Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Covid Recession is Hitting The Poorest Hardest


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

We are shafting the poorest most and the richest have barely felt the recession. 

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

So I agree with your observation on the outcome, but I'd phrase more that the pandemic is shafting the poor [and young for that matter] rather than "we" are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

So I agree with your observation on the outcome, but I'd phrase more that the pandemic is shafting the poor [and young for that matter] rather than "we" are.

A pandemic does not create and enact policy our government does and it is the government's response that is causing the problem. 

And then there is the double whammy that the most deprived communicate have been hardest hit with deaths and severe illness from covid-19. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

So I agree with your observation on the outcome, but I'd phrase more that the pandemic is shafting the poor [and young for that matter] rather than "we" are.

You are trying to define that as a viral effect. 

It not it's policy. 

 

Since the start of this "risk" has only been defined as Cv19 any impact of policy is merely irrelevant collateral. 

 

I do wonder how up in arms people in their 60s would be if golf was banned for a year but young could goto nightclubs. Of course we have the reverse now on a much larger scale. Note relative risk once age of participants is taken into account... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

We are shafting the poorest most and the richest have barely felt the recession. 

Ej4M-XnXsAAg0Ho?format=jpg&name=medium

The Labour party would traditionally have fought for the young, old and poor. But the new liberal elite Labour party and it's voters are the most pro lockdown!

We need a new party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

A pandemic does not create and enact policy our government does and it is the government's response that is causing the problem. 

And then there is the double whammy that the most deprived communicate have been hardest hit with deaths and severe illness from covid-19. 

At one level yes...but at another level I think the double whammy you mention means it’s inevitable: lockdown and the poor disproportionately lose their job, don’t lockdown and they disproportionately get ill or even die.

What policy response do you think would have avoided the poor being worst hit?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

A pandemic does not create and enact policy our government does and it is the government's response that is causing the problem.

Devil's Advocte:  Are you sure about that?

One thing that has struck me, when considering the news coverage, is the extent to which supposedly different countries, with supposedly independent governments, chose extremely similar arbitrary responses.

While the argument is 'flimsy as hell' - I got the feeling that goverments were obliged to adopt externally specified policies.  I wondered, for example, if PHE was a conduit by which the British Goverment were subject to WHO instruction.  While I've no evidence that governments are subordinated to international institutions... it certainly looks as if they are.

Edited by A.steve
Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

So I agree with your observation on the outcome, but I'd phrase more that the pandemic is shafting the poor [and young for that matter] rather than "we" are.

However furlough payments were not for the zero hour contract workers, or micro businesses (which are often disguised zero hour contract workers with zero benefits) so in fact people in stable full time jobs who fit into societies 'proper' quadrant were treated with far more lagese than the filthy peasants in the 'undesirables' quadrant.  Having this hard line between 'proper' and 'wrong' people gives many people a sense of comfort and faith in their government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The UKs poorest are the people working 40h+ / week in low paid jobs with no state sub.

The poorest of yesteryear - non/low working with kids and oaps are in the top 50% of incomes.

Not quite so. The food banks are full of single mothers with kids to feed and state pensioners stuck with private landlords who did not get much or anything in the way of company pensions as top ups to the basic state pension (and even less in the case of many women)  There is as you state, a cohort of pensioners, ie the ones who had decent jobs which paid decent final sallary pensions and some unemployed people with kids doing very well (but this is a very tempory and precarious situation to be in) but reality, and what the Daily mail (and much other media) tell everyone, are generally two different species.  They will tell thier cemented on Tory readers that every unemployed person is on £30k, given a big house and flat screen TV when the majority are on £70 per week ( and £10 increase in the last 20 Years)  and will forget to mention the cohort of well off state pensioners with more money than they know what to do with (ie a big portion of thier readership).

Apart from that, yes, people on min wage and full time are not doing well, almost purely becasue of the obscene cost of housing. I have friends in parts of Europe on low wages but live a very different and better life than they would in the UK, by a big margin and thats without any state cash handouts or tax credits.

Or should we say that a large portion of the UK population is screwed becasue of the insane housing costs.? never mind the different varieties of homelessness  (Housing costs which Boris is trying to push up higher with his 95% loans again)

Edited by steve99
Link to post
Share on other sites

They will tell thier cemented on Tory readers that every unemployed person is on £30k, given a big house and flat screen TV when the majority are on £70 per week”


We have a 2 tier benefit system.  If you have 2 children under the age of 16 and are a single parent, then all you have to do is work 16 hours a week on minimum wage (earning c6k per year, not enough to contribute NI or IT) and your monthly earnings are around 2k a month net, due to all the child related top ups. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Not quite so. The food banks are full of single mothers with kids to feed and state pensioners stuck with private landlords who did not get much or anything in the way of company pensions as top ups to the basic state pension (and even less in the case of many women)  There is as you state, a cohort of pensioners, ie the ones who had decent jobs which paid decent final sallary pensions and some unemployed people with kids doing very well (but this is a very tempory and precarious situation to be in) but reality, and what the Daily mail (and much other media) tell everyone, are generally two different species.  They will tell thier cemented on Tory readers that every unemployed person is on £30k, given a big house and flat screen TV when the majority are on £70 per week ( and £10 increase in the last 20 Years)  and will forget to mention the cohort of well off state pensioners with more money than they know what to do with (ie a big portion of thier readership).

Apart from that, yes, people on min wage and full time are not doing well, almost purely becasue of the obscene cost of housing. I have friends in parts of Europe on low wages but live a very different and better life than they would in the UK, by a big margin and thats without any state cash handouts or tax credits.

Or should we say that a large portion of the UK population is screwed becasue of the insane housing costs.? never mind the different varieties of homelessness  (Housing costs which Boris is trying to push up higher with his 95% loans again)

Food banks are busy as its free food.

I was dragged along to work at one of the original foodbanks with a more religiously inclined mate.

The rules along lines of 'noone can have a package more than x times' are all BS.

In the few weeks I helped I saw the same people rock up and BS the daft old ladies running the place.

Again, a single mum with at least 1 kid will be in the top 50% of household incomes. They are not poor. Whether they spend the money wisely is another issue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 12:53 AM, scottbeard said:

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

So I agree with your observation on the outcome, but I'd phrase more that the pandemic is shafting the poor [and young for that matter] rather than "we" are.

+1. Although those were USA figures. With furlough I'd expect less of an issue in the UK (I hope).

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mancunian284 said:

We have a 2 tier benefit system.  If you have 2 children under the age of 16 and are a single parent, then all you have to do is work 16 hours a week on minimum wage (earning c6k per year, not enough to contribute NI or IT) and your monthly earnings are around 2k a month net, due to all the child related top ups. 

There is unlikely to be sufficient work available, even in good times, to support them all doing 35 hours a week. Given the costs of childcare working 35 hours a week would probably mean they were worse off anyway unless they have subsidised places, in which case we're paying out more than £2k per family.

21 hours ago, steve99 said:

However furlough payments were not for the zero hour contract workers, or micro businesses (which are often disguised zero hour contract workers with zero benefits) so in fact people in stable full time jobs who fit into societies 'proper' quadrant were treated with far more lagese than the filthy peasants in the 'undesirables' quadrant.  Having this hard line between 'proper' and 'wrong' people gives many people a sense of comfort and faith in their government.

+1

21 hours ago, A.steve said:

Devil's Advocte:  Are you sure about that?

One thing that has struck me, when considering the news coverage, is the extent to which supposedly different countries, with supposedly independent governments, chose extremely similar arbitrary responses.

While the argument is 'flimsy as hell' - I got the feeling that goverments were obliged to adopt externally specified policies.  I wondered, for example, if PHE was a conduit by which the British Goverment were subject to WHO instruction.  While I've no evidence that governments are subordinated to international institutions... it certainly looks as if they are.

Tin-foil hat nonsense. There is no evidence because the WHO has no power to instruct any government.

On 10/10/2020 at 8:00 AM, Sausage said:

The Labour party would traditionally have fought for the young, old and poor. But the new liberal elite Labour party and it's voters are the most pro lockdown!

Starmer has been talking about targeted lockdowns with good support centrally for those areas subject to them, much like Burnham. Given that there is now evidence that immunity is short-lived then it is important to control hot spots as the virus as absent that we could be in a situation of a country-wide lockdown which last time resulted in people withdrawing from use of restaurants and so on anyway. If a lockdown is government policy it can be reversed but if it is due to public sentiment it's much harder. But Starmer has complained about the failures of testing, track and trace, awarding of contracts to mates. etc., that are making things worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It's true that this recession is uniquely impacting the poorest most - but that's not because "we are shafting" them, but because the industry sectors hardest hit by the anti-COVID measures (bars, restaurants etc) have a high proportion of the lowest paid, whilst professionals can work from home.

Exactly - a person who is an accountant for instance will be very busy right now.  The more highly skilled a person is the Less chance they have of losing a  job or if they do the more chance they have of getting another job.  

 

A pandemic does not create and enact policy our government does and it is the government's response that is causing the problem. 

And then there is the double whammy that the most deprived communicate have been hardest hit with deaths and severe illness from covid-19. 

Most jobs have been lost in the bar/pub/hotel/hospitality sector - traditionally low paid low skilled jobs.    We have seen what happened when they were open with no restrictions.  If they had not been closed and people were getting Covid people would be saying it is all the govts fault!

The deprived community thing has been done to death.  Many of these people are BAME who culturally live in multi generational households.  

Also, when I am in Richmond people respect the rules.  I went through Hounslow last week and it was like a normal day - very few were distancing and many were not wearing a mask - DUH to them when they get it. 

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.

  • 433 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.