living in poverty

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Voice of reason said:

Some of those could apply to some people. Many of them wouldn't preclude you from finding meaningful paid work. There's only 2 or 3 that would be serious blockers. The others should be worked round so the person doesn't find themselves indefinitely state dependant.

One thing is very clear about poverty is that often its effects multiply and cause multiple problems. So many people in poor areas have the poorest health often due to bad housing and pollution; schools are in the worst areas, therefore their children escaping from poverty becomes more of an uphill battle; services are haphazard and sometimes located in more affluent areas; and there was a documentary about 15 years ago (perhaps??) about 'postcode poverty' - so people who live in what was regarded as a 'challenging' part of town, were often disregarded or unfairly judged by potential employers in favour of someone from a more 'desirable' area. And so on....

 

It is worth pointing out that much of poverty is structural, rather than individual. Especially nowadays. With many people poor who are in work, and social mobility drying up, as well as regional imbalances and skills deficits - all of this points to structural or Government / market failure, rather than the usual  "people can't be bothered to work, too dependent on cushy state benefits" prejudices.

 

You seem quite keen on the subject area. There is a wealth of information about the extent, causes, and consequences of poverty on the internet. The Guardian used to do a 'society' section in their paper (either on a Wednesday or Thursday) which examine these issues, if they still print it, it's definitely worth a read.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2019 by Mister M

[Voice of reason]

5 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Why? 

 

Seen how cost of domestic energy bills and housing costs have gone up?

 

Poverty is not always the result of an individual’s lack of drive or ambition.

Energy bills and housing are one part of the equation. I've never said it is a one-part issue, with one solution.

Neither have I said poverty is due to the things you mention.

There is a common theme running through lots of threads. This is an example. Hmm this bloke mentioned people going back to work. Therefore I disagree with all his comments and will assume he hates anybody receiving any benefits.

Life and opinions are more nuanced than that you know.

[Voice of reason]

4 minutes ago, Mister M said:

One thing is very clear about poverty is that often its effects multiply and cause multiple problems. So many people in poor areas have the poorest health often due to bad housing and pollution; schools are in the worst areas, therefore their children escaping from poverty becomes more of an uphill battle; services are haphazard and sometimes located in more affluent areas; and there was a documentary about 15 years ago (perhaps??) about 'postcode poverty' - so people who live in what was regarded as a 'challenging' part of town, were often disregarded or unfairly judged by potential employers in favour of someone from a more 'desirable' area. And so on....

 

It is worth pointing out that much of poverty is structural, rather than individual. Especially nowadays. With many people poor who are in work, and social mobility drying up, as well as regional imbalances and skills deficits - all of this points to structural or Government / market failure, rather than the usual  "people can't be bothered to work, too dependent on cushy state benefits" prejudices.

 

You seem quite keen on the subject area. There is a wealth of information about the extent, causes, and consequences of poverty on the internet. The Guardian used to do a 'society' section in their paper (either on a Wednesday or Thursday) which examine these issues, if they still print it, it's definitely worth a read.

 

 

I agree with a lot of that. I'm sure some people do have the prejudice you mention. I don't. I know some people will fall into the stereotype you describe and many won't.

As I mentioned to I1L , there doesn't have to be a two position view. There are problems with the benefits system, education etc etc as you say. There are also problems with some people on benefits. Some are desperate to get off them, some aren't. Some people should get 10x the help they do, and some should be getting less or pushed back to work.

 

The postcode trap for kids is a hard one. I know now universities will accept a grade lower for A-level entry for applications from some areas. It is of course much easier for a kid from Totley to get higher grades than a kid from Arbourthorne, for reasons you mention. That is just one small part of the problem / solution. But mobilty, especially fo rthe new generation is really important to get right.

[WiseOwl182]

14 hours ago, Cyclone said:

How many unrelated questions can you ask in order to avoid changing your opinion.

It's not unrelated. You're trying to make out that people on long term benefits are in poverty. I disagree with your definition of poverty but in any case, if they want more money than the welfare safety net provides then there are literally hundreds of thousands of job vacancies going.

[petemcewan]

Supporting Mr M's points:

 

 

https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/half-million-more-people-poverty-if-government-maintains-benefits-freeze

[Voice of reason]

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Supporting Mr M's points:

 

 

https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/half-million-more-people-poverty-if-government-maintains-benefits-freeze

But is increasing benefits the actual solution? Get more people working in better paid jobs surely is what should be being done.

Plus the jrf seems to think half the country is in poverty, constant links to them isn't helping anyone's cause imo.

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, Voice of reason said:

But is increasing benefits the actual solution?

Spoken like a true Tory.

[petemcewan]

V of  R 

 

Getting back into well paid work, preferably yes. But people shouldn't have to live in poverty. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by petemcewan

[I1L2T3]

19 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

Energy bills and housing are one part of the equation. I've never said it is a one-part issue, with one solution.

Neither have I said poverty is due to the things you mention.

There is a common theme running through lots of threads. This is an example. Hmm this bloke mentioned people going back to work. Therefore I disagree with all his comments and will assume he hates anybody receiving any benefits.

Life and opinions are more nuanced than that you know.

It is nuanced which is exactly the point I am making

 

The feckless poor arguments are nonsense, as are the lazy arguments based around national levels of employment.

[I1L2T3]

1 hour ago, Voice of reason said:

But is increasing benefits the actual solution? Get more people working in better paid jobs surely is what should be being done.

Plus the jrf seems to think half the country is in poverty, constant links to them isn't helping anyone's cause imo.

You know that solutions can be tactical, and they can be strategic. You can’t stop tactical solutions without a long-term strategy in place so if you want to change the profile of benefit distribution you can’t do it overnight. 

 

So tactically increasing benefits has to be part of the approach, in line with general living costs

 

The other bit, a plentiful stream of well paid jobs, isn’t going to happen with the Tories. They have no strategy for that positive change. Their strategy is the opposite.