No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Yes, provides far more clarity. :undecided

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you seriously suggesting that pensioners claiming pension credit are rich and should have it withdrawn?

Good point.

I'm not sure if the poster was suggesting that. But if I could take liberties and correct the poster, I believe they are rich, a more rich and a lot more rich and very very rich.

Can I join the club?

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

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are you seriously suggesting that pensioners claiming pension credit are rich and should have it withdrawn?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

I wasn't suggesting doing anything, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of many old people who moan about today's youth being 'entitled' whilst they are all scrounging off the state themselves.

pollypenny

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.

State pension is hardly free. Bus passes serve another purpose, getting older drivers off the road.

CT benefit and and free TV licences are not universal.

There are more benefits available for all ages than there were in earlier years. How I wish we could have had child tax credit, especially when we were struggling with our 17% interest rate on our mortgage.

Grow up. Young people have always had to struggle to become established .

wotsthat

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.

Nothing wrong with relative poverty as a measure but using that as your only measure of poverty won't give you a full picture. So you might be able to show that poverty (on that measure) has increased but you lose the context that someone in poverty in the UK is better off than someone in poverty in, say, Egypt. Or, someone in poverty now is better off than someone from the '70's.

You'd only know that if you were willing to look at absolute measures too.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Nothing wrong with relative poverty as a measure but using that as your only measure of poverty won't give you a full picture. So you might be able to show that poverty (on that measure) has increased but you lose the context that someone in poverty in the UK is better off than someone in poverty in, say, Egypt. Or, someone in poverty now is better off than someone from the '70's.

You'd only know that if you were willing to look at absolute measures too.

OK. But someone specifically asked me if I felt poverty was worse than in the 70's.

It was that question that I answered. Not whether we are better off than someone in Eqypt.

You took issue with my answer and stated it was relative and implied I should be looking at it another way.

So I ask again....only as you took issue with the data I provided....how would I answer the posters question without looking at relative data? You've taken issue, but don't appear to be able to provid eme with a better way to measure things. Clearly, in the context of this thread and the question that I was answering, looking at Egypt is completely irrelevant.

As for this idea that seemingly keeps cropping up...."that we are better off than other countries", I'd agree. But this has ALWAYS been the case, always will be the case.... and WAS the case in the 1970's too - yet no one seems to take issue, not least yourself and state this when someone talks about the 70's.

As i said, theres a lot of confirmation bias going on. That's not meant to be provocative, but it's just the way it is. Nearly every time today is mentioned, were told we should thank our lucky stars that we are better off than a third world country. That's fine - but purlease stop banging on about how bad you had it in the 70's too....and count your own lucky stars!! No one mentioned anything about other countries when the pictures of the 70's were going up. it was only when I posted similar pictures from today that it all started and we should be measuring it in a different way to the rest of you.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

OK. But someone specifically asked me if I felt poverty was worse than in the 70's.

It was that question that I answered. Not whether we are better off than someone in Eqypt.

You took issue with my answer and stated it was relative and implied I should be looking at it another way.

So I ask again....only as you took issue with the data I provided....how would I answer the posters question without looking at relative data? You've taken issue, but don't appear to be able to provid eme with a better way to measure things. Clearly, in the context of this thread and the question that I was answering, looking at Egypt is completely irrelevant.

As for this idea that seemingly keeps cropping up...."that we are better off than other countries", I'd agree. But this has ALWAYS been the case, always will be the case.... and WAS the case in the 1970's too - yet no one seems to take issue, not least yourself and state this when someone talks about the 70's.

Graham, did I say you should avert your eyes from relative data? Did I say you should look at it another way?

Don't think so. Merely suggesting you add a layer of context that is often missing from your posts.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As i said, theres a lot of confirmation bias going on. That's not meant to be provocative, but it's just the way it is. Nearly every time today is mentioned, were told we should thank our lucky stars that we are better off than a third world country. That's fine - but purlease stop banging on about how bad you had it in the 70's too....and count your own lucky stars!! No one mentioned anything about other countries when the pictures of the 70's were going up. it was only when I posted similar pictures from today that it all started and we should be measuring it in a different way to the rest of you.

I don't find it provocative at all - I know you have a serious case of confirmation bias. I've never known anyone with such a hard on for the '70's.

You're clearly upset looking at absolute poverty because it means having to face up to the sad fact that we're amongst the richest people on the planet. Funny how you've focused on that (knew you would - that's why I did it) and avoided the fact that someone on the poverty line today is somewhat better off than the same person in the '70's although relatively the same.

stator

pollypenny wrote: »

State pension is hardly free. Bus passes serve another purpose, getting older drivers off the road.

CT benefit and and free TV licences are not universal.

There are more benefits available for all ages than there were in earlier years. How I wish we could have had child tax credit, especially when we were struggling with our 17% interest rate on our mortgage.

Grow up. Young people have always had to struggle to become established .

Ignoring the insults. Tax is also higher than it's ever been. There might be a fictional 20% income tax, but add on national insurance, student loan repayments, VAT, fuel duty and all the energy bill stealth taxes and you couldn't possibly claim that it's cheaper to be alive now.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Graham, did I say you should avert your eyes from relative data? Did I say you should look at it another way?

No, you said:

wotsthat wrote: »

As has been pointed out these are measures of relative poverty which says more about wealth distribution than it does poverty.

That would suggest that you had taken issue with the data. I'm sure we'll agree there? Otherwise why would you say "as has been pointed out" etc?

I wanted to highlight this as it's getting extremely boring to have this continual "we won't look at this data as it doesn't suit us" type stance when it comes to the generational threads.

If it doesn't suit, then please tell us what would suit, and we'll get that.

Otherwise I'm left with the simple feeling that you didn't like what the data supported and will pick seemingly false holes in any data provided which backs up an alternative view. I therefore gave opportunity for you to explain what data you would prefer. But I've not really had any answer. So I'm back to my first thought.

I'm certainly not "upset" looking at absolute poverty, and I have to say, that seems a rather desperate accusation to make. I just don't see the point in answering a specific question put to me, asking whether more people are in poverty now than in the 70's, by stating "we're better off than people in Africa".

And I haven't got "a hard on for the 70's".

I simply asked you for a better measurement as you'd taken issue with the data. As we've ended up with "hard on" insults, I guess you have not much left to say

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

Ignoring the insults. Tax is also higher than it's ever been. There might be a fictional 20% income tax, but add on national insurance, student loan repayments, VAT, fuel duty and all the energy bill stealth taxes and you couldn't possibly claim that it's cheaper to be alive now.

Tax take as a proportion of GDP has stayed pretty much the same for the last 50 years and the combination of income tax/NI is lower that it was in the 60s and 70s. Not to mention in work benefits are much higher than before.