To be worried that this news will be buried?

[WhoWants2Know]

What with it being CIN and May having to replace cabinet ministers again, I'm worried that this isn't being more widely reported.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/16/uk-austerity-has-inflicted-great-misery-on-citizens-un-says

For all the government say that Universal Credit is working to get people back into work, the UN reporter on extreme poverty and human rights finds that a fifth of the UK population is living in poverty now.

Considering everyone is going on about "Ideological" there is an awful lot going on in this thread, there is even unironic links to sodding skwarkbox fffs

And the real problem with these 'minimum wage jobs' is that now the vast majority of them are zero hours.

They are not, they make up a relatively small percentage of job numbers, and not only that but all analyses of them has shown that the majority of workers are happy with the arrangement.

Any competent economist knows (and many of them keep saying so and being ignored) that the way to fix the UK's economy is very simple - give poor people more money. Unconditionally. What we need is trickle-UP, not the myth of trickle-down

You are showing your ideoligical beliefs there, you are also ignoring the UN itself is fan of austerity and only last year issued a warning about the UK Governments debt, so treating economics as an exact science is not only dumb but shows you are only listening to what you want to listen to.

Most competent economists actually know that just blankly increasing government spending is hoping that it will be paid back via the next generation because of perpetual growth.

The UK has a number of structural issues, none of which will be solved by increasing govt spending. Some on this thread are proposing some kind of magic where increasing govt spending has some effect on productivity...what is that magic, because even the most "competent economists" can't come to a unified conclusion? If you are interested in growth, austerity is really neither here nor there. It certainly results in lower growth but if you increase govt spending without increasing productivity then you have no way to pay the debt back, and like it or not even those "competent economists" who you agree with, all agree it needs to be paid back.

Also thinking trickle up is anything other than the other side of the bullshit coin as trickle down is being understanding of economics is why basic economics needs to be taught in schools tbqh.

Also on the point of austerity being purely ideological, people repeating this have next to no clue about economics and are just repeating headlines. There is no one line of thinking in economics and it certainly isn't an exact science, but as there are a few corbynistas posting on this thread who like to say they are more aware of the facts then they should probably know that it wasn't just the UK who implemented austerity.

Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Latvia, Cyprus...this is just within Europe. It sounds like your issue is that you fundamentally don't understand why austerity occurs. It is not ideological, it happens when governments borrow too much money and are unable to pay it back. It is very often not a choice (it was not a choice in any of the five examples I have given, it may occur to you that politicians would take any opportunity to spend money...they would never choose to take it away).

The issue in the UK was that government debt to GDP was, and still is, far above the point where you aren't at risk of markets shutting down on you (this is happening right now in Pakistan, Argentina, Turkey, etc.). The idea was that growth would recover quickly after a pretty shallow recession and that 2010 would be a good time to cut back whilst there was still the chance.

It is difficult to understate how bad the situation is in the UK right now (the IMF just released a paper on economic risks in the UK, there was a section on Brexit, there was a longer section on government debt). Today, we are at the absolute low point of government spending. From now, due to ageing population, it is expected that debt will accelerate significantly (again, the IMF...not UK politicians). The only option is either significant inflation or start forcing consumers into govt debt. The latter has occurred in Japan and Italy, in both cases it has involved substantial increase in saving ratios. Given that the saving ratio is close to 0% in the UK, we are talking about substantial declines in spending power.

That is the thinking with pretty much every "competent economist"

I am dismayed all too often that some people, the "I'm alright Jacks" everywhere, spout off about UC and austerity policies, but have NO IDEA what is actually written into UC to deliberately cause harm.

I'd like to ask if people actually realise/understand the following facts about UC -

The reason the care worker on twitter was paid only £6 to last the month after she applied for UC was because of the rigid 'assessment periods'. IT'S NOT A MISTAKE!!
So for example if you lose your job the 2nd July and you claim on the 3rd July. Your 'assessment period' for UC now runs 3rd of one month to the 2nd of the next, each month. So if the person receives a last wage on say the 15th July - that will cancel out their UC, so the next month, they will receive next to nothing. It won't be until September that the person who lost their job in July, will actually receive any money!! Cue eviction looming and foodbanks, because how is one partial month payment of sick pay from work going to last someone two months??

Do people realise that on Universal Credit, unlike the old system, people have to pay hundreds or even thousands in childcare costs UPFRONT before they can even start work?? I don't know any single Mothers who could afford to pay that upfront!! And even if they save enough to pay upfront, UC often quibble about reimbursing. I've known countless cases where people are still waiting for reimbursement of childcare they paid for and sent proof of months ago. But if they refuse a job, they will be sanctioned. You can't win either way.

Debts are taken at 40% of the personal element, and even more is taken in some cases. How are people supposed to live after such high deductions are taken at source without any consideration to the person's circumstances??

The assessment periods are also a problem for people paid 4 weekly / 2 weekly / weekly. As sometimes two wages will fall into one 'assessment period' , meaning you'll get nothing the next month. It is technically meant to balance out over the year (although I'm sceptical of this), but for those months where you get zero UC, what are people supposed to do?? This was never a problem before.

The 5 week wait for any payment (even if just being moved over from tax credits etc), has to be covered by getting a loan from UC, the loan is then taken back off future payments, so you start off in debt already.

Not even 80% of UC claims are paid full and on time!! The system, which is cruel already and called 'callous' by the UN, is riddled with mistakes, yet they still continue rolling it out inflicting it on more and more vulnerable people.

All of this is just a perfect storm, and THESE 'LOOPHOLES' written into UC is what is really putting people into very desperate situations.

UC is basically a complex game of snakes and ladders, set up for poor people and low earners, by those who will never have to worry about 'relying' on it.

We cannot keep swallowing the dangerous myth that poverty is due to lack of responsibility, and if people would just pull themselves up by the bootstraps..

I think the idea that a large proportion of people have no work ethic is bullshit spread by the daily mail to make society hate poor people.

My field is full of skilled and educated people on wages that have plummeted over the last decade. It was never something people did to get rich, but to keep society going.

Justanotherlurker your excellent posts are wasted on this thread I'm afraid.

It will be interesting to see what is going to happen in France, and its generous welfare system, as its total debt approaches 100%, and every reform proposed by Macron is howled down.

"now the vast majority of them are zero hours. They are not regular paid work. But the contracts often demand the employee be available 24/7."

And thats why they should be paid for/while being "on call"

Because they are.

Sadly successive governments have created this with immigration. When you see the reports most people are not originally from the U.K., especially in London. Don’t come to live here if you cannot earn enough to support yourself

And thats why they should be paid for/while being "on call"

Those that are wanted 24/7 usually will have some form of on call, it's not the "zero hour" contracts as such being all evil, it's shitty employers and you get them on whatever employment contract.

If people looked beyond the "muh evil tories" they would realise that they work for the majority that are on them and the majority are happy with the flexibility, it also isn't a Tory issue as it was Labours magic 16 hours tax credits that enabled the uptake. To give Tories some credit (which is hearsay on a thread where skwarkbox is being submitted) they have made exclusivity zero hour contracts illegal, not that this thread is about Zero hours

Really!
The only people I know who are happy on zero hour contracts are students & retired people who've gone back to work part time. Even then the odd one moans if the boss starts complaining about the fact you can't do next Thursday (as it clashes with lectures/other job/hospital appointments etc)
Zero hour contracts are not that flexible for the employee only the employer.

I can't read this thread it's so depressing. To the person saying austerity needs to happen; the UK is still one of the largest economies worldwide. That is private money. Some people are making a lot of money out of people's misery. Corporations paying fuck all so that their employers have to claim off the taxpayer; those same corporations also contributing fuck all to the tax pot. Greedy landlords, which is nearly all landlords, including HA. And this shitty UC, making people's lives so so fucking difficult.
I'm in London. So many more homeless people every year.
It's fucked.

I'm not, actually, completely opposed to zero-hours contracts. They are a good set up for people who are in the process of setting up their own business, performing artists, people who have another line of work that's moderately flexible in terms of hours (eg translating, copy-editing, making stuff to sell). I work for two different employers on an ad-hoc basis myself.

But there is, actually, no good reason for forcing people to work for wages when there aren't enough tasks that need to be done, and there is enough in the way of resources to give everyone a decent standard of living.

And @justanotherlurker have you COMPLETELY missed the absolutely damning report from the UN about what a disaster austerity is?

Jobs with zero hours contracts should be outlawed.

How have they defined poverty? It’s doesn’t say and unfortunatrly that word doesn’t really meananything beyond some kind of poor these days. It would be interesting to know how many people in Britain actually can’t afford to meet their basic necessities even after accessing government help. It shouldn’t be that difficult to find out surely? Just calculate the cost of providing accommodation, utilities and, food for a singke person, single person plus child etc in any given area and see how many people are able to get less than that in government support with no alternative source of income? Unfortunately the measure of overtly that government uses are completely meaningless.

@justanotherlurker I don't believe there is any single shared view amongst "competent economists" unless by competent you really mean the ones who agree with you.

Well Racecar i think having to resort to sex work is a fair indicator

Have you actually read the full statement Because if you had you wouldnt be asking.

How have they defined poverty? It’s doesn’t say

Yes, the report does say and I have stated it again on the first page of this thread. The definitions are those used by the IFS and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Their methodology is on their respective websites.

Unfortunately the measure of overtly that government uses are completely meaningless.

Are you suggesting that a Tory government are overstating the number of people living in poverty as a result of their measures? That's nonsensical.

The only people I know who are happy on zero hour contracts are students & retired people who've gone back to work part time.

Well I'm sure your anecdotal data far outweighs everything else on the subject. Political activists have been trying to dig up anything regarding 0 hour contracts since milliband put it in his manifesto, so far the stats do not back up the amount of personal anecdotes that want to make it a political scoring point.

This mythical rise in 0 hours is also not backed up, its ~2.5% of the workforce who are on such contracts and has been pretty much unchanged for a few years, iirc I think about a quarter of those want more hours with about 8% not in zero hours also wanting more.

It's not the magical bogeyman that some like to portray it as, is what I am trying to put across

I don't believe there is any single shared view amongst "competent economists" unless by competent you really mean the ones who agree with you.

I think you need to rtft as I am referencing someone else making bold economic claims that austerity is purely ideological

And @justanotherlurker have you COMPLETELY missed the absolutely damning report from the UN about what a disaster austerity is?

No, I've commented on PP trying to bring out the old trope of it being Ideological and "competent economists agree" bullshit that always happen on these threads, whilst citing the IMF and coming across as economically literate when it comes to brexit.

I'm aware that the UN is also in favour of austerity, and that they should really stick to diplomacy, although I'm not to sure why Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Burundi are on the Human rights council, as every attempt to go outside its remit seems to end up in Hezbollah apologism and making Amnesty International look right wing.

I'm also aware of the political hack behind this report, his report on the US consisted of him going to places that have struggled with poverty for decades, like Skid Row and rural Mississippi and blaming their problems on Trump.

Still, good of you to refute any of my points and just go for the moral standpoint.

Racecar, as helena says, rise in sex workers plus just count the number of people using food banks.

@justanotherlurker I have indeed read the full thread. Someone else is presenting their subjective viewpoint as fact. You are doing the same.

Oh yeah. The UN who say that the UK is the most oppressive country in the world for women to live in. LOL.

UN reports are only fit to wipe your arse with. They are incredibly corrupt, have a huge agenda and are massively politically biased.

They will basically write propaganda for the highest bidder.

It's such a shame such a noble cause has been subverted into a corrupt 'gun for hire and the right price' bunch of scammers.

How have they defined poverty?

I think it's on the UN's poverty index which is pretty much well regarded, but it doesn't state if its HDI or MPI, but as been proven by this thread its being used as political weapon without much background, to call it 'radical social engineering' is absolute horseshit, comparing it to China's one child policy is on another level.

Someone else is presenting their subjective viewpoint as fact. You are doing the same.

Feel free to quote where I have done that, I suspect you are coming from the same angle as the PP I was quoting.