How the term 'poverty' has changed

[Deeperthantheocean]

Just this really.

Poverty in my grandparents' age was 'be rich, a gangster, work hard or you die'.

This was so true, whole different era and real poverty from their times being born in the 1910s and the aftermath. Sadly my GF died so GM was alone bringing up 2 children and then adopting another as that's what what you did when members of the family were being abused. No benefits, only a council where you to practically beg for help and it was so looked down upon and gossip then was brutal.

So, a little 2 bedroom house, outhouse toilet, coal fire, no electricity. My GM worked all day and night... cleaning, making clothes and took in 2 male lodgers in the downstairs 'parlour', made breakfast and evening meals for them.

The 3 girls shared a double bed, GM got up at 4am every morning to bring in coal and make the fire before everyone else got up to go to work/ school. Then she went to work, physical cleaning work to the rich and snooty. The sad thing is she was she was so intelligent, gifted at creativity and music (she played the church organ with music she learnt from heart voluntarily) and sowed the most beautiful dresses. Also cakes.

Having rambled on a bit because this is deep to my heart hearing the stories, poverty was a case of just being able to survive, eat and have a roof. The DC were incredibly intelligent but had to to go to work aged 15 cand over all their wages for the family fund.

Poverty now has a different criteria, which of course it should as society has progressed. However aibu to compare the claim to poverty now to then? There is help, UC, recognition of SEN with DLa etc.

Sorry, but now those claiming poverty now wouldn't consider letting out a room, working all day and night, making clothes and baking just to survive.

Am I right? I wouldn't either as there has been so much to eradicate these hard times but I truly respect the hardship and feel so grateful for what we have now. Xx

Can't speak for other posters can only speak for myself seeing as you quoted my comment I assumed you was responding to something I said. I don't really care for the arguement regarding other cultures, other cultures also practice fgm and child marriage.

This thread is about people in poverty not people who are managing, most of the broke families I know live in one bedroom in a shared house yes mum dad and kids all in one room even if you could fit a lodger under one of the beds it wouldn't be allowed by the landlord.
Even the people I know who are struggling but have more than one room for their living space why should their children be subjected to a random stranger potential pedofile being in their personal space. Again I don't care for "but the past" or "but other countries" all kinds of fucked up shit goes on in other places and other times.

Anyone that has the space to keep a lodger isn't in poverty and therefore not relevant to this discussion.

Having to rely on family, friends and neighbours for something so basic IS degrading!
Just the other week, someone on here made a thread about a neighbour asking to temporarily have use of her bathroom whilst hers is out of action, and loads of people thought it was weird.
Not having internet access these days is as basic as not having adequate bathroom facilities.

Of course if you wanted to be especially obtuse you could argue that many elderly people don’t have internet at home, but they have less use for in general - and are you seriously expecting young people to live like they’re elderly?

Imagine you’re 16. How difficult, and tbh, humiliating, would it be to not have internet access at home?!?

Re taking in lodgers. That was a plot point that the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (written in 1914 so the same time the OP was writing about). It was a fairly common way for working people who weren't earning enough to support themselves to make ends meet. Of course, the wife in that novel was the one having to do all the additional work to look after an extra man. Also, she does get raped by the lodger. It's only a novel (with a clear political angle) but, while taking in lodgers might be a good solution in some circumstances the idea that it should be an automatic go to for families who, despite working hard, are struggling to get by is morally wrong. People are entitled to feel secure in their own homes. Taking in strangers carries risks.
Also - if you are renting a home subletting can cause issues especially if the lodger damages the home/generates complaints from neighbours.

Re taking in lodgers. That was a plot point that the Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (written in 1914 so the same time the OP was writing about). It was a fairly common way for working people who weren't earning enough to support themselves to make ends meet. Of course, the wife in that novel was the one having to do all the additional work to look after an extra man. Also, she does get raped by the lodger. It's only a novel (with a clear political angle) but, while taking in lodgers might be a good solution in some circumstances the idea that it should be an automatic go to for families who, despite working hard, are struggling to get by is morally wrong. People are entitled to feel secure in their own homes. Taking in strangers carries risks.
Also - if you are renting a home subletting can cause issues especially if the lodger damages the home/generates complaints from neighbours.

Yes, poverty looks very different to what it did 80 years ago but people seem to have changed too.

Bitterness, disrespect, hatred, anti social behaviour, no work ethic, violence and a 'happy to shit in their own backyard' attitude is rampant compared to back then.

Poverty has more or less gone back to where it was with 100000s homeless children, people dependent on food banks. Mass shoplifting for gangs. Trafficking, count lines. Today more nature is ruined so less natural resources, fewer houses have a working chimney to avoid heating and we have dug up most of our coal . We are also going back fast to pay for healthcare where poorest get a very basic service and those who pay get ripped off

I’m not quite 80, but I recognise what you say. Resilience and personal responsibility seem to have faded away with the sometimes overwhelming growth of rights.

Things have got much worse over the last 15 years, but it has not gone back to what it was.

OMG I had a friend who used to do this, when we were about 12. This was in 1975
,so not exactly ancient history. She was from a one parent family and I know her mum struggled for money. She always used to say 'Save me the core',then she'd eat the whole lot,pips and all. I came from a relatively well-off family,so after this had happened a few times,I started taking 2 apples to school and gave one to her. The look on her face when I handed it to her. You'd think I'd just given her a 50 pound note!

The country will never be "poverty"- free as the definition most often used is 'when a household earns less than 60% of the median income for the year. This is known as the relative poverty line'

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/

However much average earnings go up there will always be those who earn relatively less. While, naturally, everyone would love to be in the above average bracket and have more disposable income, this does not mean that those in the bottom bracket are living Dickensian levels of poverty. It's all relative. Many of those living in defined "poverty" here would be regarded as wealthy compared with the poor in many other countries'