Is there as much

[fallen-archie]

Poverty around these days as there was 50 years ago! I can remember the post war years when bread and dripping with salt and pepper was the order of the day, and yet these days with growing obesity among the young we are told that children are living in poverty. I don’t doubt that some have it difficult and yet is it reasonable to suggest that as a nation we have abject poverty? If we do what should we do about it?

[upthecreekyetagain]

No - I don’t think anyone, even politicians, would argue that those defined as living in poverty are anywhere near as ‘poor’ as the poorest were 70 years ago or even 50 years ago.

It is all relative - poverty income is generally defined as being less than 60% of the median income - that income and what it can buy has risen steadily, with a few peaks and troughs over the last hundred years and hopefully will continue to rise - this means that the gap between the ‘median’ family and the family in poverty will also continue to grow - whether or not that is acceptable is an entirely different matter.

I still like bread and real, not processed, beef and/or pork dripping on bread - another goodie from my young days was bread fried in the fat from real bacon.

[dark_castle1]

MMMMMMMMMMMM !!! Bread fried in the fat from real bacon !!

Those were the days and chips made in real beef dripping that you used to get in the wax paper from the butchers.

[fallen-archie]

Stop it I’m salivating😀

[margaret*e]

I don't know about other parts of the NE allegedly  the poorest part of the country, but from my own observations where I live all I see is well dressed clean children.

One thing I agree with, I have never seen so many fat children.

[fallen-archie]

Exactly Marge, now I am not suggesting that there aren’t people/children who fall into the poverty classification, however I don’t see four year olds walking miles to get a bucket of water from a spring! I saw some young single mum the other day who had a buggy that cost a fortune yet she doesn’t work, so how come there are all these have nots in our society?

[theelench]

---

@upthecreekyetagainwrote:

No - I don’t think anyone, even politicians, would argue that those defined as living in poverty are anywhere near as ‘poor’ as the poorest were 70 years ago or even 50 years ago.

It is all relative - poverty income is generally defined as being less than 60% of the median income - that income and what it can buy has risen steadily, with a few peaks and troughs over the last hundred years and hopefully will continue to rise - this means that the gap between the ‘median’ family and the family in poverty will also continue to grow - whether or not that is acceptable is an entirely different matter.

---

I think you'll find that "that income and what it can buy has risen steadily" is not true of the last thirty to forty years.  Because Median income has become a red herring.

In fact I think you'll find that those on or below the median have either stood still or suffered a decline in their real income.  It used to be that rising average pay indicated that roughly everyone's pay was rising.  That's not true any more, a company that's doing well will reward those at the top with a twenty percent rise, six figure bonus plus a large number of share options.  While still insisting that everyone else takes a two percent rise (if they're lucky) to maintain competitiveness.  Everyones income increased, as did the average, but if inflation is three percent the majority are worse off.  Only the small number with a massive rise have increased what they can buy.

The median doesn't give anything like a true picture of what has happened in the last forty years.  If you use a block graph to represent where the median is, it will show that the average has risen consistently.  But it hides the fact that those above the median have increased their income exponentially while those below have seen little or no rise at all over the same period.

The difference between now and seventy years ago is the availability of credit.  It hides a lot of poverty.  The single mum with the expensive buggy most likely bought with a loan of some sort, with interest added to the repayment.  Effectively robbing tomorrow to buy today and continuing her cycle of poverty.  

[upthecreekyetagain]

Median is the middle number in a group so if the top 1% of earners get a 100% rise in income it won’t affect the value of the median income.  I do agree that the gap in wealth between the top few % and the bottom has increased but that doesn’t change the median nor the number living in poverty as defined by the median.

I do maintain that everyone’s income has most certainly increased over the last 50 to 60 years - income of course includes not just paid work.  The benefit system spends phenomenally more now, the NHS spend has increased exponentially over the years, food is cheaper and the quality of housing, heating and comfort is far greater.  There is far more that needs to done to assist the disabled but the current systems are a huge improvement over the days of special institutions or early deaths.

Of course there is far more to do in most of those areas but not many live in worse conditions today than individuals who were in the same position on the income scale fifty years ago. 60 years ago there were about 400,000 new cars registered each year there are over 7 times that number being registered now.  Most families have a TV and so on. 

Yes there are still those in extreme poverty which is a disgrace in this day and age but that does not mean that things aren’t improving.  

It’s not, in my opinion, income that needs to be spread more evenly but opportunities. 

[theelench]

What you say is true "On paper", but in the real world there is always inflation, so it's only those who consistently get above inflation rises that are improving their position.  So yes, incomes generally have increased but I would say that only those at the upper end of the scale have seen increases which have made them much better off.  The rest, with at or below inflation rises have had the value of their income steadily eroded, leaving them no better, or worse off.

It's undoubtedly a good thing that benefits alleviate poverty.  But benefits, pensions and minimum wage increases are all pegged to inflation so can only ensure that recipients don't sink any lower and into abject poverty.  It also ensures that their position never gets any better. 

The number of workers on minimum wage inexorably rises.  As does the number receiving some sort of benefit or pension,  pressure to keep tax increases to a minimum means that the number living hand-to-mouth steadily increases and they will never have the opportunity to do anything but that.

You say that it isn't income that needs to be spread more evenly but opportunity.  I would say that you can't have one without the other.  At the most basic level that means having enough surplus income to build up some savings, the unearned income and safety-net they provide then opens up the opportunities.