DS Forums

 
 

In-work poverty hits a record high


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-12-2016, 08:36
clinch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,619

The current system simply isn't working for too many people.


The number of workers living in poverty has reached a record high as the UK’s housing crisis fuels growing insecurity, a think tank has warned.

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) showed that 3.8 million workers, or one in eight, live in poverty.

Low wages are regularly cited as the cause of in-work poverty, but the rising cost of rented housing is also pushing working people into extreme financial difficulty. A total of 7.4 million people, including 2.6 million children, are living in poverty despite being in working households, the report claims.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html
clinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-12-2016, 09:01
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
Whine whine, it's not real poverty, whine whine.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:03
CSJB
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,030
The current system simply isn't working for too many people.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html
Is this real poverty or just wealth inequality ?
If we give everybody in Britain a million pounds will there still be the exact same number of people living in "poverty" ?
CSJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:04
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,306
Told you.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:11
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
Poverty leads to deprivation eventually.
That is mainly the problem with it, the direction is down.

-------------------------
When people talk about the numbers of people in work as a great achievement it is nonsensical.

It's not the being in-work thing that has value, it's what comes from it; personal security and financial benefit to the state.


You would think the Conservatives would wish people to be independent from the the state, and yet they have been as righteous about state dependence as Old Labour ever were.

Labour liked it because they got a client who would vote for them, the Conservatives seemingly use benefits as a means of control. And also maybe of abuse.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:23
CSJB
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,030
How about you try and answer my question in post 3 ?

Wealth inequality in Britain is a serious problem in itself, but it isn't poverty and trying to pretend it is, doesn't help anyone.
CSJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:29
Annsyre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
I just listened to an interview with a single mother who does part time work for a charity and gets around £1700 a month net after her income is increased by the universal benefit.

Many people work full time and don't end up with that net amount after they have paid tax and NI contributions.
Annsyre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:30
GusGus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 615
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub
High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances
Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement
So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty
GusGus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:58
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,196
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub
High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances
Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement
So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty
In real terms wages are down, rents at all time high. UK has the highest rents in Europe
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:01
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,315
With tax credits and housing benefit I don't understand why anyone would be in real poverty, unless of course the money is not going where it should

However I will add that there needs to be more affordable council housing for those on low incomes as private rental is ridiculous
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:03
chloeb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 6,315
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub
High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances
Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement
So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty
Must be regional too
I live on the south coast and 30k salary here doesn't go far with housing costs compared to other areas in the uk. But it's where the work is.
chloeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:09
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
In real terms wages are down, rents at all time high. UK has the highest rents in Europe
"Poverty" is defined by INCOME, not costs.

The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual.
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:11
snowy ghost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,902
What is the definition of "poverty"?
We have seen benefit claimants on TV documentaries needing food banks so that they can use £20 from their benefits for a weekly night out at the pub
High rents and low wages, surely housing benefit applies in such circumstances
Living wage increase in the Autumn Statement
So I repeat, what is their definition of poverty
Those tv programmes are not helpful to people who are struggling
snowy ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:13
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,196
"Poverty" is defined by INCOME, not costs.

The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual.
And in real terms income is down. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...hdRXgZo1CJNmzw. Self-employed 'now earning less than in 1995'
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:18
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,873
On the one hand I'm always a little skeptical about how poverty gets defined, but on the other, the increase in rents is hard to miss as a major cause when wages haven't gone up.

Back when I was renting, I would expect an annual increase of some amount but that was when we had inflation and interest rates above zero. There's no reason for the rents to be going up as much as they have, and even before that, a lot of rents were absurdly high.
Also, stuff in the post from letting agencies claiming a shortage of flats to rent is obviously BS because they are talking about premium maximum-commission places that normal-ish-wage people can only barely afford, which is precisely where they pitch the price.

I'm tempted to blame Tax Credits as they are the great pretence that a problem doesn't exist, and IIRC are these still on the HMRC budgeting rather than counted in the welfare budget?

Plus I hate being implicitly bracketed in with all the greedy dodgy landlords that I previously managed to avoid.
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:21
trunkster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,948
The current system simply isn't working for too many people.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7458981.html

What system is that then?
trunkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:23
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
And in real terms income is down. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...hdRXgZo1CJNmzw. Self-employed 'now earning less than in 1995'
So what? The "poverty level" is defined using income, whatever amount happens to be. Any increase in the minimum wage doesn't move those on it out of poverty. It moves those NOT in poverty to below the new poverty level. How on earth does that make any sense?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:23
razorboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
How about you try and answer my question in post 3 ?

Wealth inequality in Britain is a serious problem in itself, but it isn't poverty and trying to pretend it is, doesn't help anyone.
I can understand your point, defining poverty is a real conundrum. The reality is more than numbers and we are not helped by the complacency of those who deny that there is any problem (usually those with lots of money and surrounded by others in the same position).

Neither does it help to broaden the definition to include many who live or could live fairly comfortably.

The problem with wealth inequality is that it detaches people from the reality for much of the population. If such people form too high a percentage of the decision makers and fail to take steps to understand more fully the impacts of their choices the risks are very obvious.
razorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:33
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,961
Well it is no surprise that an increase in housing costs not matched by an equivalent increase in earnings will reduce the amount households have to spend on other things.

They really ought to stop calling it poverty though as it isn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:36
razorboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
"Poverty" is defined by INCOME, not costs.

The one thing that is guaranteed to increase "poverty" levels is an increase in the minimum wage. Because the average income goes up as a result, the "poverty" level also goes up. Those that were ABOVE the level are now defined as being in poverty. A couple with 6 kids can have the same income as a single, childless person and they both could be defined as being in "poverty". The price of a loaf of bread could go up to £100/loaf and there would be NO change in the numbers in "poverty". Nonsense report, as usual.
Wealth is defined by the difference between Income and costs, Why not the same for poverty, surely that is what counts. I know costs can be discretionary (as sometimes can Income for that matter) but surely we can find ways to define a basic living cost where the two main variables are housing and social care.
razorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:40
razorboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brighton
Posts: 4,923
Well it is no surprise that an increase in housing costs not matched by an equivalent increase in earnings will reduce the amount households have to spend on other things.

They really ought to stop calling it poverty though as it isn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue.
Yes agree but those who are complacent and maybe have a vested interest in avoiding the issues being faced will still try to deny that anything needs or can be done

Why do people think that a proportion of the population lacking disposable income is good for the economy or society in general
razorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:44
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
The thing about poverty, it affects everyone because the monetary force to drive an economy just isn't there.

We want working-class people to have a significant disposable income.

It's good for business, it's good for the middle-class and it's good for pensioners.


Social stratification is perfectly fine, but economic stratification is not something that works.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:47
snowy ghost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,902
The Joseph Roundtree Foundation have two and half pages available on the internet which explain definitions of poverty

Relative poverty
"Resources are so seriousky low below thise commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns ,customs and activities"
snowy ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:50
trunkster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,948
The Joseph Roundtree Foundation have two and half pages available on the internet which explain definitions of poverty

Relative poverty
"Resources are so seriousky low below thise commanded by the average individual or family that they are in effect excluded from ordinary living patterns ,customs and activities"

So who defines "ordinary"?
trunkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:50
snowy ghost
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: East Angular
Posts: 12,902
Relative income poverty
Where those with 60% of median income are classed as poor

I cannot post the link but it is an interesting read
snowy ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32.