Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
PeanutButter

British children living in poverty 'could hit record high' – report

Recommended Posts

Quote

By 2023-24, the proportion of children living in relative poverty is on course to hit 37%

While weak productivity and pay freezes were holding back living standards for most people, government policy was also hitting more deprived groups. The report noted the final year of the benefit freeze, which will reduce working-age household incomes by £1.5bn, will start in April, while the impact of the two-child limit on benefits will grow over the remainder of this parliament.

This is having a direct impact on child poverty, said the report, which has been increasing continuously since 2011. It predicts that by 2023-24 the proportion of children living in relative poverty (after housing costs) is on course to hit 37% – exceeding the previous record high of 34% in the early 1990s. This could mean an extra 1 million children living in poverty in the next five years, it said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/20/british-children-living-in-poverty-could-hit-record-high-report

Our tragic child poverty in the news again and the line about increasing since 2011 struck me. Austerity measures started in 2008, so perhaps there was a 3 year lag. What else could account for the rise?

The house price graph doesn't really correlate either, big upward trend only kicking in 2013. But poor people don't buy houses so the important stats are private rents and social rents. For the life of me I can't find any decent graphs to show increases. (I'm not proficient at googling.) ONS shows it's gone up but there's no big change, just a steady rise. I can't find a social rents graph at all. 

Looking at inflation it seems as if it went down since 2011 so that's not relevant. Salaries has slowly increased as well. 

The immigration graph does show an uptick starting at 2011. So who is in poverty in the UK? The report out today doesn't break it down beyond children but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation does look at who is falling into poverty. https://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/six-things-about-how-poverty-affects-different-ethnic-groups-uk

Quote

Child poverty is much higher in some ethnic minority groups than in the rest of the population. Over 40% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children are growing up in poverty, compared to 31% of Chinese, 22% of Black Caribbean and 15% of children in the white majority population.

  

I can't help but conclude that we've benefitted from the cheap labour of ethnic minorities while their children languish in permanent poverty. Any other ideas how this situation has come about? The 2 child limit for benefit will have had a large impact I'm sure. 

chart.jpeg

image.png

image.png

image.png

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They measure poverty as an income at 65% or less of the median, which obviously utter bullisht. 

Until they measure actual poverty and cease pretending that inequality is poverty, these reports are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Over 40% of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children are growing up in poverty, compared to 31% of Chinese

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Locke said:

They measure poverty as an income at 65% or less of the median, which obviously utter bullisht. 

Until they measure actual poverty and cease pretending that inequality is poverty, these reports are meaningless.

It is so crazy that if all married women who work in couples which earn more than median were to resign then poverty would decrease because the median household income would decrease, so less people would have less than the median.

I know 2 women like that one a GP, one a teacher - obviously them resigning would cause other problems!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clear sign of recovery.

I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Locke said:

They measure poverty as an income at 65% or less of the median, which obviously utter bullisht. 

Until they measure actual poverty and cease pretending that inequality is poverty, these reports are meaningless.

Has the measure changed or was it always this way? If it changed it could account for the increase. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Errol said:

Clear sign of recovery.

I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

Having children is often seen as a way out of poverty because once the children are earning they can support the rest of the family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Having children is often seen as a way out of poverty because once the children are earning they can support the rest of the family. 

The family needs to support them until they are earning (no sending them up chimneys or down mines any more), and assumes that when they are old enough they'll actually work. Having children for that reason was seen as a way out of poverty in the past, or in other parts of the world, but it isn't true in the UK today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

The family needs to support them until they are earning (no sending them up chimneys or down mines any more), and assumes that when they are old enough they'll actually work. Having children for that reason was seen as a way out of poverty in the past, or in other parts of the world, but it isn't true in the UK today.

Then what is the answer to the question:

Quote

 I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Having children is often seen as a way out of poverty because once the children are earning they can support the rest of the family. 

Yes, years gone by the more children you had a greater probability you would have a better life later......on your own, will have nobody to care or look after you....strength in numbers.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Errol said:

Clear sign of recovery.

I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

As the definition of poverty is less than a certain % of median wage, it is likely that the rise in poverty is very likely due to recovery. The GFC and increases in higher taxes hammered the better off more than the poor in simple £ terms. With economic recovery, the better off are pulling ahead again. So differential income increases, and poverty goes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Errol said:

Clear sign of recovery.

I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

They might not have been in poverty when they had children, or they decided to have children to get council housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poverty is very suggestive....what people need to live, against what people have to spend and how many that money is divided between......what people have to spend it on, against what people choose to spend it on.....things they need or things they want.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overpopulation caused by the last 40 years of  unfettered immigration and over-generous welfare state encouraging fast breeders.

We are f*cked

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Then what is the answer to the question:

Quote

 I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

 

The quote contains the answer - total irresponsibility. No self control, no thought for consequences. Certainly my points stand - more children do not bring in more money thanks to them working, they can't earn until they're old enough, the odd paper round notwithstanding (and it's many years until they're old enough for that), and I've not heard anything to suggest working families have lots of children these days.

Pointing at benefits for doing so sounds a bit Daily Mai-ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could also be to do with educational attainment (which is of course related to home life and culture and wealth as well). People who stay in education longer tend to have fewer children later, after earning more. People who go from school straight into child rearing are more fertile (fertility drops in women from 30) so more likely to have ‘accidents’ as well.

If anyone has some stats to back to the economic recovery suggestionId appreciate it. It certainly seems to make sense - although as Brexit UK is in a downturn perhaps poverty will naturally drop in future?

Edited by PeanutButter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Has the measure changed or was it always this way? If it changed it could account for the increase. 

There have been 2 measures of poverty for as long as I remember. Absolute poverty and relative poverty. Conservatives, Rees-Mogg for eg, like to use absolute poverty, i.e. life-threatening poverty as a measure. Relative poverty is a measure of inequality.

However, there may be some other versions of poverty. For example, would you consider a remote tribe in South America to be living in poverty? To me absolute poverty seems to be mostly man-made due to the way we treat each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Kirk said:

 

However, there may be some other versions of poverty. For example, would you consider a remote tribe in South America to be living in poverty? To me absolute poverty seems to be mostly man-made due to the way we treat each other.

Yes as they would not have access to modern healthcare etc and would have to work very hard to eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Captain Kirk said:

There have been 2 measures of poverty for as long as I remember. Absolute poverty and relative poverty. Conservatives, Rees-Mogg for eg, like to use absolute poverty, i.e. life-threatening poverty as a measure. Relative poverty is a measure of inequality.

However, there may be some other versions of poverty. For example, would you consider a remote tribe in South America to be living in poverty? To me absolute poverty seems to be mostly man-made due to the way we treat each other.

Poverty IMO should refer to being in a situation where getting the essentials is difficult and unreliable. I don't know where that leaves the remote tribe.

Labelling inequality as poverty is unhelpful. Inequality is an important issue and whilst it's related it's a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

It could also be to do with educational attainment (which is of course related to home life and culture and wealth as well). People who stay in education longer tend to have fewer children later, after earning more. People who go from school straight into child rearing are more fertile (fertility drops in women from 30) so more likely to have ‘accidents’ as well.

If anyone has some stats to back to the economic recovery suggestionId appreciate it. It certainly seems to make sense - although as Brexit UK is in a downturn perhaps poverty will naturally drop in future?

People who go from school into child rearing are not thick or stupid, very many are or were very bright individuals......choices, use your skills and talents to earn money or to bring up your children.....not all people who stay in education longer are particularly bright or clever than those who don't......life in itself is an education, self educating.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Yes as they would not have access to modern healthcare etc and would have to work very hard to eat.

A small population in an area with plenty of resources may not have to work that hard to eat. They'd be lacking modern healthcare but the same would apply to obscenely rich ancient Romans. If you label them as being in poverty then it raises all sorts of ethical questions about whether it's right to interfere with their lifestyle or leave them alone (at least someone in poverty in the UK theoretically has the chance to get anything anyone else in the UK can have).

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

A small population in an area with plenty of resources may not have to work that hard to eat. They'd be lacking modern healthcare but the same would apply to obscenely rich ancient Romans.

I have been to the Amazon and I got the impression that the traditional life is quite hard.

To be honest I think that my life is better in real terms* than obscenely rich people in the past, particularly whenever I need a filling.  I bet that the last Tsar of Russia would rather have been poor and get his son's hemophilia treated than be rich.

 

*Apart from housing -thanks Tony Blair etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Errol said:

Clear sign of recovery.

I should add - if these people are already in poverty (presumably), why are they having children? Totally irresponsible.

And double the net-immigration from Asia and Africa into UK to 500 000 - 600 000. That will do the trick.

And after 5 to 10 years Nigel Farage will be PM.

Errol, you are genius.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I have been to the Amazon and I got the impression that the traditional life is quite hard.

To be honest I think that my life is better in real terms* than obscenely rich people in the past, particularly whenever I need a filling.  I bet that the last Tsar of Russia would rather have been poor and get his son's hemophilia treated than be rich.

 

*Apart from housing -thanks Tony Blair etc.

Amazon tribe life probably is quite hard I'd agree, even if you make allowances for how used to being pampered most of us are (considering the tendency to cheer on tiny, insignificant bits of labour-saving as wonderful improvements), but it's not entirely straightforward; if it was it would be unethical to not interfere with them, instead of very contentious.

There are certainly some things available now that even the very richest in the past would like, but I still don't think it stacks up to considering them as being poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.