How should poverty be defined given that it drives the benefits culture

michaels

BBC have a piece that explains my issues with the 'poverty' metric far better than I can:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8177864.stm

I think it highlights the need for the metric to be mentioned clearly in every poverty related piece - it would have been very easy to read the news stories recently on pensioner poverty and assume British pensioners where poor in absolute terms.

[Edit: I was thinking of your post Mr Mumbles when typing this but it is an issue that has vex me for a while: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1843067&highlight=poverty]

I think the definition needs to be carefully considered when making policy.

Three 'paradoxes' leap out, the first being the one mentioned that a fall in median incomes will 'lift people out of poverty' even though they are no better off.

Secondly setting a target at a proportion of median income may result in the level being set at an income that people are perfectly happy to accept as 'adequate' and thus if benefits give this level of lifestyle it may prove a major disincentive to get off benefits.

Finally the median pensioner income in Budapest does not qualify as poverty where as the median UK pensioner income does - this suggests that the British Pensioner should be happy to swap their UK lifestyle for the one in Budapest - somehow I doubt it...

inspector_monkfish

above watford = poverty
below watford = non-poverty

quite simple

lemonjelly

inspector_monkfish wrote: »

above watford = poverty
below watford = non-poverty

quite simple

Not sure whether to call you a git or a snob!;):D

Really2

I would class poverty as not having the basic human needs.

food, water and shelter and the ability to get out of poverty, education.

The way it is rated on a country's income is frankly stupid.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I would class poverty as not having the basic human needs.

food, water and shelter and the ability to get out of poverty, education.

The way it is rated on a country's income is frankly stupid.

On a general principle I'd agree. However at the same time, there is a relative-ness to poverty isn't there?

For example, in the UK 99.7% of the population have a TV. Are the 0.3% in poverty?

Further, what is an essential item? To take the TV one step further, what if the person is disabled, in a rural area, and it is their main form of contact with the outside world?

lemonjelly

lemonjelly wrote: »

Not sure whether to call you a git or a snob!;):D

Or even a southern softy!:D;)

inspector_monkfish

lemonjelly wrote: »

Or even a southern softy!:D;)

call me what you like. My Butler will sort you out

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

On a general principle I'd agree. However at the same time, there is a relative-ness to poverty isn't there?

For example, in the UK 99.7% of the population have a TV. Are the 0.3% in poverty?

Further, what is an essential item? To take the TV one step further, what if the person is disabled, in a rural area, and it is their main form of contact with the outside world?

No, I don't agree, a disable person get additional benefits (but a disable person would be able to get a TV if they really needed one and a reduced TV licence I believe)

I don't think poverty is a hyperthetical line based on social issues etc.

It should be based on your basic needs.

1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.
2. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.: poverty of the soil.
3. scantiness; insufficiency: Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies.

I don't see not having a TV is poverty, you may be poor relatively, but not in poverty in my eyes.

kissjenn

lemonjelly wrote: »

On a general principle I'd agree. However at the same time, there is a relative-ness to poverty isn't there?

For example, in the UK 99.7% of the population have a TV. Are the 0.3% in poverty?

Further, what is an essential item? To take the TV one step further, what if the person is disabled, in a rural area, and it is their main form of contact with the outside world?

It's an interesting debate and one raised by the Channel 4 (I think?) programme last night "How the Other Half Lives", where rich UK families sponsor families in poverty. The question I assume that's asking is "Does charity begin at home."

My problem with the example last night goes back to Really2's point that the basic needs must be met. If you sponsor a child in the developing world then you are making the difference (if you take the view that the money goes where it's meant to) between life and death. Sponsoring a family in the UK is more with moving up the wealth index, there is no reason why any child in this country should be cold, hungary, uneducated or in fear. The solution may be outwith the family home but the point is their state-supplied, guaranteed solution.

TVs are relative, as are cars, mobiles and numerous other luxury goods which we don't need to survive. The realative wealth of a nation is perhaps how far above that survival state we set our national poverty bar.

As for the 0.3% - can I suggest that the vast majority of those households are non-TV by choice. Many (too many) so they can tell people that they don't have one as in a quasi-superior way that makes them intellectually superior to those of us who quite enjoy a bit of telly.

Mr_Mumble

bbc wrote:

Many people might think of poverty as absolute, the lack of certain basic amenities, but politicians measure it in relative terms.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Whose politicians? The US uses an absolute figure based on a plethora of metrics (since social security payments are based on this measure) and is uplifted every year with CPI. The Economist had an intriguing cover story about the middle-classes where an Indian economist had used absolute numbers to declare anyone on >$10 a day is middle class. India itself uses an absolute number based on the cost of nourishing its population. The world bank considers moderate poverty to be an absolute figure of $2 per day on a purchasing power parity basis. The BBC article does mention this data-point near the bottom but then misleads by suggesting the measure is indefinitely fixed. Nonsense since the world bank does raise the numbers (in 2008 the extreme poverty figure rose from $1.08 per day to $1.25, again in PPP terms).

So, who are these "politicians" who use a relative metric? Overwhelmingly they're socialist politicians within the EU who set up the EC run Eurostat. Yet, the Germans define strict poverty as receiving <40% of median income while the French-based OECD uses a median income of <50%. So, how can the BBC possibly get away with remarking "Poverty is defined as below 60% of the median" and " is now used internationally"?

Let's correct that first sentence shall we:

Many people might think of poverty as absolute because it is. Yet, left-wing European politicians and those financed by them use relative figures

Prior to this week I had never corresponded wit the BBC. Now it'll be two irate letters in three days!

edit: lol, so many responses since I began typing this post - my prior post on the subject of relative 'poverty'.

lemonjelly

Intruigingly, many posts on this thread argue essentially for the means testing of benefits (ie, welfare benefits are paid according to need). This contrasts startlingly with the occasional threads I see arguing that benefits punish savers.

Does this mean we all generally support means testing in the welfare state?