No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

I was a teenager in the 70's and I have no recollection of everything being in black and white and slightly out of focus.

I remember the amazing summers of 1975 and 1976 when everything was bright and colourful.

Plus, there were no tank tops being worn, so I doubt the authenticity of those pictures.

I think things improved a lot in the 70s and 1976 was a great summer.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know, but evidence would suggest more people live in poverty today than the 70's.. My issue was with the photos and the assumption that those type of scenarios were limited to the 70's, when they clearly still exist today.

Benefits, over the last couple of decades specifically have certainly helped mask severe poverty. The benefit state itself has seen a huge shift between the 70's and today. Secondly, some of your pictures do not actually represent poverty, they actually represent the blackouts as part of union strikes. We shouldn't confuse the two things.

Theres research into poverty out there....

We can see that levels of poverty have not changed that much since the 70's, and indeed, in some cases, such as the "breadline poor" has actually worsened since the 70's.

In terms of percentages, a higher percentage of people live in poverty today than in the 70's. So maybe that answers your question? There are more people living in poverty today than the 70's of which you have shown multiple pictures.

Core poor
12.3% of the population in the 70's
14.1% of the population in the 00's

Breadline poor
14.7% of the population in the 70's
18.3% of the population in the 00's

So by those measures, yes, more people live in poverty today than the 1970's.

This link is a 4 page PDF which gives all the data I'm referring to.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2077.pdf

The full 111 page PDF giving all data is here for anyone who wishes to go through it with a fine toothcomb!! http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2019-poverty-wealth-place.pdf

As has been pointed out these are measures of relative poverty which says more about wealth distribution than it does poverty. People in poverty today are much better off than they would have been in the 1970's and I doubt they consider swapping.

The report uses the Breadline Britain method for measuring poverty and doesn't provide much of an insight into the methodology instead referring to a piece of work from 1997 where the first paragraph of the first page states..

Poverty can only be accurately measured by studying the living standards of people and families. Studies that concentrate mainly on income and expenditure (and not on living standards), such as the annual Family Expenditure Survey (FES), can provide good evidence about inequality but only limited evidence about poverty.

Assuming this to be fact and ignoring income and expenditure when considering poverty has the smell of writing a conclusion in advance of the study. By not referring to this methodology in more detail, especially as their 110 page document is all about poverty looks like they've tried to hide it too.

purch

ukcarper wrote: »

1976 was a great summer.

I was 16 and yes it was

stator

Threaten to take away all the free pensioner benefits (state pension,pension credit, free prescriptions, bus passes, TV licences, winter fuel payments, cold weather payments, council tax benefit, pensioner bonds) and you'll see whether the baby boomers consider themselves "entitled" to anything.

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

Threaten to take away all the free pensioner benefits (state pension,pension credit, free prescriptions, bus passes, TV licences, winter fuel payments, cold weather payments, council tax benefit, pensioner bonds) and you'll see whether the baby boomers consider themselves "entitled" to anything.

With the exception of state pension I think you might be surprised what pensioners think. Do you think all means tested benefits such as council tax benefit should be withdrawn from everybody claiming.

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Threaten to take away all the free pensioner benefits (state pension,pension credit, free prescriptions, bus passes, TV licences, winter fuel payments, cold weather payments, council tax benefit, pensioner bonds) and you'll see whether the baby boomers consider themselves "entitled" to anything.

a strange post

are you seriously suggesting that pensioners claiming pension credit are rich and should have it withdrawn?

about 90% of prescriptions in the England are free

don't spoil a partly good story with total stupidity.

kwmlondon

I'm a bit worried about the fact that the jobs market is seeing fewer and fewer well-paid, middle jobs and more and more zero-hours and part time contracts. 30 years ago a middle-class job was that of a teacher, engineer, clerk, hospital administrator, university researcher and they paid similar sorts of amounts to someone in the city, in banking or finance. Now those in the banking sector earn a factor times more than a teacher. If you work hard, get qualified and apply yourself then you've got a pretty rubbish chance of getting somewhere in life.

It seems that the way we're going the most important thing for the future is luck. Being lucky enough to have wealthy parents and going to the right school. Otherwise you're poor and you're likely to stay poor and so will your children.

This is not good for society, but nobody seems willing to face up to the reality of the situation because the only remedies are wealth redistribution or subsidising important jobs.

The market is concentrating wealth and privilege in the hands of fewer and fewer people and our health, education and ability to turn hard work and application into success is falling.

Sure, plenty of people will reply to this by saying that their success is down to their hard work, to their saving and being frugal and seeking out opportunities. Well, good for you - well done, but you were lucky that all that work you put in paid off.

I think you're the last generation that will have such great opportunities, from now on it won't matter how hard you work, it won't translate into any kind of meaningful advancement. Surely, that's got to be something we should stop?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

As has been pointed out these are measures of relative poverty

Indeed. But you state this as if that's an issue?

If it is an issue, how do you recommend we measure poverty across decades if not relatively?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the data I'm using people might take issue with, but it's only any use if people can also tell me at the same time the "better way of measuring it".

Otherwise is appears that we just hit an obstacle whereby everything I write against your view you simply state "not good enough because of X or Y".....but not giving any indication of how else you would prefer to look at things. In other words, it simply seems to be an obstacle to the discussion, but little of substance from thereonin.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed. But you state this as if that's an issue?

If it is an issue, how do you recommend we measure poverty across decades if not relatively?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the data I'm using people might take issue with, but it's only any use if people can also tell me at the same time the "better way of measuring it".

Otherwise is appears that we just hit an obstacle whereby everything I write against your view you simply state "not good enough because of X or Y".....but not giving any indication of how else you would prefer to look at things. In other words, it simply seems to be an obstacle to the discussion, but little of substance from thereonin.

just stop using the 'word' poverty as it simply means 'rich but poorer than some-one else' and start using the words rich, a more rich and a lot more rich and very very rich.

it would at least be a lot more honest but would require people with some integrity

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

I'm a bit worried about the fact that the jobs market is seeing fewer and fewer well-paid, middle jobs and more and more zero-hours and part time contracts. 30 years ago a middle-class job was that of a teacher, engineer, clerk, hospital administrator, university researcher and they paid similar sorts of amounts to someone in the city, in banking or finance. Now those in the banking sector earn a factor times more than a teacher. If you work hard, get qualified and apply yourself then you've got a pretty rubbish chance of getting somewhere in life.

It seems that the way we're going the most important thing for the future is luck. Being lucky enough to have wealthy parents and going to the right school. Otherwise you're poor and you're likely to stay poor and so will your children.

This is not good for society, but nobody seems willing to face up to the reality of the situation because the only remedies are wealth redistribution or subsidising important jobs.

The market is concentrating wealth and privilege in the hands of fewer and fewer people and our health, education and ability to turn hard work and application into success is falling.

Sure, plenty of people will reply to this by saying that their success is down to their hard work, to their saving and being frugal and seeking out opportunities. Well, good for you - well done, but you were lucky that all that work you put in paid off.

I think you're the last generation that will have such great opportunities, from now on it won't matter how hard you work, it won't translate into any kind of meaningful advancement. Surely, that's got to be something we should stop?

do you have figures showing that teachers were paid the same as city high flyers in the 1980s?

low wages go with a flood of young immigrants wiling to work for minimum wages