To question whether northerners are actually poorer than southerners ?

[Naegriafowlia]

As we know a lot of northerners seem to think all southerners are living like the Russian Romanov family pre murder and funds from the south should be directed up north because they are apparently so much poorer than us.

But is this even true? If you can buy a family home up there for 100k or less and the same size home costs 300-400k on average in the south. You already have a lot more disposable income. I know they say they get paid less, but Tesco (for example) pays the same every where and has branches everywhere. I know they also say there’s no good jobs there but where there’s people there’s schools and hospitals so you want us to believe there’s no teachers and doctors?

I know someone will say “move there then” personally I won’t be moving anywhere anytime soon as I started my family young (first born a few months after GCSEs) and my kids are all really settled in school and with friends.
Based on what I’ve heard from northerners they are more welcoming to people from countries on the other side of the planet than they are their fellow countrymen from 100 miles to the south.

Nuance isn't your strong point is it?

Crime rates are just one aspect but IMD looks at many factors - hence the 'multiple' factors.

It depends. Anyone, North, living on most benefits, alone, will have more disposal income than Southerners.

Things like most UC components, PIP/DLA etc are fixed rates.

Housing, shopping etc is generally cheaper in the North than South.

If wages come into it, then it depends.

Please don’t dump your assumptions about southerners on me I don’t live in a bubble my parents pretty much disowned me when I was 16 and I also started my own family then, have never had any financial help from my parents or anything like that since. Not every one south of Manchester is Jacob Rees Mogg.

Drugs, alcohol and smoking are all lifestyle choices (we also have drug addicts and alcoholics in the south) so dont think anyone dropping dead ten years earlier merely because of where they live. Family values are more important.

I’d probably make the move if my kids were younger, many southerners already have much to the chagrin of people who like to bitch about “gentrification” and they are much better off for it!

I mentioned you living in a bubble because I was incredulous that someone needed these very obvious things pointing out to them.

Of course people aren’t just dropping dead because of where they live. They are dropping dead on average, ten years sooner because there is an increased incidence of drugs/alcohol/etc than in other areas. You won’t suddenly pop off because your neighbour is a heroin addict. Not all men will die by 70. The ones that don’t abuse substances will, on the whole, live longer. But there are so many people abusing drugs/alcohol/tobacco and subsequently dying prematurely that life expectancy is significantly lowered. That’s how averages work. And ‘family values’ probably aren’t so prevalent among addicts.

Linking life expectancy to where you live is a measure of deprivation. It comes under the ‘health’ dimension of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).

In my area people most affluent wards live on average 12 years longer than those in the most deprived. That’s significant.

You’re attempting to lecture people on deprivation and quality of life without even attempting to understand how it all works.

where have I lectured you? You’re lecturing me on that still implying I live in a bubble and have had some kind of privelged existence just because I’m southern. Of course I’m going to take issue with that because it’s completely untrue

Why would you bring up lower life expectancy due to lifestyle choices as a reason no one would want to live there? Remember that was in response to you asking “who said it was dangerous”. If its not dangerous and these drug addicts are peaceful then why would it bother any southerner moving north?

Anyway there’s a lot of drug addicts down here too

Drug use is linked with crime so that falls into the reason of not wanting to live somewhere dangerous. However IF these drug addicts aren’t bothering anyone then that’s not a “reason other than somewhere being dangerous”.

The man that lives down the road drinking himself into an early grave is sad but it dosent actually affect you if he’s not a violent drunk (which would fall under dangerous)

A lot of southerners are moving north and finding themselves a lot better off, none of the reasons you’ve listed are going to stop them (especially now you can work from home in a lot of those higher paying office jobs)

I very much doubt that they’re moving to sink council estates!

And yes, there is high crime but it’s mostly petty theft rather than violence.

I’ve known a few people move north and they’re moving for the cheap property. The cheaper the better as long as it dosent need a lot of work done to it . There’s drug addicts, crime and bad neighbourhoods down south difference is you pay a LOT more. So a lot of people aren’t going to let that stop them

I didn’t say you lived in a bubble. That’s was another poster.
I also didn’t bring up life expectancy. Again, that was another poster who was, correctly, outlining the multiple factors related to deprivation.
I responded to your reply to that post because you were incorrect.

You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that there are many factors which contribute to an area being declared a deprived area. Have you looked up IMD and how that’s measured? Life expectancy is related to the ‘health’ dimension of IMD which is separate to the dimension which is concerned with crime. While there are some overlap across the areas, they are not interchangeable.
Factors such as mental heath, poverty, employment also play a part.

Who said there weren’t drug addicts down south? I’ve also not suggested people move. Again, you’re mixing me up with someone else.

There are affluent and deprived areas all over the UK. You’re the one trying to claim there is a binary divide between the north and south.

I don’t really care how “deprived” an area is as long as it’s not dangerous (like many parts of London where you pay a large sum to live there). That’s what I’m saying, you/other poster say there are other factors aside from crime and I’m telling you most people wouldn’t be put off by the man down the road who drank too much dying at 70 instead of 80.

I’m not too big on the term “deprived area” have you tried googling “is x deprived” I can do for numerous towns and apparently they’re all deprived. With almost everywhere being “top 10% most deprived nationally”(including somewhere I used to live which really wasn’t bad at all) . I’m not entirely sure how that’s mathematically possible but there we are.

I remember when the Department of Social Security relocated to Leeds from London. I lived in Leeds at the time 1988. The Soft Southern staff that came with them insisted on having a bus transfers from the train station to their building, all of a 10 minute walk. But you had to walk past Leeds market which apparently was a risk too great for our Southern professionals. So a bus they got. And they became the butt of jokes for years. 😁

Are you suggesting that other parts of the UK aren’t dangerous?
And again, you’re completely missing that fact that deprivation has a wider societal impact. It’s not really about the individual.

I’ve studied, researched and written about deprivation and prefer more robust academic source than just ‘googling’ it. And nobody is claiming almost everywhere is in the top 10% most deprived area nationally. It might be that they score particularly low on one aspect of IMD but if you look at it overall then it’s easy to see which areas of the UK are considered to have high deprivation.

No I’m not suggesting other parts of the uk aren’t dangerous?

Somewhere I used to live (still live nearby) is apparently “top 10% most deprived areas nationally” but it’s a perfectly normal place!

Hence I say I’m not personally bothered by whether somewhere is considered deprived, as long as it’s safe. And I know I’m far from the only person who thinks that way or “gentrifiers” wouldn’t be a thing. That’s a very niche topic to have studied, researched and written about though!

It’s really not niche. It’s a huge area of research and study due to the significant impact on society. It concerns health, education, employment, the economy, crime … pretty much everything that impacts our day to day life and future prospects.

Just because you think where you lived was ‘perfectly normal’ doesn’t mean it isn’t /wasn’t deprived. You might not think it impacted your life but it most certainly did. It most probably impacted the quality of schools in your area, the educational outcomes of young people, employment, the economy and growth, healthcare provision and availability of emergency care, safety and crime rates.

And many people are bothered about levels of deprivation. They want high quality schools with good educational outcomes, they want high levels of employment, access to healthcare and low crime.
They generally also want a thriving economy which requires people with spending power.

I haven’t read the whole thread but the Sutton Trust Opportunity Index is a really important document (apologies if it has been posted). It explains how poverty and lack of opportunity are not the same thing. Children growing up in some of the poorest areas of London have significantly more opportunity than my area of the East Midlands. There are significant pockets of low opportunity in the south east too. It’s not as straight forward as a north south divide.

You’ll have to take my word for it that it’s a really ordinary place I guess.

I meant many people (not all of course) are not put off by moving to a deprived area (exceptions being somewhere very dangerous) otherwise “gentrifiers” wouldn’t be a thing.

Look up some council tax costs and average wages for up here.

Compare council tax

I didn’t say it wasn’t ordinary. But your judgement doesn’t mean it wasn’t deprived. An area is described as deprived using a range of longitudinal statistical measures and factors. Not by the opinion of one individual!

Are you saying those measures are incorrect?

There was/is absolutely nothing wrong with the area it came as a surprise to me that it’s considered “10% most deprived” and all the hand wringing that comes with that.
I’ve taken the phrase “deprived” with a heavy pinch of salt ever since tbh with you. That’s not to say I don’t think there’s places that meet the actual literal definition of deprived like Middlesbrough for example.

But where I used to live was nothing like that.

A family home for £100k? You have got to be joking. A small flat in a semi-decent area would cost more than that.

Run down northern town here. You can't get a 4 bed for under 250k. 3 beds are still 180+ unless you went to live next door to a drug den or a family with asbos. That's the reality and not a cliche, been there and done that. Just my experience. Homes seem cheaper but living expenses are just as high. There's land here and not a lot for jobs. Crap transport, old rural pit villages with little going on.

Would you be willing to share the place you’re talking about? I could then provide some data/information as to why it is considered an area of deprivation.

What is your definition of deprivation in this context and why do you think it holds more weight than official measures?

What have I said that’s made you question the world deprived? All the information I’ve shared on this topic is informed by official government measures, research and my own extensive experience. I quite literally worked in a job which required me to understand how deprivation is measured and the impact it has on society, specifically educational outcomes and employment. My PhD looked an element of this and I looked at a shit load of data on this!!

But I’m intrigued as to why you don’t believe what I’ve said - it’s all easily verified 🤷‍♀️

Deprivation is multi-faceted though so maybe that's why you can't understand why it would apply to the places you are thinking of. There can be structural challenges but if a place has a strong local and cultural identity and is near to a affluent area that would bring connection and visibility of that area then they are likely to prosper more with regeneration. I would say a couple of examples of this are Camden, Islington.