living in poverty

[Cyclone]

15 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Not really. The links provided shows that whatever the Tory strategy is it is creating a combination of a record number of people in work, and a nearly 40 year low in the number of people in low paid work.

 

Yes, something being not 'low pay' doesn't necessarily mean it is 'well paid' but it is what matters when the subject is poverty and work. 

It's also directly responsible for a huge number of deaths.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report

13 hours ago, Robin-H said:

The article you posted was interesting yes, and highlights what I think some people consider to be the issue about a lot of these poverty statistics, namely that the thresholds set are arbitrary, and so no do accurately reflect the reality of the overall picture. 

 

 

They're always going to be arbitrary, it's a definition created by people, not some kind of universal constant.

13 hours ago, andyofborg said:

doesn't that depend on how much the necessities you need to live cost? things  like rent/mortgage, food, clothes, transport 

And how many you're supporting.  A single parent with 2 children getting that income is very different to someone still living in their parents house.

11 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

You've chosen to ignore min wage outstripping inflation, so we'll take that as accepted.

Was the referendum a vote against the tories then? I never took you as a Leave voter!

Well, it would put a working couple on about £2400 pcm.

That isn't poverty.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it is though.

[Robin-H]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It's also directly responsible for a huge number of deaths.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report

They're always going to be arbitrary, it's a definition created by people, not some kind of universal constant.

 Something doesn't have to be based on a universal constant for it not to be arbitrary - it just means that the decision has been come to without any necessity, reason or principle. 

 

They set the figure at 55% not because they worked out that if your income is below this your day to day existence would strongly suggest you are in poverty, but because they wanted to ensure that their decision to set it at that did not lead to a large shift in the measured poverty rate. I see that as problematic. 

 

I agree that figures for poverty are always going to be somewhat arbitrary due to the vast number of variables involved. 

[Cyclone]

In that case, I disagree that it's arbitrary.  There is reason behind the decision, even if you disagree with the reason.

[Robin-H]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

In that case, I disagree that it's arbitrary.  There is reason behind the decision, even if you disagree with the reason.

Well the people who did the research think it's arbitrary, stating..

 

"Accepting the arbitrary nature of setting poverty thresholds and ensuring that in setting the threshold, the Commission does not convey a false sense of accuracy;" 

 

Ironically, despite making that decision, it seems they also find it problematic, as they also state.. 

 

'Commissioners were surprised by the seemingly arbitrary nature of many of the assumptions that underpin the existing approach to poverty measurement, and the significant impact that very small changes to these assumptions make to our understanding. The Commission believes significant (urgent) work is needed to tackle the lack of rigour in these areas. "

 

http://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/MEASURING-POVERTY-FULL_REPORT.pdf

[Voice of reason]

28 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

I don't think anyone has claimed that it is though.

Il2T mentiomed about lifting the base wage of the poorest. That is the base wage for a couple on min wage.

A single person on 40 hours min wage would get £328 per week. Basic flat rental in Sheffield can be easily found at <£100 pw. Leaves £228 for the rest. Not mega bucks, but not poverty.

So for me, the discussion is about those not working full hours, or who's benefits are frozen for some reason, or not even claiming somehow.

[Cyclone]

You persist in looking at people with no dependents, presumably because it's much more likely that a single parent with 2 children is in poverty despite the minimum wage, but that's inconvenient for the point you want to make?

You shouldn't only consider the optimum positions, of working 40hrs and having no one to care for...

22 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Well the people who did the research think it's arbitrary, stating..

 

"Accepting the arbitrary nature of setting poverty thresholds and ensuring that in setting the threshold, the Commission does not convey a false sense of accuracy;" 

 

Ironically, despite making that decision, it seems they also find it problematic, as they also state.. 

 

'Commissioners were surprised by the seemingly arbitrary nature of many of the assumptions that underpin the existing approach to poverty measurement, and the significant impact that very small changes to these assumptions make to our understanding. The Commission believes significant (urgent) work is needed to tackle the lack of rigour in these areas. "

 

http://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/MEASURING-POVERTY-FULL_REPORT.pdf

Do you really think that they mean this

 

Quote

without any necessity, reason or principle. 

 

I don't think you believe that they do.

You yourself explained the reason and principle behind the decision

Quote

but because they wanted to ensure that their decision to set it at that did not lead to a large shift in the measured poverty rate.

So, not arbitrary by the definition that you gave.

Edited June 2, 2019 by Cyclone

[Robin-H]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You persist in looking at people with no dependents, presumably because it's much more likely that a single parent with 2 children is in poverty despite the minimum wage, but that's inconvenient for the point you want to make?

You shouldn't only consider the optimum positions, of working 40hrs and having no one to care for...

Do you really think that they mean this

 

 

I don't think you believe that they do.

You yourself explained the reason and principle behind the decision

So, not arbitrary by the definition that you gave.

The point is that the figures have been set in a way that isn’t actually directly related to the experiences of people, and what they are trying to measure. 

 

That is what they mean by arbitrary. They don’t mean that it wasn’t set without any reason at all, only that the reason isn’t worked out to be reflective of what they are measuring. 

 

You can argue that that doesn’t therefore  make it arbitrary using the definition of the word, but a) I don’t know what the purpose of that argument would be, and b) I’m not sure that anything could really be arbitrary in that case. 

[Voice of reason]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You persist in looking at people with no dependents, presumably because it's much more likely that a single parent with 2 children is in poverty despite the minimum wage, but that's inconvenient for the point you want to make?

You shouldn't only consider the optimum positions, of working 40hrs and having no one to care for...

 

I'm not persisting in anything, I was following the flow of the conversation.

I don't have a 'point' . If theres an issue, like in your example of the single parent, I'm more than interesting in understanding what they would currently get and if it's adequate. Presumably you already know from your statement. What housing or other benefits would a single mum on min wage get in that case?

Best not to assume people have an agenda, just because they dont 100% agree with you btw.

[I1L2T3]

16 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

You've chosen to ignore min wage outstripping inflation, so we'll take that as accepted.

Was the referendum a vote against the tories then? I never took you as a Leave voter!

Well, it would put a working couple on about £2400 pcm.

That isn't poverty.

That’s because I don’t trust the inflation stats you are using. Taking housing costs as an example, which none of the stats accurately measure, the average cost of a house has grown from £74k in 1999 ( when NMW was introduced) to £212k now.  I’m pretty certain the NMW has not almost trebled in that time.

 

You are just seemingly throwing in random stats to deny the reality of the poverty issues we face in the U.K. That does look like an agenda.

[Robin-H]

13 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

That’s because I don’t trust the inflation stats you are using. Taking housing costs as an example, which none of the stats accurately measure, the average cost of a house has grown from £74k in 1999 ( when NMW was introduced) to £212k now.  I’m pretty certain the NMW has not almost trebled in that time.

 

You are just seemingly throwing in random stats to deny the reality of the poverty issues we face in the U.K. That does look like an agenda.

By those figures NMW has increased by 2.28 times since introduction in 1999, and house prices by 2.86 times, so although house prices have gone up by more, it's not massively different.  (NMW is also planned for more above inflation increases, and with house prices stalling, will narrow the gap further). 

 

House prices have of course significantly outstripped wage growth generally as wages haven't grown as significantly against inflation as NMW has.