There are no poor people

EnglishMohican

eskbanker wrote: »

..... and I'd have thought that most other cost of living indicators, such as RPI, etc, would usually be rising at much the same pace?

Confusing inflation with an increase in income is unhelpful. If RPI etc are going up as fast as income then that is inflation. It is not an increase in income in real terms. If superscrooge's is the correct government definition of poverty and it is based purely on income then his statement is correct and your paragraph I quote above is irrelevant.

I would have thought it a problem to represent single person households within that definition (one income versus two) and obviously a single parent (income) with children to support is hit with a double wammy.

It is also a problem that household incomes (and costs) vary across the country. Somebody demonstrated that people in the north were better off than people in the south because although they had lower incomes, they had much lower costs and therefore greater disposable income. I am sure that that demonstration was based on averages or medians or whatever and that there are plenty of exceptions but exceptions do not alter the core statement.

And to answer your question, surely poverty should be measured by possession or not of basic human needs. The problem comes when we try to agree what are basic human needs (expensive smartphone on contract - maybe - maybe not) and how much freedom individuals should have to choose to deviate from that prescribed list. Its not easy and that is probably why the government chose the easy way out of basing it on income.

bigadaj

EnglishMohican wrote: »

Confusing inflation with an increase in income is unhelpful. If RPI etc are going up as fast as income then that is inflation. It is not an increase in income in real terms. If superscrooge's is the correct government definition of poverty and it is based purely on income then his statement is correct and your paragraph I quote above is irrelevant.

I would have thought it a problem to represent single person households within that definition (one income versus two) and obviously a single parent (income) with children to support is hit with a double wammy.

It is also a problem that household incomes (and costs) vary across the country. Somebody demonstrated that people in the north were better off than people in the south because although they had lower incomes, they had much lower costs and therefore greater disposable income. I am sure that that demonstration was based on averages or medians or whatever and that there are plenty of exceptions but exceptions do not alter the core statement.

And to answer your question, surely poverty should be measured by possession or not of basic human needs. The problem comes when we try to agree what are basic human needs (expensive smartphone on contract - maybe - maybe not) and how much freedom individuals should have to choose to deviate from that prescribed list. Its not easy and that is probably why the government chose the easy way out of basing it on income.

Some good points but is your note on the smartphone ironic?

Not exactly a basic human need most would contend, and certainly not on an expensive contract.

Adamjeffs

disagree with the post and the black and white nature but there is a slight point to this and that's you can be poor relative to your income whatever that is . There's a great book called the millionaire next door that talks about positive and negative accumulators of wealth. A lot of millionaires are the guys who don't live in a big house, drive nice cars or go on expensive holidays but simply save a larger proportion of their money . Often their income isn't that unusual . There also plenty of high income earners I know that would be massively in trouble within a month if the taps were turned off

I would never dream of comparing myself to people who have a crappy start in life and I have been lucky I came from a wealthy background but I also pretty much achieved what I have with no help from bank of mum and dad. I started in a 1 bed part buy part rent flat . I earned about 18k at the time (yes I know plenty of people earn less) I bought having saved a deposit myself. I have also consistently put away at least 10% of my income every month and as I got pay rises just increased this . I now put away about 16% into a pension and save about Another 10% a month in savings I do splurge now more than I used to but I've got a decent Wack saved so I enjoy life a bit more now as having got divorced I now subscribe to the ethos that you only live once to a certain extent!

eskbanker

Yes, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the replies to my post, but was just highlighting the labelling of the stated definition as 'bizarre' without proposing anything more realistic. Of course poverty, in absolute rather than relative terms, should be all about difficulty with affording the essential basics, but what would be a workable and quantifiable metric to use for that?

bigadaj

eskbanker wrote: »

Yes, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the replies to my post, but was just highlighting the labelling of the stated definition as 'bizarre' without proposing anything more realistic. Of course poverty, in absolute rather than relative terms, should be all about difficulty with affording the essential basics, but what would be a workable and quantifiable metric to use for that?

Well you can very quickly come up with a basic income criteria that would cover essentials, the only really problematic area is housing. Rent for a family in London can be many times that in some areas of the U.K. So you have a sum for food, clothing, travel, baxi entertainment etc

There are huge arguments about the level of course, many people contend that it's cheaper to spend £100 a week on takeaways than £30 on a supermarket shop. Some would contend that a car is a basic need, others would consider it a luxury.

northbob

That compound interet quote is not Newton. It has been attributed to Einstein but it is likely not.

On the broarder topic I have found the OP member helpful.

But I think this claim is too general. What is fair is that on a global scale everyone but the poorest without shelter and access to benefits makes into the top half of the haves v have nots. What I find hard to accept is that I am not wealthy by some standards but know that much of my comfort by virtue of being in the Western world is built on someone being a have not.

I have thought long over the years but have no answers.

EnglishMohican

bigadaj wrote: »

Some good points but is your note on the smartphone ironic?

Not exactly a basic human need most would contend, and certainly not on an expensive contract.

I was referring back to a comment by richyg but personally I do not consider a smartphone essential at all.

Similarly, in your last post you highlight whether a car is a need. In this case I do see it as a need as I live out in the countryside where a bus passes twice per day, once to pick up and once to drop off. So for me it is (very nearly) essential. If I lived in the centre of London I would probably have a very different opinion.

This is the problem with any list that goes above shelter, warm clothes and food. Almost any additional item will be considered essential by some but not by others depending on where they live and their lifestyle.

The same sort of problem must apply to the living wage concept. A single person does not need the same wage as a breadwinner with partner and children to support. So now we get into how many children should we be allowed to have.

Adamjeffs

Yeah I used to be very black and white on the welfare system . Everyone claiming benefits are lazy oiks and shirkers and we should do away with it all apart from the physically unable to work. Once you look into it you realise a) most people who claim benefits are actually in work and b) try to arbitrarily draw a line on when you can and can't work and why people aren't in work is like trying to nail custard to a wall! Easy to criticise the government but I can totally see the issues with trying to decide where the line shouldn't be drawn and impossible to do on an individual basis or maybe even geographic?

EnglishMohican

northbob wrote: »

What I find hard to accept is that I am not wealthy by some standards but know that much of my comfort by virtue of being in the Western world is built on someone being a have not.

I doubt the truth of that statement - or at least - I doubt the oversimplification it represents. Have and have not is too simple. The whole thing is a continuous grading from people who genuinely do not have shelter or food right up to the super rich. We have been discussing what is an essential and I suggested shelter, clothes and food but my picture of those items is UK based - so a brick house with a tile roof, a waterproof coat and beef stew. In many parts of the world that would all be totally inappropriate.
Don't take my alternative too seriously but it might be a much better life living in a shack beside a lake somewhere in darkest Africa eating fish you caught that day and wearing little more than a pair of tatty shorts.
To a great extent, you live in comfort today because your parents, grand-parents and all their predecessors built a standard of living that is necessary for our local environment. You going without would make local shopkeepers poorer rather than somebody in the emerging markets richer.

northbob

Take your point. But referring back to previous generations opens another can of worms. That the living standards and wealth we enjoy now was built on taking and exploitation. Collectively. I am self made in the way it is normally understood. But I still feel what I have is partly luck and accident of living in the so called developed world. Just my feeling, not saying it makes your view wrong.