Breadline Britain.

[gnvqsos]

Just before the budget last week the BBC gave some statistics on incomes over the past 50 or so years, and apparently average incomes for regular working class people were higher in the 70's than now, which suprised me a lot.

 

In the 1972 Xmas holidays I earnt £30 per week train cleaning,beer was about 15pence a pint.In a week I earnt the equivalent of 200 pints-now that would cost £500-600 at pub prices.You would not earn this in many skilled jobs now.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 09:49 ----------

 

Poor and poverty although related are not the same thing. one is an extreme measure of the other.

 

I do not think the relationship is very clear,but would be pleased to read your take on things.

[Gleadly]

If I recall correctly, there are 3 levels of poverty

 

(1) Relative poverty

(2) Poverty

(3) Absolute poverty

 

You are relatively poor if you earn less than the average salary/wages.

This means that approx 1/2 of us are relatively poor.

 

Again, there is no true interpretation of poverty. It just means that someone is in hardship.

 

You do have problems if you are absolutely poor, as this means that you may not have enough to eat, get accommodation or clothing.

 

I am poor, as my wife spends all my money!

I have sufficient to eat etc so I'm not absolutely poor.

Am I relatively poor? Yes I did not get a big bonus this year.

 

Do I earn more than the average wage/salary? I'm not going to answer that one.

[gnvqsos]

If I recall correctly, there are 3 levels of poverty

 

(1) Relative poverty

(2) Poverty

(3) Absolute poverty

 

You are relatively poor if you earn less than the average salary/wages.

This means that approx 1/2 of us are relatively poor.

 

Again, there is no true interpretation of poverty. It just means that someone is in hardship.

 

You do have problems if you are absolutely poor, as this means that you may not have enough to eat, get accommodation or clothing.

 

I am poor, as my wife spends all my money!

I have sufficient to eat etc so I'm not absolutely poor.

Am I relatively poor? Yes I did not get a big bonus this year.

 

Do I earn more than the average wage/salary? I'm not going to answer that one.

 

I think you mean no definition of poverty.I think relative poverty is the only useful.For example any discussion of a poor footballer or writer requires an element of comparison with a norm or standard.

[SHYTOT]

Nonsense. The people on now have branded clothing on and a nicely decorated house. Bit too much black and silver for my taste though.

 

They're in "poverty" because they only have £66 left after all bills, food and expenses (they both work part time). The narration says that the money is "all" they have for holidays, presents, outings, birthdays and presents.

 

He claims he doesn't have money to watch the football match, but he has money for the team's shirt.

 

Indeed it is total tosh. Poverty is defined by government as a family income below 60% of average incomes. So every time Wayne Rooney gets another £10K a week pay rise it thrusts more people into poverty. :loopy:

If you want to see real poverty go to Mumbai.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 10:35 ----------

 

In the 1972 Xmas holidays I earnt £30 per week train cleaning,beer was about 15pence a pint.In a week I earnt the equivalent of 200 pints-now that would cost £500-600 at pub prices.You would not earn this in many skilled jobs now.

 

In 1972 a 17 inch colour TV cost £300 so you would require 10 weeks wages (before tax) to afford one. Today your average Joe can buy a flat screen on a week's money and still have some left over for a couple of those expensive pints.

[gnvqsos]

Indeed it is total tosh. Poverty is defined by government as a family income below 60% of average incomes. So every time Wayne Rooney gets another £10K a week pay rise it thrusts more people into poverty. :loopy:

If you want to see real poverty go to Mumbai.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 10:35 ----------

 

 

In 1972 a 17 inch colour TV cost £300 so you would require 10 weeks wages (before tax) to afford one. Today your average Joe can buy a flat screen on a week's money and still have some left over for a couple of those expensive pints.

 

Well in 1972 a colour TV was considered too posh for the working classes.Most people invested in a pair of binoculars and turned up the sound.

[I1L2T3]

Indeed it is total tosh. Poverty is defined by government as a family income below 60% of average incomes. So every time Wayne Rooney gets another £10K a week pay rise it thrusts more people into poverty. :loopy:

If you want to see real poverty go to Mumbai.

 

People often try to argue that because we do not have Mumbai-style slums that we do not have poverty.

 

The same people will then tell us we need to compete globally, that our cost base needs to reduce so me can compete with economies that source their labour from slums.

 

If these people get their wish then in order to compete globally then we would have people living in slums, i.e. their desired for global competitiveness would create slum conditions. Then we would have the poverty they say we don't currently have.

 

I guess these people feel that it would never be them or their children that ended up living in such places, working for peanuts, just so the UK could manufacture cheap gizmos. But then again relatively recent UK history is full of normal families who descended to the gutter and fringes of the economy/society never to recover.

[Staunton]

I'm sure that we could go on for ever trading anecdotes about the poorest and most vulnerable members of our community.

 

However, anyone who feels disposed to engage in a more reflective and considered analysis of the difficulties that working class communities have faced since the establishment of neoliberalism in the UK during the early eighties might find Chavs, by Owen Jones (updated edition, Verso, 2012), highly revealing and thought-provoking.

[SHYTOT]

People often try to argue that because we do not have Mumbai-style slums that we do not have poverty.

 

The same people will then tell us we need to compete globally, that our cost base needs to reduce so me can compete with economies that source their labour from slums.

 

If these people get their wish then in order to compete globally then we would have people living in slums, i.e. their desired for global competitiveness would create slum conditions. Then we would have the poverty they say we don't currently have.

 

I guess these people feel that it would never be them or their children that ended up living in such places, working for peanuts, just so the UK could manufacture cheap gizmos. But then again relatively recent UK history is full of normal families who descended to the gutter and fringes of the economy/society never to recover.

 

Yes its a great trick to pull off. Pay everyone in the country high wages and still compete on the world stage with low wage economies. Its usually a trick imagined by folks in public sector jobs to whom competing isn't a word in their vocabulary.

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2013 at 12:47 ----------

 

Well in 1972 a colour TV was considered too posh for the working classes.Most people invested in a pair of binoculars and turned up the sound.

 

And now they all have flat screen TVs, satellite dishes, 2 cars, and Nike trainers and still aren't on 60% of average wages. But it doesn't keep them out of the pub or buying fags.

[gnvqsos]

Yes its a great trick to pull off. Pay everyone in the country high wages and still compete on the world stage with low wage economies. Its usually a trick imagined by folks in public sector jobs to whom competing isn't a word in their vocabulary.

 

The public sector are subject to competitive tendering-just reminding you!

[Shogun]

There are poor people in this country but most of it is their own doing, their life style and life choices are the main reason they are in poverty,there is no real poverty in this country compared to some country's.