Spending Cuts 'will See Rise In Absolute Child Poverty'

[kingsgate]

The definition doesn't sound like an absolute.. it sounds like a relative measure. 60% of the median income.

An absolute measure would be something like, clean clothes, certain amounts per day of macro and micro nutrients, heated living space, able to get to school, access to flush toilet, access to refrigeration, clean water.. etc..

+1.

A definition of "poverty" as being a percentage of the median or average income cannot by definition be a definition of "absolute" poverty, because the definition itself is "relative.

That is, someone could be above this "poverty line" one day, and then a few months later, be below it, even though their own circumstances have not changed at all, just because some other people got a pay rise.

[nohpc]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/16/spending-cuts-rise-absolute-child-poverty

As long as people can afford to bailout the bankers and fund deficit spending all is well.

So more families are expected to drop below the 60% threshold hold then?

Child poverty is generally due to crap parents rather than lack of money in this country.

A poor family in India can bring up a child well fed and with a good education and health whereas benefit scrounging, drug addict, fag rats claim child poverty if their kids can't have an X box (cigarettes and alcohol come first).

[Pytyr]

[Protect Rural England]

That's because in the third world basic education is, or at least is seen to be, a means of materially improving yourself and your family. There is no such connection in the UK, because several generations have been taught not only that the state will provide all your requirements regardless of your own effort, but that any attempt to better yourself through work will be financially penalised.

Best post I have ever read on HPC.

[MrPin]

I'm pretty sure I lived in "poverty" when I was a kid!

No XBox, TV, car etc!

We had books, music and education!

It was OK!

We always got fed, and the toilet worked!

The definition of "poverty" is a moving goalpost, moving exactly where the politicains want it to be!

[aa3]

But, but, but if we do that, we'll discover that bog all people in this country are in poverty. And we cannot have that can we? What will all the box tickers in the council do all day?

That is exactly the reason. Just like you'll never hear the military say.. actually things are looking pretty safe, with nuclear weapons the chance of us being invaded are next to nothing. No its always dangerous times requiring more spending on the military.

Well the same goes for social services. We must have hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million people employed in lucrative jobs and consultancies who are fighting poverty in the UK. But the reality is that war is won. But they can't admit that for obvious reasons.

Its going in other areas too, look at all the people employed now fighting climate change and promoting efficiency. They can't really say.. you know in all honesty if we just slammed in a couple more nuclear reactors we wouldn't have to worry about these things.

People in these organizations convince themselves of the need to perpetuate themselves. I try to rise above that personally, I hope I can always offer something of real value to other people.

[phead]

I'm pretty sure I lived in "poverty" when I was a kid!

No XBox, TV, car etc!

We had books, music and education!

It was OK!

We always got fed, and the toilet worked!

The definition of "poverty" is a moving goalpost, moving exactly where the politicains want it to be!

Exactly. MSF sent me though some stuff this week with an inch hole in it, the comment was "can you fit your thumb through here", and the next sentence "How about your upper arm". Its the size of a childs arm with acute malnutrition.

Child poverty in the UK, I don't think so.

[Riedquat]

That's because in the third world basic education is, or at least is seen to be, a means of materially improving yourself and your family. There is no such connection in the UK, because several generations have been taught not only that the state will provide all your requirements regardless of your own effort, but that any attempt to better yourself through work will be financially penalised.

And who here ever looked at education, at least below 6th form level in that way? Getting educated in the UK (at least below 6th form level, and making the rather large assumption that schools are capable of teaching anything useful) is universal and compulsory. Therefore we aren't in the same sitaution as the third world. It is not a means of improving yourself and your family because it's the default position, although you can lose out by ignoring it.

[Selling up]

This IFS press release and article was a disgrace, as I'm glad so many here have noticed.

The IFS simply took a well-recognised (though I think absurd) measure of relative poverty, and called it "absolute poverty".

Distressingly, very few of the Guardian readers picked up on this linguistic fraud.

[jammo]

This IFS press release and article was a disgrace, as I'm glad so many here have noticed.

The IFS simply took a well-recognised (though I think absurd) measure of relative poverty, and called it "absolute poverty".

Distressingly, very few of the Guardian readers picked up on this linguistic fraud.

No, they are very clear and specific about this, "200,000 into penury" means the street are going to be literally overrun with street urchins, beggars and hobos. They'll be opening workhouses again soon.