poker money and get themselves into debt at Christmas so they don't let their kids down. These people don't have expensive phone contracts or holidays every year. They don't have car contracts or pet insurance. They live day to day and the wouldn't have to if the had £413 per week after housing costs.

But OP those people are included in the stats!

Jesus wept.

If you are interested a recent survey showed 16% of the elderly live in relative poverty as opposed to 30% of children.

'My grandparents’ generation knew good old fashioned poverty. No school as they worked full time as children, and the whole family had one room, with another branch of the extended family in the next room and so on.

There’s no way I can ‘feel poor’ with that as the alternative, which is why our feelings aren’t a good way to measure it.'

Oh, yes, good old-fashioned times. In the past. Haven't we moved on? Do you need to be eternally looking to more and more distant past in a race to the bottom? Because if you keep pushing and kicking to get there, you'll certainly arrive that low destination.

And so feelings are not being used in statistics to determine wealth in the country.

My dad grew up in very serious poverty. Instead of using it as a stick to beat others with, he's sick to the core at how backwards thinking people have become, he thought being poor totally sucked, it wasn't character building and it should be a thing of the past in such rich countries.

A mean-spirited, bitter attitude, 'Well, I had it worse so you should suffer, too!' helps no one.

geekone It would be nice if we could all live on that sort of money, but were will it come from, higher wages would lead to higher prices, extra benefits would lead to higher taxes, there is no easy answer, unfortunately stats like this makes us feel like we are living in RELATIVE POVERTY

It's not that 1/4 of people live on £413 per week OP. It's that for 1/4 of people that's the maximum they have. The people you describe are included in that 1/4.

It's almost inevitable that any cut off line will seem a bit arbitrary - why £413 instead of £420, or £400? But there has to be a line somewhere, and focusing on the tiny minority who are right on the line because you don't think they're needy enough does absolutely nothing to help any of the 1/4 living in poverty, the majority of whom are surviving on much less.

@expatinscotland that was my point, exactly. So many on this thread are saying they don’t feel poor on that amount because they’re comparing with an unacceptable alternative.