A quarter of adults out of work

Kohoutek

Really2 wrote: »

It's on wage gaps and I presume anything paying a wage is included?

Currently part time jobs are included in the average wage.

I would expect it includes part time jobs. The study has been cited by the government, so I would assume they have no quibbles with the methodology used to make its conclusions.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Not if you were factory workers, or most manual workers. Perhaps if you were coal miner danger money.

No coal was poor money also.

And that is the point most of the working population did these jobs, that is why on paper it looked better as it dragged down the average wage.

That did not make the average wage easier to live on.

PS
My Wifes nan (90, husband coal miner) worked land for food but that gave no income just additional food? How many people have to do that now?

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

No coal was poor money also.

And that is the point most of the working population did these jobs, that is why on paper it looked better as it dragged down the average wage.

That did not make the average wage easier to live on.

Before WW2 coal mining wages were abysmal, true. AIUI they got a little better after the War. Remember I am comparing this to other manual shovelling work - so indeed in absolute terms the wages were still poor. I am comparing lousy wages with appalling wages. In other words, the alternative options for coal miners were even worse.

StevieJ

lemonjelly wrote: »

Loads.

Thing is a single wage was enough to easily keep a family back then, whereas now, it isn't.

I think the very poorest now have a far higher standard of living than in the 50's, yes maybe their is a wider spread from top to bottom but the bottom has improved dramatically, any older people (who were brought up in working class areas) like to comment?
You only have to go in poorer peoples houses to see, after negotiating the car on the drive.
1950's No car, No washing machine, No central heating, No steak, No wine, No cheap beer, No cheap Chinese clothes, No internet, No mobile phone (in fact no phone) and on and on and on.

StevieJ

lemonjelly wrote: »

Loads.

Thing is a single wage was enough to easily keep a family back then, whereas now, it isn't.

Rooney could but he still sends Colleen out to work

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Before WW2 coal mining wages were abysmal, true. AIUI they got better after the War. Remember I am comparing this to other manual shovelling work - so indeed in absolute terms the wages were still poor. I am comparing lousy wages with appalling wages.

I agree. the danger of these kind of stats is comparing a family's income (which the 1 average wage was in the 1950s) to a 18 yo working in a McDonalds now.
Yes comparing that the 18yo is now in poverty compared to the person in 1950 (as most were on a low wage which caused a low average) but in reality the 18yo will have some scope to change and increase earnings and is not currently supporting a family.

In the 1950's that was it, that's life, live with it.

The current average wage includes far to many jobs that were not even around 60 years ago. So the idea of poverty (60% of average wage) can be covered by so many, pensioners, part timers etc etc which simply were not there in the 50's . But are they really poor in reality?

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

What era are you talking about? The 19th century?

Read the reports yourself - wages are more unequally distributed now than at any period since the Second World War.

Maybe, but it doesn't mean the poorest have a lower standard of living, surely this is Maggies dream the rich entrepreneurs raising the standards of the poorest in society.
More weasel words

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

The current average wage includes far to many jobs that were not even around 60 years ago. So the idea of poverty (60% of average wage) can be covered by so many, pensioners, part timers etc etc which simply were not there in the 50's . But are they really poor in reality?

You need to be careful with comparing absolute living standards across time.

Most medieval kings were relatively rich beyond the wildest dreams of anyone but the richest of today's rich. However, they had no proper healthcare, no proper sanitation and a low life expectancy.

This is why the relative measure is the one that tends to be preferred in advanced economies. The fact that the poorest people have indoor toilets is to do with human progress rather than poverty per se. Just as outhouse toilets would have been a luxury in the 18th Century.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe, but it doesn't mean the poorest have a lower standard of living, surely this is Maggies dream the rich entrepreneurs raising the standards of the poorest in society.
More weasel words

Where's the weasel word? I don't understand what you're talking about.

The reason the UK is becoming more unequal is probably a lot from lower social mobility, which is probably a result of the dissolution of the grammar school system. Just look at the report into the professions that Milburn did a while back - many are still overwhelmingly dominated by the privately educated.

I don't believe in nonsense like Thatcher/Reagan's 'trickle down economics', but you can't deny that New Labour have continued that legacy of being committed to not making the tax system too re-distributive.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

You need to be careful with comparing absolute living standards across time.

Most medieval kings were relatively rich beyond the wildest dreams of anyone but the richest of today's rich. However, they had no proper healthcare, no proper sanitation and a low life expectancy.

This is why the relative measure is the one that tends to be preferred in advanced economies. The fact that the poorest people have indoor toilets is to do with human progress rather than poverty per se. Just as outhouse toilets would have been a luxury in the 18th Century.

But the problem with 60% wage is.

Which is the poorest.

Average wage is £50PW
Earn average wage, can only just afford all bills and eat. Slight malnutrition.

Average wage is £200PW
Earn £110 Can pay bills, can eat no malnutrition.

I know which one my idea of poor is even if the 2nd one is the only one that is in poverty.

I dare say there are 3rd world countries with less living in poverty (technically)than the UK. But that does not mean it is easier to live.