Author Topic: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase  (Read 2346 times)

Slow road to freedom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
  • Location: UK
Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« on: December 03, 2018, 01:44:53 PM »
I’ve just watched a BBC news item: apparently there are now 4m people who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis  - a very large increase of 0.5m in 5 years.

The definition of poverty used is less than 60% of average income.

I have mixed feelings about this. First, for those who struggle, I am saddened. Often they will work hard, earning little, and rely on support through benefits, food banks and friends/family. Often circumstances seem to play a large part - illness, relationship breakdown or fragility of earnings can have a catastrophic impact.

I’m also concerned about some of the messaging that charities (not JRF per se) are giving: apparently base living costs now include mobile phones, internet and luxury items. Really? Rather than measure poverty as an arbitrary % of average earnings, is there a more useful way? A bit like measuring gross national happiness as opposed to GDP? 

I also wonder whether some form of mustachian education programme could make inroads to helping some of our 4m manage the money they do earn better?

Cleverer people than I dedicate their life to helping others. But please don’t allow a basic form of hedonic adaptation - inflation of expectations if you like - to permeate the dialogue.

Do you a view?

Squelchy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2018, 02:15:39 PM »
I also have mixed feelings, some of which crystallise around the issue of mobile phones. I was a late adopter both of the phone itself and then of a smartphone, even when they were within my means, just as I have for most of the time avoided having a television. I am currently clinging to a hand-me-down rejected by a septuagenarian relative. Phone upgrades, are, in my mind, a clear issue of hedonic adaptation. On the other hand, some means of internet access is now vital for job applications in a way that it wasn't earlier in my career, is assumed in homework assignments (or even classroom quizzes such as Kahoot) and for accessing a wide variety of services. One could argue that a trip to the library would permit much of this, but this does not always work (for someone whose hours are strictly tied to caring responsibilities, for instance, or long hours, or whose "local" library is accessed by an hourly bus). Similarly, being instantly contactable is assumed. Thus a person who could not afford to be connected like this would be vulnerable to many missed opportunities, some of which might cost more than the outlay for a phone.
I haven't read it in years, but I seem to remember that The Spirit Level was interesting on the topic of relative poverty, and the idea that it too has negative consequences even where absolute poverty is not involved. Somewhere or other, I think Jack Monroe (provider of recipes to foodbanks, so someone I'd definitely select for any Mustachian education programme of the sort you suggest) has also written a fairly robust answer to why education isn't the whole answer (including issues such as lack of cooking facilities in accommodation).

PhilB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2018, 11:24:21 AM »
I just get annoyed by these stories that equate income inequality with 'poverty'.  The worst I've ever see had a banner headline that a fifth of people were living in poverty - and when you read the details you find the studies definition of poverty was being in the bottom quintile of income...
Don't get me wrong, I believe income inequality is a huge problem in society, and one which needs to be addressed by things like continuing to raise the minimum wage, but it is quite different to what most people instinctively understand as 'poverty'.
As an example of why just bandying the word poverty about in this way is dangerous, if we introduced a 100% tax band starting at say £50k it would be pretty well guaranteed to create a huge reduction in income inequality - at the price of a massive increase in absolute poverty.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2018, 11:26:59 AM by PhilB »

dashuk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2018, 05:04:26 AM »
I’m also concerned about some of the messaging that charities (not JRF per se) are giving: apparently base living costs now include mobile phones, internet and luxury items. Really?
...

Do you a view?

I probably don't need a mobile phone. My single, nice stable middle class office job happens at the same time and place each day, and there's a phone on my desk. OH is SAHP, so we don't need to juggle childcare on the fly even if I had irregular hours. I haven't applied for a job in more than a decade.

Yet I'm allowed a smartphone and internet without being judged even if it only enables me to argue with similarly well off strangers regardless of where I am.

You don't specify what you consider luxury items, but it makes me wonder what level of monastic existence would be acceptable.

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2018, 05:24:25 AM »
We live in a time where there is an unprecedented amount of stuff out there that's purely there for the sake of giving us something to spend our money on. 200 years ago it was not possible to go out on a 'shopping spree' to the local mall; nobody went out to spend for the sake of spending. This is almost entirely because we are - as a whole - much more wealthy than we were 200 years ago thanks to the advancement of technology and infrastructure that has made it that much easier for us to afford the bare essentials.

Even if you go back just two generations or so, people didn't spend money on as much crap. With an exponentially increasing amount of useless tat to buy, and the equally growing marketing devices used to extract that money from us, we just aren't equipped with the education to deal with it. That's my personal view, anyway. No generation before us has had mobile phones, computers, luxury cars and clothes that all 'need' to be renewed every year (or so the marketing companies tell us), so it's no surprise that people - even those on the lower end of the income spectrum - have an instilled requirement to own these things.

I'm not saying that people with less income should live fun-less lives, but if we had the financial education to help us separate need from want; good money decisions from bad; I think we'd all be in better shape. It's startling that luxury items have now been considered a base living requirement, as this suggests to me that the marketing companies have successfully ingrained their products as just that in our psyche - basic needs.

Yes, there are other societal problems at play that reduce people's ability to earn money - or even rob them of their ambition to increase their earnings - but I think we could go a long way with a solid foundation in Mustachian frugality.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2018, 05:26:02 AM by MrOnyx »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Location: England
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2018, 07:04:43 AM »
The definition of poverty used is less than 60% of average income.

It seems obvious to me that this is a measure of income inequality, rather than poverty. And unfortunately that makes it too easy for people to ignore the real problems.

I'd highly recommend Professor William Woodruff's wonderful autobiography "The Road to Nab End" which details his childhood in 1920s Blackburn and the reality of growing up at a time when he and many of his peers did not get enough to eat, were permanently cold due to lack of clothing and fuel, had no access to medical help and struggled to have a permanent place to live. It's easy to point at things like that and say that almost no-one is truly in poverty in the UK today. I could do the "three yorkshiremen" act myself and say that I grew up with 5 of us kids sharing two small bedrooms in a house with no inside toilet and no heating and in hindsight, I realise that my mum probably went without food approaching payday sometimes.

Still, we do have people living in B&Bs, hostels and other temporary accommodation. We do have people needing to use foodbanks. Neither of those things were a feature of my childhood.

My brother and his family live very much hand to mouth. Any unexpected bill is a problem for them. Giving them money doesn't really help - it just gets spent. The modern world is a complex place, difficult to navigate even for the financially savvy. There are so many businesses and people who prey on the weak or poor. Banks and credit card providers, payday loans companies, betting shops with fixed-odds machines, utility and insurance companies screwing over people who don't shop around year after year. It's very easy for people who are not good at maths and/or poor at impulse control and/or planning ahead to get screwed. The only time we saw advertising when I was a kid was in the newspaper. Things are a bit different now.

On the mobile phone thing, I was a hold-out for many years and still don't always remember to turn the thing on (and I worked on the design of a key bit of technology in pretty much every one of them for the past 20+ years, so I'm no technophobe.) The reality is that even the poorest people in India and Africa have phones today. A day labourer in India finds it far easier to respond to a text message telling them there's work at a particular place today than to get up at 4am and trudge from building site to building site to see if there's a job that day. The Amazonian Indian paddling us in his canoe last year was using an app on his smartphone to mimic the mating calls of birds so they'd come closer for photos. I think most schools and workplaces would pretty much require mobile phone access in the UK today.

Runner5

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2018, 12:19:51 AM »
I think this is a very complex issue on which it is very easy (and natural) to make simplistic value judgements depending on your own lifestyle and observation point. I work in a field that's somewhat aligned to this, but don't profess to have a PhD or anything in it, but these are my thoughts:

1) First of all, I think that 'poverty' must be seen as how it manifests now, in our society. I don't think it's helpful to compare poverty as it is in 2018 to either past eras or to other countries, as when it boils down to it I see poverty as a lack of financial means to meet one's needs as defined by nature and to fully participate in one's society.

2) Yes, the <60% of national average income is a simplistic measure, but its value is that it is easily measurable, and gives us the chance to compare amongst different areas using the same metric and (hopefully) put measures in place to help people when they're at 39% , before they get to 5%

3) One of the greatest threats to wellbeing is social isolation, which can be a vicious spiral. Given that we no longer live with the extended support structures that we once did (for the most part), I have no problem with people in poverty having a smartphone. Not least because the cost of my 4GB SIM only contract comes in at £11 per month less than line rental alone for a landline, if that's the alternative we're looking at. And that's not even counting the value of a smartphone for applying for jobs etc. 

4) It really doesn't help how much poverty tax, seen and unseen, there is in this country, and how much predation there is - from gas / electricity meters, to the shops that are at both ends of my high street charging hideous amounts of interest so that people with low incomes / poor credit can get a bloody sofa to sit on for £15 / week for the next 50 months (that may be hyperbole).

As an anecdote - I've lived in industrial northern cities for the vast majority of my life (currently in denial about what that's doing to my lungs). A friend of mine who grew up in St Albans moved to Manchester for his PhD, and I got a text from him after a week asking why there were so many more frozen food shops in the North. It blew his mind that there are towns that are still suffering so much from the closure of factories / mines, and took longer to get his head around the fact that you might want to pay £1 for a guaranteed kilo of cauliflower that will last for months in the freezer, should something get cocked up with your benefits / not get any hours in your job this week, vs £1 for a fresh cauliflower of which most is leaves.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2018, 01:59:53 PM »
I am always appalled by people who are clutching their pearls about poor people having smart phones. My phone cost £80 and I have more data than I ever use for £7.50/month. Given how much of life is conducted online, how is that unreasonable for someone on benefits/minimum wage.

To my mind a decent standard of living these days involves a structurally sound house with no more than two people per bedroom if related, heated to 18 degrees when you're using it, a week's worth of clothes, a smartphone with data, and enough calories of food which include five fruit and veg a day. It's the nail bars and Sky subscriptions which kill me about people who are living on the edge, not the smartphone.

Father Dougal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2018, 03:47:57 AM »
Anyone know how much people actually get in benefits?

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2018, 04:45:53 AM »
Anyone know how much people actually get in benefits?

Define "people". There are a large number of different benefits. I am currently " on benefits" - maternity allowance and child benefit. Do you mean Jobseekers Allowance?

Father Dougal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2018, 05:03:57 AM »
"People" - well I was thinking something simple, say an unemployed single mother of two school age children living in, say, Greater London.  She would receive Universal Credit, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit and some help with Council Tax. I was wondering if anyone knows how much this would be.

I have seen a lot of debate and coverage of poverty, food banks and so on (and some horrible stories of delays to benefits and administrative intransigence), but not much on how much money people are actually expected to live on per week when they fall on hard times.

Manchester

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2018, 05:07:12 AM »
I think this is a very complex issue on which it is very easy (and natural) to make simplistic value judgements depending on your own lifestyle and observation point. I work in a field that's somewhat aligned to this, but don't profess to have a PhD or anything in it, but these are my thoughts:

1) First of all, I think that 'poverty' must be seen as how it manifests now, in our society. I don't think it's helpful to compare poverty as it is in 2018 to either past eras or to other countries, as when it boils down to it I see poverty as a lack of financial means to meet one's needs as defined by nature and to fully participate in one's society.

2) Yes, the <60% of national average income is a simplistic measure, but its value is that it is easily measurable, and gives us the chance to compare amongst different areas using the same metric and (hopefully) put measures in place to help people when they're at 39% , before they get to 5%

3) One of the greatest threats to wellbeing is social isolation, which can be a vicious spiral. Given that we no longer live with the extended support structures that we once did (for the most part), I have no problem with people in poverty having a smartphone. Not least because the cost of my 4GB SIM only contract comes in at £11 per month less than line rental alone for a landline, if that's the alternative we're looking at. And that's not even counting the value of a smartphone for applying for jobs etc. 

4) It really doesn't help how much poverty tax, seen and unseen, there is in this country, and how much predation there is - from gas / electricity meters, to the shops that are at both ends of my high street charging hideous amounts of interest so that people with low incomes / poor credit can get a bloody sofa to sit on for £15 / week for the next 50 months (that may be hyperbole).

As an anecdote - I've lived in industrial northern cities for the vast majority of my life (currently in denial about what that's doing to my lungs). A friend of mine who grew up in St Albans moved to Manchester for his PhD, and I got a text from him after a week asking why there were so many more frozen food shops in the North. It blew his mind that there are towns that are still suffering so much from the closure of factories / mines, and took longer to get his head around the fact that you might want to pay £1 for a guaranteed kilo of cauliflower that will last for months in the freezer, should something get cocked up with your benefits / not get any hours in your job this week, vs £1 for a fresh cauliflower of which most is leaves.


You've made some very interesting points in there. 

I disagree with point 1 in that poverty should be measured globally.  I agree it's pointless looking into the past (even William Woodruff who @cerat0n1a mentioned would have been rich if  he were compared to humans living 5,000 years ago).  I live in Manchester, where the majority of people are less affluent than people who live down south in places like Surrey, London etc.  I have family in Greece which makes poverty in the North West seem like a lovely situation to be in.  I've done charitable work in Uganda and worked with families of 10 who live in a 3x3m shack.  They have no water, electricity, sewerage and who's older children (7 upwards) are forced to work manual labour jobs in order to scrimp together enough money to have a half decent meal once a day. 

In my opinion there is no 'poverty' in the UK.  Not compared to what I've seen in other countries.  There's a homing crisis, but the majority of people living on the streets are there through addiction as opposed to abject poverty.  The NHS, despite it's clear lack of funding is incredible.  Our benefits system prevents poverty.


Having said all of this, I think more should (and can) be done to help less affluent people.  But I completely disagree that 4 million people in the UK's population live in poverty. 







Manchester

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2018, 05:19:42 AM »
I am always appalled by people who are clutching their pearls about poor people having smart phones. My phone cost £80 and I have more data than I ever use for £7.50/month. Given how much of life is conducted online, how is that unreasonable for someone on benefits/minimum wage.


People also need to consider the lost opportunity cost in 'preventing' benficiaries of benefits from having a smart phone.  With a smart phone comes information, job seeking websites, maps, an opportunity to network.  How many people get jobs online nowadays - especially tradesmen through websites like facebook.  Significantly easier on a phone than going home to your 10 year old PC.

If you prevent that opportunity you prolong the benefit cycle, which will cost the tax payer more in the long run.



« Last Edit: December 07, 2018, 08:16:58 AM by Manchester »

cerat0n1a

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1271
  • Location: England
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2018, 06:05:32 AM »
Our benefits system prevents poverty.

I think it's meant to. In practice, it often doesn't. I know someone slightly who lost his job checking tickets on trains. He's recently divorced and suffering from mental health issues. The delay in sorting out his case meant he had no money for 6 weeks and had to get help from a food bank.

Runner5

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2018, 07:25:18 AM »

You've made some very interesting points in there. 

I disagree with point 1 in that poverty should be measured globally.  I agree it's pointless looking into the past (even William Woodruff who @cerat0n1a mentioned would have been rich if  he were compared to humans living 5,000 years ago).  I live in Manchester, where the majority of people are less affluent than people who live down south in places like Surrey, London etc.  I have family in Greece which makes poverty in the North West seem like a lovely situation to be in.  I've done charitable work in Uganda and worked with families of 10 who live in a 3x3m shack.  They have no water, electricity, sewerage and who's older children (7 upwards) are forced to work manual labour jobs in order to scrimp together enough money to have a half decent meal once a day. 

In my opinion there is no 'poverty' in the UK.  Not compared to what I've seen in other countries.  There's a homing crisis, but the majority of people living on the streets are there through addiction as opposed to abject poverty.  The NHS, despite it's clear lack of funding is incredible.  Our benefits system prevents poverty.


Having said all of this, I think more should (and can) be done to help less affluent people.  But I completely disagree that 4 million people in the UK's population live in poverty.

I accept that critique, having myself a very northern European-centric view, and would not for one minute want to imply that we ignore the abject, systemic poverty elsewhere in the world, but rather that that doesn't mean that people aren't financially excluded from our own society, with all the social and emotional ramifications that come with that.


shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2018, 11:45:55 AM »
"People" - well I was thinking something simple, say an unemployed single mother of two school age children living in, say, Greater London.  She would receive Universal Credit, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit and some help with Council Tax. I was wondering if anyone knows how much this would be.

I have seen a lot of debate and coverage of poverty, food banks and so on (and some horrible stories of delays to benefits and administrative intransigence), but not much on how much money people are actually expected to live on per week when they fall on hard times.

Using the benefits counter on Turn2Us and inputting my age and location and private tenant but giving myself two fictional children aged 8 and 6 and no husband and putting myself down as “looking for work” (assuming I haven't worked recently as have been caring for my children but now both are in school I can afford to work and pay nothing for childcare because either I can work school hours or get a kindly relative/friend/neighbour to pick them up), I would apparently get £383.05 under Universal Credit and £50.60 of means-tested benefits outside Universal Credit (Child Benefit and Council Tax Discount). So that’s a total of £433.65/week.

dashuk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2018, 11:52:17 AM »
In my opinion there is no 'poverty' in the UK.  Not compared to what I've seen in other countries.  There's a homing crisis, but the majority of people living on the streets are there through addiction as opposed to abject poverty.  The NHS, despite it's clear lack of funding is incredible.  Our benefits system prevents poverty.

Are you actually Ian Duncan Smith?

ExitViaTheCashRamp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2018, 04:43:09 PM »
Definitions of poverty aside for a minute, whilst UK benefits *should* mean poverty is more or less non-existent, the problem (in my totally uneducated view) is of implementation.The key one being the huge delay in collecting the first payment from UC, too many people have no buffer.

 The second is of the lack of low/no cost borrowing. Many costs are predictable, some are not. If your benefits cover your primary human needs then there is often little left over. Even if you are frugal and able to build some buffer, then odds are it still isn't going to cover a major car part failing including replacement taxi/train costs to get to work. When you need to move due to <reasons>, then you need to come up with a large amount of additional money for deposit and initial rent whilst still paying rent on your current place. It doesn't take much to tip people into high cost debt even if they don't have Sky and fancyphone contracts. Servicing the high cost debt.. well, am sure I don't need to spell out why this is bad.

 Then there is of course larger financial shocks, such as your husband suddenly knackering off with someone else - taking all the income away. You still have pay rent and cover all child costs.



 I'm rich by all sorts of standards, my net worth is maybe approaching £400k. My son won an unexpected award today so on a whim I took him to the cinema and let him choose whatever absurdly overpriced snacks he wanted. Whilst JRF definitions of poverty are a little mad in my view (whilst accumulating my NW, my family would meet several of their criteria at various times) - sometime I find it's hard to keep grounded as to how little the folks they are aiming at have, how only small misfortune has lasting financial effects that can lead to social and relationship effects and the idea of taking their son on a whim for treat to the cinema with ridiculous snacks is crazily beyond their means.
 Maybe rather than poke holes in their definitions I would be better to spend my time thinking on how I can help those who JRF advocate for.

Runner5

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 148
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2018, 01:42:51 AM »
Maybe rather than poke holes in their definitions I would be better to spend my time thinking on how I can help those who JRF advocate for.

If only more internet posts could end with similar sentiments - this is an admirable amount of self-reflection and empathy to start the weekend with.

Father Dougal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2018, 10:32:21 AM »
"People" - well I was thinking something simple, say an unemployed single mother of two school age children living in, say, Greater London.  She would receive Universal Credit, Child Benefit and Housing Benefit and some help with Council Tax. I was wondering if anyone knows how much this would be.

I have seen a lot of debate and coverage of poverty, food banks and so on (and some horrible stories of delays to benefits and administrative intransigence), but not much on how much money people are actually expected to live on per week when they fall on hard times.

Using the benefits counter on Turn2Us and inputting my age and location and private tenant but giving myself two fictional children aged 8 and 6 and no husband and putting myself down as “looking for work” (assuming I haven't worked recently as have been caring for my children but now both are in school I can afford to work and pay nothing for childcare because either I can work school hours or get a kindly relative/friend/neighbour to pick them up), I would apparently get £383.05 under Universal Credit and £50.60 of means-tested benefits outside Universal Credit (Child Benefit and Council Tax Discount). So that’s a total of £433.65/week.

Thanks for that. It seems that £433 per week plus child benefit plus housing benefit would be payable to a single mother of two. Do people think that is unreasonably low as a safety net?

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2018, 11:08:36 AM »
I think you've misunderstood. That's INCLUDING Child Benefit and Housing Benefit. That's £433 TOTAL per week.

Kwill

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2018, 01:14:38 PM »
This is an interesting discussion. I didn't see the show, but I found the study online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-2018

The full report is available for download and gets into the definitions they've used (starting on page 11). They figure poverty based on net income after tax and rent and various other basic expenses. That changes the picture a bit, so I thought it might be worth mentioning.

Quote
The poverty indicator used throughout this report is when a family has an income of less
than 60% of median income for their family type, after housing costs (AHC). The most
recent poverty lines for four illustrative family types are shown in Table 2.
It is important to note that these represent the total net income for each family type –
earnings from employment, profit or loss from self-employment, state support (including
benefits, tax credits and state pensions) and any other source of income. They are also
after income tax, National Insurance and Council Tax payments, as well as contributions
to occupational pension schemes, maintenance payments and student loan repayments.
These income levels are measured after housing costs – rent (before any Housing
Benefit), water rates, community water charges and council water charges, mortgage
interest payments, structural insurance premiums (for owner-occupiers) and ground rent
and service charges.
Many families on low incomes receive all or part of their income from sources other than
employment, therefore their earnings from employment may be considerably less than
these income threshold levels.
Table 2: Poverty line for households, equivalised, net disposable income
Family type                                                      £ per week
Couple with no children                                     255
Single with no children                                      148
Couple with two children aged five and 14           413
Single with two children aged five and 14            306

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2018, 01:48:12 PM »
Ex-rent figures do frustrate me. Obviously it's not simple, but one COULD move. Rent isn't actually a fixed price. It's more helpful IMO to give a poverty amount that includes rent for a decent place but varies for local area.

ExitViaTheCashRamp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2018, 02:24:59 AM »
Would moving really help though ? Isn't housing benefit/that aspect of UC tied to the place you are living ? I.E. if you move somewhere with cheaper rent, you lose a portion of your benefits anyway.. and of course you lose your support network (friends/family/reciprocal childcare arrangements).

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3922
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2018, 06:23:05 AM »
Rent depends on the type of housing you are in as much as area.  Private rents are the highest, followed by housing associations and Council housing as the cheapest.  "Affordable" rent is pegged to a percentage of the market, private sector rent.  Council housing has "social rent" which is the cheapest - about a third of private sector rent, I think.  Housing benefit should be enough to essentially cover both affordable and social rents.  It's the people on benefits in private sector housing who have the most problems and are most likely to end up evicted for non-payment of rent.


skip207

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
  • Location: UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2018, 02:53:53 PM »
In my town the council say a child who shares a bedroom with another are considered as living in poverty.

In terms of income the national minimum wage is not exactly low.  The problem is people will only work a few hours in order to maintain their benefits.  Those not on benefits often chose to work 24 or so hours a week through choice.  I know a couple of people who do 3 or 4 short days per week.  That’s their choice. 

As an employer I see this a lot. We need people who can work 46 hours per week and we always struggle to find someone, the job does not lend itself to having a couple of part timers for 1 job role but we are slowly being forced into that.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2018, 03:20:21 AM »
Would moving really help though ? Isn't housing benefit/that aspect of UC tied to the place you are living ? I.E. if you move somewhere with cheaper rent, you lose a portion of your benefits anyway.. and of course you lose your support network (friends/family/reciprocal childcare arrangements).

I don't think I phrased it very well. You could move to a different type of dwelling in your area, so housing benefit should be based on what it would cost to rent a place of an appropriate type for your family in your area. So housing benefit would be substantially more in my local area (London) than in Hull.

TacheTastic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2018, 02:39:28 AM »
This is an interesting discussion. I didn't see the show, but I found the study online: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-2018

The full report is available for download and gets into the definitions they've used (starting on page 11). They figure poverty based on net income after tax and rent and various other basic expenses. That changes the picture a bit, so I thought it might be worth mentioning.

Quote
The poverty indicator used throughout this report is when a family has an income of less
than 60% of median income for their family type, after housing costs (AHC). The most
recent poverty lines for four illustrative family types are shown in Table 2.
It is important to note that these represent the total net income for each family type –
earnings from employment, profit or loss from self-employment, state support (including
benefits, tax credits and state pensions) and any other source of income. They are also
after income tax, National Insurance and Council Tax payments, as well as contributions
to occupational pension schemes, maintenance payments and student loan repayments.
These income levels are measured after housing costs – rent (before any Housing
Benefit), water rates, community water charges and council water charges, mortgage
interest payments, structural insurance premiums (for owner-occupiers) and ground rent
and service charges.
Many families on low incomes receive all or part of their income from sources other than
employment, therefore their earnings from employment may be considerably less than
these income threshold levels.
Table 2: Poverty line for households, equivalised, net disposable income
Family type                                                      £ per week
Couple with no children                                     255
Single with no children                                      148
Couple with two children aged five and 14           413
Single with two children aged five and 14            306

Wow. It is only because I have a lodger that I am not seen as coming under the poverty line. His £300 a month puts my (single, no kids) to about £225 a week. That and the average 45-50 hour work week.

BookLoverL

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Location: England
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #28 on: February 02, 2019, 10:58:16 AM »
Using the median figure of income for financial year ended 2018, 60% of that works out to around £17,000. I'm earning around £10,000, and if I was renting my own place (in the North West) and paying all my own bills instead of living with my parents, I'd be spending around £10,000. Admittedly the poverty figure is calculated for a household, which might include kids or others who aren't earning. But I certainly don't feel like I'm in poverty. I eat healthy food, do a variety of fun things, travel around the country to see my friends, and in general, there's no material thing or experience I can't afford that I really need, or even particularly want.

I'm not convinced of the sense of using this statistic to define poverty at all...

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #29 on: February 04, 2019, 02:17:52 AM »
Using the median figure of income for financial year ended 2018, 60% of that works out to around £17,000. I'm earning around £10,000, and if I was renting my own place (in the North West) and paying all my own bills instead of living with my parents, I'd be spending around £10,000. Admittedly the poverty figure is calculated for a household, which might include kids or others who aren't earning. But I certainly don't feel like I'm in poverty. I eat healthy food, do a variety of fun things, travel around the country to see my friends, and in general, there's no material thing or experience I can't afford that I really need, or even particularly want.

I'm not convinced of the sense of using this statistic to define poverty at all...

It's like trying to quantify the broad, vibrant spectrum of human intelligence with just one number (IQ). It can't be done, and to try doesn't do justice to the thing at hand.

I agree, you cannot define poverty just by looking at income or household income. Not when a household can contain any number of people starting at just one, with no real upper limit (though realistically perhaps eight?). £10,000 may well be enough to sustain one person - especially a Mustachian individual - but it won't support a family of even four, I wouldn't think. That equates to just £2,500 per person per year!

Though, this is before we look at wider things such as the cost of the area you live in, how car-free you can possibly be, taking into account local transport infrastructure, etc. One number isn't enough!

skip207

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
  • Location: UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2019, 06:18:53 AM »
Sky news today are running a segment stating that 2.6 million children live with alcoholic parents.  So 20% of all parents are alcoholic....  ok then.... they then had a guest on saying upto 5 million children live in poverty.  Thats 50% of all children in the UK!?  These stats are just getting silly and there is no actual real data ever presented.

I would love to see what the people who put these studies together are paid, probably millions.  I suspect they probably enjoy a glass of Rioja of an evening too!


PhilB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2019, 03:44:23 PM »
Sky news today are running a segment stating that 2.6 million children live with alcoholic parents.  So 20% of all parents are alcoholic....  ok then.... they then had a guest on saying upto 5 million children live in poverty.  Thats 50% of all children in the UK!?  These stats are just getting silly and there is no actual real data ever presented.

I would love to see what the people who put these studies together are paid, probably millions.  I suspect they probably enjoy a glass of Rioja of an evening too!
But, but, can't you see how awful everything is?  It's totally shameful that we live in a society where virtually 50% of households have to live on less than the median income.  Something must be done!

BookLoverL

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Location: England
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2019, 01:49:53 AM »
Sky news today are running a segment stating that 2.6 million children live with alcoholic parents.  So 20% of all parents are alcoholic....  ok then.... they then had a guest on saying upto 5 million children live in poverty.  Thats 50% of all children in the UK!?  These stats are just getting silly and there is no actual real data ever presented.

I would love to see what the people who put these studies together are paid, probably millions.  I suspect they probably enjoy a glass of Rioja of an evening too!
But, but, can't you see how awful everything is?  It's totally shameful that we live in a society where virtually 50% of households have to live on less than the median income.  Something must be done!


It's worse than that! About 25% of people are in the lower quartile of income! It's horrible!

vand

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 02:17:53 AM »
Most of this country has no idea what poverty is.

Poverty is living in a mud hut with a a hole in the ground as your toilet
Poverty is you don't work; you don't eat
Poverty is having to make the choice of whether to send your kid to school instead of to work in a factory
Poverty is having to do black market work in order to keep enough back from an oppressive government to feed your family
Poverty is eating having to eat petfood, and then eventually eating your own pets

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2019, 02:46:31 AM »
Most of this country has no idea what poverty is.

Poverty is living in a mud hut with a a hole in the ground as your toilet
Poverty is you don't work; you don't eat
Poverty is having to make the choice of whether to send your kid to school instead of to work in a factory
Poverty is having to do black market work in order to keep enough back from an oppressive government to feed your family
Poverty is eating having to eat petfood, and then eventually eating your own pets

So are we gatekeeping poverty now? Everything is relative. We may be in one of the most fortunate countries in the world in many ways, sure, but we are NOT immune to poverty just because (most of us) live in solid brick buildings.

Poverty is relative. If a family has one or both parents working full time, but still can't pull enough in to afford BOTH rent/bills AND food, then I'd say that counts as poverty, even IF they have a non-mud roof over their heads (for now). Working 40 hours a week but still not having enough money to get by is indicative of a broken system - just like the broken system you mentioned where a person must work 'black market' jobs just to hide their income from an oppressive government that would heavily tax it.

Anyway, is this what you want? We live in one of the richest nations in the world, why on Earth would you say something to the power of "hey, as long as we aren't living in mud huts eating our pets and children just for sustenance, we aren't doing that bad!"? When we live in a country as rich as this, we can afford to raise our standards a little bit. Just because we aren't, on average, as impoverished as some of the third world countries in Africa and Asia, doesn't mean we have to wait until we are before we do something about it.

UK Dancer

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Location: Sheffield, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2019, 03:41:01 AM »
Hear hear, Mr Onyx. Yes, people in poverty here are more fortunate than those in poverty elsewhere, but that doesn't make it acceptable...

vand

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2019, 03:51:50 AM »

Poverty is relative.

That's just the thing. If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality. People are different. Some are more talented, more productive, dare I even say more motivated to earn money than others. It's right that they are rewarded for that.

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2019, 04:11:05 AM »

Poverty is relative.

That's just the thing. If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality. People are different. Some are more talented, more productive, dare I even say more motivated to earn money than others. It's right that they are rewarded for that.

I think you're ignoring the wider socioeconomic environment present in some areas that can create such conditions whereby a person can work as hard as they want but still not get by. Do not try to imply that this is about working harder, doing better, or being more motivated. I don't have kids, but I should imagine that if I had a starving one-year-old, I'd do all I could to feed them before I feed myself, so this is NOT about motivation. This does not come down to talent - this comes down to the conditions surrounding a person, such as where/when they were born, to what family they were born, what school they went to, their peer group, the government etc. Some holes are too deep or slippery to dig out of no matter how big your shovel is.

Yes, talented people should be rewarded. People who worked hard to learn professional skills should be rewarded, but too many aren't even given that opportunity.

Quote
If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality.

We are not defining poverty by simply being below the median in terms of income or whatever. This is not about some people being poorer than others! This is about some people struggling to keep their head above water due to things that in many cases are beyond their control. Poverty can be reduced in many ways such as increasing the national minimum wage, for example. This would make it easier to earn more money at the lower end. In a nation where some are earning millions per year as a base salary, I don't think we'd struggle to find the means to increase the minimum wage for the lowest earners.

Yes, the top talented/learned people in the world/country should be rewarded, but not at the cost of those who struggle to get by when we COULD help them.

vand

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2019, 04:24:21 AM »

Poverty is relative.

That's just the thing. If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality. People are different. Some are more talented, more productive, dare I even say more motivated to earn money than others. It's right that they are rewarded for that.

I think you're ignoring the wider socioeconomic environment present in some areas that can create such conditions whereby a person can work as hard as they want but still not get by. Do not try to imply that this is about working harder, doing better, or being more motivated. I don't have kids, but I should imagine that if I had a starving one-year-old, I'd do all I could to feed them before I feed myself, so this is NOT about motivation. This does not come down to talent - this comes down to the conditions surrounding a person, such as where/when they were born, to what family they were born, what school they went to, their peer group, the government etc. Some holes are too deep or slippery to dig out of no matter how big your shovel is.

Yes, talented people should be rewarded. People who worked hard to learn professional skills should be rewarded, but too many aren't even given that opportunity.

Quote
If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality.

We are not defining poverty by simply being below the median in terms of income or whatever. This is not about some people being poorer than others! This is about some people struggling to keep their head above water due to things that in many cases are beyond their control. Poverty can be reduced in many ways such as increasing the national minimum wage, for example. This would make it easier to earn more money at the lower end. In a nation where some are earning millions per year as a base salary, I don't think we'd struggle to find the means to increase the minimum wage for the lowest earners.

Yes, the top talented/learned people in the world/country should be rewarded, but not at the cost of those who struggle to get by when we COULD help them.

There will always be people struggling to keep their head about water because the definition of the waterline keeps changing.

Last time I checked, education in this country was not just free, it was compulsory up until the age of 16.
People in this country have far more equality of opportunities than most people in most countries, at nearly every single other other point in history.

It's fact that immigrants who come to this country (and to the US, where most of this sort of stuff is studied) are far more likely to succeed in building wealth and fortunes than those born natively, because they have different work ethic and a life experience that didn't include a social safety net.

ExitViaTheCashRamp

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2019, 04:29:20 AM »
Poverty = X.

 This I think is the fundamental problem. The media thinks we are stupid and cannot comprehend subjects that are beyond black or white. If we lump a very large group of people into a single easy to understand: Poverty or Not Poverty then there is no real finesse, it is a blunt hammer.

 We should have a better definitions that take into account.

 Point to a person with nothing at all living in a high street doorway whilst the snow falls around them and most people would agree they need significant, urgent help.
 Point to a person who has a stable partner who are both in work but struggle to pay some bills. Most people would say they do not  significant, urgent help.

 However both of these are defined as in poverty. These two people do not need the same solutions and lumping both in together as a single group does not do either of them any favours.


 Yesterday, I had a knock at the door from a couple of year 7 kids collecting for their classes charity (the collection envelope listed the school & class they were from for some reason). I asked them what the charity was for as I had never heard of it and they were a bit unsure and mumbled something about fighting poverty, so I gave them a token amount. Problem is what does fighting poverty mean ? Does it help the person in the doorway with their immediate needs or does it mean lobby the government to help the stable couple with their far less urgent needs ?

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2019, 04:43:03 AM »
I think you're ignoring the wider socioeconomic environment present in some areas that can create such conditions whereby a person can work as hard as they want but still not get by. Do not try to imply that this is about working harder, doing better, or being more motivated. I don't have kids, but I should imagine that if I had a starving one-year-old, I'd do all I could to feed them before I feed myself, so this is NOT about motivation. This does not come down to talent - this comes down to the conditions surrounding a person, such as where/when they were born, to what family they were born, what school they went to, their peer group, the government etc. Some holes are too deep or slippery to dig out of no matter how big your shovel is.

Yes, talented people should be rewarded. People who worked hard to learn professional skills should be rewarded, but too many aren't even given that opportunity.

Quote
If poverty is relative then there will always be poverty because there will always be inequality.

We are not defining poverty by simply being below the median in terms of income or whatever. This is not about some people being poorer than others! This is about some people struggling to keep their head above water due to things that in many cases are beyond their control. Poverty can be reduced in many ways such as increasing the national minimum wage, for example. This would make it easier to earn more money at the lower end. In a nation where some are earning millions per year as a base salary, I don't think we'd struggle to find the means to increase the minimum wage for the lowest earners.

Yes, the top talented/learned people in the world/country should be rewarded, but not at the cost of those who struggle to get by when we COULD help them.

There will always be people struggling to keep their head about water because the definition of the waterline keeps changing.

Don't worry, once everyone who is working full time has enough money to pay rent and feed themselves, I'm sure we won't raise the definition of 'waterline' to include such fortunate individuals.

Quote
Last time I checked, education in this country was not just free, it was compulsory up until the age of 16.
People in this country have far more equality of opportunities than most people in most countries, at nearly every single other other point in history.

Yes, the education system is there, if we're going to pretend it isn't inherently flawed in many ways, and that every single student in every single school across the country is taught to an equally high standard. We have Ofsted to keep track of that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are schools marked as bad, while others are marked as good.

Again, the circumstances of one's birth dictate what schools they go to, and let's not pretend all schools are equal, or that the available education - even if one tried hard to grasp it - was taught in a way that accommodates all types of people. Some people struggle to read because of something outside their circle of control. Instead of developing a way to teach them that doesn't involve having to read or write, we slap a label on them, and just give them a little longer to complete exams. Have you ever seen that webcomic where there are a bunch of different animals including a gorilla, an elephant and a fish, and they're all told that in order to succeed, they must simply complete one task: climb a tree. We define aptitude in a very narrow way (ability to store facts in our minds by reading about them, and then being able to articulate that in ink on paper), and those who aren't that way inclined with their mental architecture, are often considered failures at worst.

Quote
It's fact that immigrants who come to this country (and to the US, where most of this sort of stuff is studied) are far more likely to succeed in building wealth and fortunes than those born natively, because they have different work ethic and a life experience that didn't include a social safety net.

It's also a fact that immigrants use the social safety net themselves in some examples, but yes, let's pick and choose pieces of evidence instead of looking at the whole picture. Have we taken into account where these hard-working immigrants chose to live and work? Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy that my GP, and the surgeon who operated on me many years ago, were immigrants. We should be flattered that they chose this country to live and work and save lives. But let's not forget that there are plenty of impoverished individuals both native and non-native.

EVTCR made a great point, too.

vand

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2019, 08:06:24 AM »


Yes, the education system is there, if we're going to pretend it isn't inherently flawed in many ways, and that every single student in every single school across the country is taught to an equally high standard. We have Ofsted to keep track of that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are schools marked as bad, while others are marked as good.

Again, the circumstances of one's birth dictate what schools they go to, and let's not pretend all schools are equal, or that the available education - even if one tried hard to grasp it - was taught in a way that accommodates all types of people. Some people struggle to read because of something outside their circle of control. Instead of developing a way to teach them that doesn't involve having to read or write, we slap a label on them, and just give them a little longer to complete exams. Have you ever seen that webcomic where there are a bunch of different animals including a gorilla, an elephant and a fish, and they're all told that in order to succeed, they must simply complete one task: climb a tree. We define aptitude in a very narrow way (ability to store facts in our minds by reading about them, and then being able to articulate that in ink on paper), and those who aren't that way inclined with their mental architecture, are often considered failures at worst.


Yes, the public education system is terribly inefficient and flawed... In fact I'm certain that it was designed to positively discriminate in favour of all the immigrant kids as evidently those are the ones benefiting the most from it.


shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2019, 08:43:05 AM »
Seems to me that of course poverty is absolute. Anyone who has the means for a decent and comfortable life where they live is not poor. You can argue about where to draw the line, but not that there IS a line.

But wealth is relative. Someone with a yacht isn't wealthy in any given society if everyone else has two yachts - but they're not poor either.

And poverty is not relative but it is variable. Someone living in a roofless mud hut with no food is poor, but so is a pensioner who can't afford to heat their home in the winter. Whichever way you slice it they can't afford the necessities of life. Maybe it's like being pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not, but you can also say that someone is MORE pregnant than someone else.

PhilB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2019, 10:00:55 AM »
Poverty = X.

 This I think is the fundamental problem. The media thinks we are stupid and cannot comprehend subjects that are beyond black or white.
This.  Defining 'poverty' is incredibly complex as even 'absolute' poverty isn't an absolute  - because society's idea of what constitutes an acceptable standard of living changes over time.  However you define absolute poverty, relative poverty is also incredibly important as it has such a clear and demonstrable linkage with happiness.
The whole issue is incredibly complex and nuanced, but the media, politicians and lobby groups all want to ignore that in favour of soundbites and 'easy answers'.  We need people to understand and accept that if you reduce inequality it has a side effect of reducing total wealth by reducing incentives for the creation of wealth, but also to agree that inequality is, in and of itself, a 'bad' thing and that we therefore need a sensible, nuanced and probably anguished debate on where we want to be on the spectrum between maximum total wealth and maximum equality.

vand

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #44 on: February 12, 2019, 04:26:57 AM »
It's rather ironic that in a debate about poverty on this forum above all others, nobody bothers to bring up the issue of hedonic adaptation.

I would hazard a guess that there are many people pursing FI whose consumption would technically place them near or below these poverty lines
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 04:30:12 AM by vand »

MrOnyx

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Location: East Anglia, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2019, 04:55:59 AM »
I think the sticking point we're facing is in trying to define poverty or draw a line. I think we can all agree that it's a grey area, and is non-binary in nature.

It's rather ironic that in a debate about poverty on this forum above all others, nobody bothers to bring up the issue of hedonic adaptation.

I'm not sure this has anything to do with hedonic adaptation. HA is to do with your level of happiness versus level of luxury (or lack thereof). I don't think it applies in poverty (however extreme, or however you want to define it). If someone is trying their best to make ends meet, but is facing constant resistance at every turn and failing, I think HA flies out the window. Having that much shit slung at you is demoralising, even dehumanising.

Quote
I would hazard a guess that there are many people pursing FI whose consumption would technically place them near or below these poverty lines

I wouldn't, because people pursuing FI are financially comfortable, and generally do not deprive themselves to the level of someone who is genuinely destitute. They forgo luxuries, and look for ways to trim the fat from all budgets, but they do not live through life going "yeah, last week I paid the bills AND bought food, so if I can go without food THIS week, that extra money will bring me 0.0000x% closer to my FI goal!" I think, by most accounts and definitions, this is something that an impoverished individual would not have a choice about, whereas a FIRE pursuer can ALWAYS afford to feed themselves. I can say that with fair confidence, as most, if not all, people pursuing FIRE would have started in a scenario where they had a little disposable income i.e. NOT in poverty. We aren't immune to poverty - especially not at the beginning - but I think it's wrong - maybe even inflammatory - to imply that people in pursuit of FIRE are deliberately inflicting poverty on themselves.

I know it looks like I'm picking on you, vand, but know that I'm just here to discuss the topic.

PhilB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #46 on: February 12, 2019, 09:52:54 AM »
I completely get what you are saying Mr Onyx, but I think it applies more to absolute poverty rather than relative poverty - which is where we started the thread.  I believe there is definitely a slice of the population who would fall into many of the 'poverty' definitions that get thrown about in the media and by lobby groups who have a disposable income higher than the spending of quite a few mustachians (not me).  There is a big difference though between choosing to live at that spending level (and knowing that your stash is building as a result) and having to live at that level with no light at the end of the tunnel.  A mustachian looks at people spending more and thinks 'suckers - you'll be working for years longer than me'.  I'd imagine it's rather harder for someone who can't afford to spend more to watch others spending with equanimity.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3922
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2019, 10:58:05 AM »
Also, it is a lot easier to live on restricted expenses from day to day when you have some capital behind you.  For instance, if you have money you can afford to self-insure your car rather than paying for comprehensive cover, because you can afford to replace it in an accident.  You can afford to have your washing machine mended or replaced rather than spending money at the laundrette.  You can buy good shoes that last rather than cheap ones that don't.  You have a paid-off house so a sudden reduction in income doesn't end up in sale or eviction.  You don't have stress about unexpected expenses cropping up, so can plan for the future.  In all these respects poverty is much more about poverty of capital rather than poverty of income.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4305
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2019, 11:22:09 AM »
Anyone care to pitch a guess at an absolute poverty line? It's all very well saying poverty is hard to define etc etc but that doesn't mean one can't have a go.

I reckon a decent standard of living ANYWHERE would be:
- Dwelling which is safe and weatherproof
- Adults one person or one couple to a bedroom
- Children two same-sex children to a bedroom (not sure about this one)
- Indoor temp of 18-26 degrees most of the time
- Sufficient nutritious food and a kitchen to cook it in
- Transport to a job which is less than an hour (90 mins?) away
- Internet access (unless you genuinely have no need for it)
- Medical care

Any advance on that? People are welcome to voluntarily deprive themselves of such things but they should be able to AFFORD them.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3922
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Joseph Rowntree Foundation - UK Poverty increase
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2019, 11:46:35 AM »
access to clean water for drinking, cooking, washing and laundry.
two sets of clothes and shoes appropriate to the climate
hygenic sewage arrangements. 
supportive family and/or community.
education to aged 16 (or appropriate alternative)