You've Never Had It So Good....

kabayiri

ringo_24601 wrote: »

And would the man on the street have a better or worse life in Guatamala? Likely worse. People aren't on the street just because they are poor, there's always going to be other issues involved.

The homeless in the UK still have access to free medical care and a variety of charities; which still puts them in a better position than those in some developing countries.

I think it's a valid point. It's a question of comparisons.

Homeless in UK or homeless in some town in deepest Siberia. Hmm, I know who is better off.

kabayiri

I'm not sure the Guatemalan comparison has a lot going for it. No UK politician would make such a comparion; they would be derided, for in essence telling the truth.

At the heart of it, don't we measure ourselves against a relatively close peer group? Nurses look at the income of other health professionals for example.

I'm pretty sure the typical mayor of a Guatemalan town has a lifestyle which would be envied by many in his local community. That might be their reference point for the townsfolk, not someone who also sells things in a shop - but in a shop in Trafford Centre.

tomterm8

Generali wrote: »

Why do you think people in the UK sleep outdoors?

AIUI, the reason is because they have, most often, severe mental health problems which they are unable to address. It's not about poverty, it's about illness.

Most of the people that sleep on the streets in the UK have a similar income to an average Guatemalan, they just choose, through the prism of their illness, to live a certain life.

As I said, I think that the benefit regime has changed substantially since you were in oz. To get Jobseekers allowance in many parts of the UK you now have to satisfy a claimants commitment that involves:
* Being able to show that you are looking for work for 35 hours a week
* Being able to show that you have done at least 30 things a week to look for work
* Being able to fulfil certain standards of behaviour and appearance
* Being able to access online jobsearch, and being literate enough to keep records of the above things.

Among many other things.

Two years ago, a typical jobseekers agreement was to do three things a week.

Now, is a homeless alcoholic going to be able to do the above things?

In my experience, volunteering at the Citizens Advice Bureau, even fairly literate people without mental health disabilities are getting sanctioned because they just can't fulfil things like the degree of computer literacy involved.

Once sanctioned, housing benefit and council tax benefit stop unless someone knows enough to reapply for them at which point it can take months to get the money. In my experience, once sanctioned, people are becoming homeless and without deposit money are remaining so.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

"If you are born in The West you've won life's lottery"..

Southend1 wrote: »

Except in Guatemala that level of income is likely to be sufficient to provide for basic subsistence needs like a roof over their head.

I agree with the first quote, and as for the second, it reminds us that averages are just numbers and need interpreting.

It is absolutely true that the country in which you grow up is by far the biggest driver to your wealth. Each country, or region, has an economy, which can be 'poor' [Guatemala, Somalia...], 'medium' [Turkey, Malaysia...] or 'rich' [Luxembourg, USA...]

Then, subject to political climate, education/health systems etc., each individual presumably has opportunity to derive a 'small', 'medium', or 'large' income for himself within that economy.

A rich Turk or Malaysian is far richer than most of us 'middle incomes' from UK, whilst a poor one is probably worse off than a rich Guatamalan....

Should we throw money at Guatamalans? Definitely not! What we (or other rich countries) should seek to do is throw "investment" and knowledge into the country - in tandem with its government, so that it can create far more wealth for itself.

This was what UK did in its empire-building days, except that we forgot common courtesies such as 'asking permission' to send flotillas of Brits in to set up trade, and perhaps putting rather more pressure on the locals to 'work' in our companies than would be fitting today.

In a similar vein, I strongly believe that each country should put the wealth of the nation at the heart of its priorities and give all its people equal opportunities to avail themselves of this wealth by education, training, work, and entrepreneurial opportunities.

In any one country, rich or poor, the extent to which cash should be thrown from rich to poor is another debate. It is something UK does rather more than most, but I tend to think that the more we throw, the more it removes the incentive to use the opportunities already there.

My biggest sympathies lie with countries like North Korea in which there are no opportunities whatsoever for the general populace to improve their own lots. South Korea is a working example of what difference a government can make to an otherwise totally homogenous group of people over a period of 60 years. GDP per Head NK = $1,800, SK = $22,600

kabayiri

I think TomTerm is right. It's very easy for people to become disenfranchised nowadays.

I've been involved with Work Programme on a supplier basis. It seems to have grown into an industry with a lot of things in it to sustain its own needs. There is an assumption that every 'client' can fit into the expected method of engagement. You only have to look at the data stored in depth to realise that large numbers struggle to comply with this model.

tomterm8

One of my clients killed themselves last month because he was sanctioned for attending an interview during a sign-on appointment. He would have won the appeal, but that doesn't help when you've lost your jobseekers allowance, housing benefit, and you are consequently homeless and it will take you a minimum of three months and probably more before your appeal is heard.

So, I am grumpy.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

Why do you think people in the UK sleep outdoors?

AIUI, the reason is because they have, most often, severe mental health problems which they are unable to address. It's not about poverty, it's about illness.

Most of the people that sleep on the streets in the UK have a similar income to an average Guatemalan, they just choose, through the prism of their illness, to live a certain life.

I would say it's a poor society that leaves sick people to sleep on the streets in the cold. Maybe your definition of poverty is more money focused than mine.

Yes, we are lucky to have a welfare state (even if we do have a political class hell bent on dismantling it), however it's very easy to slip through the cracks in our welfare state. And once you've slipped through, it can be nigh on impossible to escape the spiral of poverty, addiction, illness and despair.

I think that in examining the bigger picture you may have lost some of the fine detail. Averages don't paint the whole picture.

Loughton_Monkey

tomterm8 wrote: »

........

In my experience, volunteering at the Citizens Advice Bureau, even fairly literate people without mental health disabilities are getting sanctioned because they just can't fulfil things like the degree of computer literacy involved.

Once sanctioned, housing benefit and council tax benefit stop unless someone knows enough to reapply for them at which point it can take months to get the money. In my experience, once sanctioned, people are becoming homeless and without deposit money are remaining so.

kabayiri wrote: »

I think TomTerm is right. It's very easy for people to become disenfranchised nowadays.

I've been involved with Work Programme on a supplier basis. It seems to have grown into an industry with a lot of things in it to sustain its own needs. There is an assumption that every 'client' can fit into the expected method of engagement. You only have to look at the data stored in depth to realise that large numbers struggle to comply with this model.

I often wonder the degree to which our nation's "Political Correctness" is partly to blame.

In the years up to 1960, UK citizens (male) all entered National Service. I have never heard that any 'harm' was done to the well being or future character of the individuals. But once enrolled in that period of service, I strongly suspect that if one or more of a platoon tended to be scruffy, unshaven, oversleeping, non-compliant, then I don't believe they took the miscreant to one side, in a nice office, where some 'outreach' seargeant would seek to 'engage' the conscriptee and encourage him to comply with a 'model' set out for the 'programme'.

Rather, I suspect words such as "Now look here you lazy slob. If you are not here. Every day next week. On time, shaven, and tidy, your pay and rations are suspended. You'll be painting stones white until midnight, and any leave is cancelled!"

I believe the latter worked. The former wouldn't have.

I'm not advocating reintroduction of National Service for all. But I would strongly advocate that rather than 'benefits' [for people not disabled] I would prefer to offer an "Employer of last resort" at some special national wage. This would be an 'army' of people available every day for local needs such as pond cleaning, road gritting, footpath maintenance, railings painting, and countryside litter removal.....

tomterm8

Loughton Monkey, in the 60s an awful lot of people who we are talking about would have been in the Asylums, not in the military.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

The homeless people in your office doorway probably have an income approximate to the average income of a Guatemalan.

They will be bit colder though. I guess we have to consider purchasing power as well, how much is the rent in Guatemala?