Child poverty set to rise..

[madhattershouse]

This article is suggesting that child poverty is on the rise BEFORE the new benefits changes are implemented. This can only get worse. As this site is for parents I wondered what the consensus of opinion would be on this article

"Anyone over the median income losing their job (let's face it, most people in full time employment) will reduce the median income."

Apologies you're absolutely right.

So a more accurate statement would be to say that you could sack everyone earning up to the median income and not affect that median income by one single penny.

So the easiest way to immediately raise all children out of poverty would be to immediately sack all people without dependent children who earn above the median wage, thus reducing the median below the level of benefits. Oh, hang on, that would mean nobody was paying tax any more...
There will never be a simple solution to child poverty, otherwise someone would have solved it by now, the best we can do is help where we are, any way we are able, to make life better for those less fortunate than ourselves.
I give clothes to local families in need, my friend visits and does shopping for them. I'm not claiming I can change the world that way, but it's not that hard to make life a bit better for a few people, and if even a quarter of people did the same it would make a massive difference.

However you measure it, the evidence is that child poverty is a huge problem for all of us - rich and poor - because the more deprived children there are the more we all end up paying.

What can we do about it? It's so simple. We put children first in all policy decisions. We improve their access to good education, welfare, housing and health services. This involves some of us paying higher taxes, and voting for different political parties.

The saddest thing about all this is that the solution is well within our grasp. If we wanted to stop it, we could.

"However you measure it"

I believe that it is important how you measure it.

If you use "relative poverty" and a mean average then in any society with a genuine spread of incomes it will never go away. So Governments can go on a never ending social crusade and pour billions into projects that won't achieve anything (sound familiar?).

It also means that a Government could mercilessly hammer on the bottom 50% of society while rapidly increasing the wealth of the top 50%. The "fight" to end poverty continues, sacrifices are asked and made in the name of the fight and the figures begin to show a slow improvement. But meanwhile the top 50% are laughing all the way to the bank (sound familiar?).

Finally it allows people to dismiss it. You can be "relatively poor" but still reasonably well off in this country. And the right wing press can then spout off about "how can you be poor if you can afford a blackberry?" (sound familiar?) which demeans the whole fight.

You're right there is genuine poverty in this country, but we've got to monitor and measure it better than we do. The first Rowntree survey that really looked into poverty shook up the country and began to dispel the lies that poverty was the fault of the poor and not the fault of low wages (sound familiar?) and that examined peoples needs in a very detailed degree.

That's the sort of thing that we need now. And "relative poverty" just doesn't do that, it's just a pointless political football to be kicked about by the political parties while they do nothing to make a difference.

well as others have said, there's absolute v relative poverty and relativity is key imho.i'm getting less tolerant of all this..Where I live, you';re officially deemed "middle class" if you have access to running water and an inside loo..

Agree you have to monitor and measure it, conduct research into causes and effects etc, obviously, and it's very important work. I just wanted to discuss the issue, rather than the numbers. I think we all agree there is a problem.

It is important how you measure it. But every study is paid for and carried out by someone who has an agenda, and a lot of research is then further misrepresented by the media, who also have a particular axe to grind. We can never know for sure what the situation is, and how it varies round the country, unless we read the original research.

I think we should simply use our eyes. Standing by the school gate, how many of the kids come to school in clean clothes, with school bags and look as if they have had breakfast? If you live in a 'good' area, go to a 'bad' one, and think about what makes one part of town different from another. Do you ever feel uneasy about walking through certain areas? Why is that? Do the kids hanging around on the street corners at 9 o'clock at night have anything to do with it?

I'm a bit wary of the terms 'absolute' and 'relative' poverty, because I think they let people off the hook too easily. We think that if it's only 'relative' poverty, it's not so important. But I think that the deprivation suffered by some children is truly horrific - it's almost worse when it happens in such a rich country as ours is.

We are talking about people in poverty not being able to afford their food and utility bills. I would cal that poverty by any definition.

Relative poverty is important, because if everyone else earns much more than you, your food and utility bills are likely to be higher.

not to mention housing costs!

"Relative poverty is important, because if everyone else earns much more than you, your food and utility bills are likely to be higher."

Well if that's what's important to you then you will surely disagree with the current in use definition of "relative poverty". The current definition doesn't compare your income to everyone it just compares it to the bottom 50%. What the top 50% earns does not matter one single penny to the mean average income. The top 50% could earn a few £'s more than the mean average or they could earn £billions more, it doesn't matter, the mean average doesn't shift.

So I'm glad we seem to have an agreement here, the current method of measuring "relative poverty" misses what is "important" and is therefore a bad thing.

Badgerpaws - you are confusing 'average' with 'median.

The AVERAGE takes into account ALL incomes, and divides it up between ALL people to give the average wage. If everyone earned the average wage, there would be no relative poverty.
What you have been describing is called the 'median'.

"you are confusing 'average' with 'median."

No, not at all, but you might be. The median is an average. The method you describe isn't the average, it is just another method to calculate an average, and it's the mean average.

Median average happens to be the one that is used to calculate the average household income, which is then used as the measure for relative poverty by most groups and is the one used in the figures mentioned in the original poster's link.

If you believe that the mean average should be used instead then, as said, we are in agreement that the currently used definition of "relative poverty" is wrong.

Dont tell Edwina Currie child poverty is about to rise. She thinks poverty does not exist. She should dance less and get out more,
Years ago Edwina as a minister advised poor people to wear woolly hats in the winter. Her fellow Tories thought it was poor and patronising PR

cogito- you are missing the point child poverty is about the relative poverty of children/families with children COMPARED to housholds without children eg DINKYs (double income no kids yet), pensioners, single people, families with adult children.

The recession is no excuse for the benefits/tax system to be set up in a way which distributes income away from families with young children.