Child poverty increases in England

[Eldorado]

Child poverty has shot up in towns and cities across the north and Midlands of England, fuelled by stagnating family incomes and the spiralling cost of housing, an analysis has found.

Although deprived inner-London boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets continue to have the highest levels of child poverty in the UK, the most striking increases have been in Middlesbrough, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and parts of Birmingham.

Full article at the UK Guardian: Link

At the Education Executive UK: Link

 

[Essan]

Relative* poverty     Most of these children have shoes that are not made from old tyres and some eat more than a bowl of rice a day!




* ie compared with people who have much, much, much more than they need

[ethereal_scout]

Disagree strongly.

Food Nothing (ie no problem) = emergent nation, 3rd world nation

Money nothing (ie no problem) = developing nation, 2nd world nation

Death nothing (metaphysical and real) = developed nation, 1st world nation

Much of Thatchers Britain has been stuck in a fourth economy satanic ****hole since the 80's

https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/what-youll-get

Thats £85 per week for a single persons living allowance. If two of you live together (and have kids) the state says you're on £74 per week each. Thats a salary equivalent  of just over £4110 a year. How can you expect people to feed kids when they're getting no money themselves.

I spend at least a tenner a day at Tesco, thats just for my food never mind everything else. I'm struggling to live on £150 per week as it is.

Minimum wage is £12500 per annum.

[itsnotoutthere]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

Child poverty has shot up in towns and cities across the north and Midlands of England, fuelled by stagnating family incomes and the spiralling cost of housing, an analysis has found.

Although deprived inner-London boroughs such as Newham and Tower Hamlets continue to have the highest levels of child poverty in the UK, the most striking increases have been in Middlesbrough, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and parts of Birmingham.

Full article at the UK Guardian: Link

At the Education Executive UK: Link

 

That's funny...the same areas that have seen high levels of Covid, I wonder if there is some sort of connection? 

[Eldorado]

Some more cheery news...

....people in their 40s living in the poorest neighbourhoods are at least five-and-a-half times more likely to die from drugs than those in the least deprived, the ONS said.

BBC: Link

[Matt221]

shouldn't even be mentioning poverty let alone allowing it to happen we live in 2020 not bluddy 1820 

[stevewinn]

Funny how we all live in a country of equal opportunity and yet some find themselves in poverty. What is it that this small number is doing that the vast majority are not.

 

 

[RoofGardener]

"Poverty" in this case means that - after subtracting housing costs - the families income is less than 60% of the national median. 

The study breathlessly points out that the poorest region only had 50% of the national median. 

That comes out to about £15,000 per year. Remember, this is AFTER housing costs. 

That seems like an odd definition of "poverty" to me ! 

[Tatetopa]

46 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Funny how we all live in a country of equal opportunity and yet some find themselves in poverty. What is it that this small number is doing that the vast majority are not.

It would seem like a national priority then to find out what the small number is doing and share it with as much of the population as possible. A successful and prosperous nation cannot be built on a small number of successful people, can it?

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

"Poverty" in this case means that - after subtracting housing costs - the families income is less than 60% of the national median. 

The study breathlessly points out that the poorest region only had 50% of the national median. 

That comes out to about £15,000 per year. Remember, this is AFTER housing costs. 

That seems like an odd definition of "poverty" to me ! 

It is odd - and reading the reports FAQs makes it even more complicated. From the FAQs -

Quote

What is the measure of poverty?

A child is deemed to be growing up in poverty if they live in a household whose income is 60% below the median income.

Note the deducting the housing costs element is not mentioned (it was in the Guardian article but not well explained) - this is closer to what I understood to be the relative definition - ie households with less than 60% of median income. Also note the use of the word household. We are not comparing this with a persons income per se as a household can have more than 1 earner. 

Quote

How much is 60% of median income?

These are calculations of 60% median income (the poverty line) for 2018/19 for types of families, Before Housing Costs. A child is said to be growing up in poverty if their family income is below this poverty line.

 

·         For a family of one adult and one child, 60% of median income in 2018/19 was £268 week

·         For a family of one adult and two children, £330 week

·         For a family of two adults and one child, £370 week

·         For a family of two adults and two children, £432 week

bolding is as per the FAQs

Are these figures before housing costs are considered or after - I suspect before - but I am not at all sure from reading that and bearing in mind the overall context of the paper to show the impact of housing costs on relative poverty. 

£268 before rent et al is not very much at all. Most rents I know of would consume a very big chunk of that weekly. 

Edited October 14, 2020 by RAyMO

[ethereal_scout]

Quote

What is it that this small number is doing that the vast majority are not.

You only get what you're given by Government. 

 

If Gov isn't going to give anything to you, you can be usually assured that no-one else is either.

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

It would seem like a national priority then to find out what the small number is doing and share it with as much of the population as possible. A successful and prosperous nation cannot be built on a small number of successful people, can it?

Past studies have shown its everything but the individual. And certain individuals are inept so the state as to intervene.

One thing never changes, and that is if your relying on the govt your never going to be rich. Or shall we say comfortable. but about a million people remain suckling the teet of state and wonder why their left behind in society.

Somehow this is societies fault and once again the govt has to intervene. As apparently it has the answer, the solution. But cant people see its state dependence thats the cause.

[Tatetopa]

20 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Past studies have shown its everything but the individual. And certain individuals are inept so the state as to intervene.

One thing never changes, and that is if your relying on the govt your never going to be rich. Or shall we say comfortable. but about a million people remain suckling the teet of state and wonder why their left behind in society.

Somehow this is societies fault and once again the govt has to intervene. As apparently it has the answer, the solution. But cant people see its state dependence thats the cause.

Well, if you have a million people that have not gotten the message and still are fully reliant on a dole, maybe it is society's fault.  Maybe a change in strategy  and policy is required.

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Well, if you have a million people that have not gotten the message and still are fully reliant on a dole, maybe it is society's fault.  Maybe a change in strategy  and policy is required.

A lost people will always exist. And you can't legislate for it. 

[Tatetopa]

31 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

A lost people will always exist. And you can't legislate for it. 

Do you need to feed them and take care of them their whole lives and reinforce their bad habits?

[stevewinn]

32 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Do you need to feed them and take care of them their whole lives and reinforce their bad habits?

Expand your point. 

[Tatetopa]

15 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Expand your point. 

You refer to them as lost people.

Are they disabled and need full time care?   Are they just stupid and lazy, or gaming the system?  Could they work for their benefits?  Are there low skilled jobs they could do and perhaps receive job training and skills to help them find better jobs? 

My company bought supplies from two companies that were given a partial subsidy to provide jobs and training for mentally and physically handicapped people.  In other words, the state government paid a part of their hourly wages to help keep the company solvent and competitive. It seemed to work out well for the employees, giving them a place to go, teaching work habits and skills and providing some sense of pride at doing something useful.

[stevewinn]

46 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

You refer to them as lost people.

Are they disabled and need full time care?   Are they just stupid and lazy, or gaming the system?  Could they work for their benefits?  Are there low skilled jobs they could do and perhaps receive job training and skills to help them find better jobs? 

My company bought supplies from two companies that were given a partial subsidy to provide jobs and training for mentally and physically handicapped people.  In other words, the state government paid a part of their hourly wages to help keep the company solvent and competitive. It seemed to work out well for the employees, giving them a place to go, teaching work habits and skills and providing some sense of pride at doing something useful.

I'd excluded disabled. And include all others. And that proves impossible to legislate for. Akin to trying to make a homeless person live in a house when they don't want to. 

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Akin to trying to make a homeless person live in a house when they don't want to. 

So what do you provide a homeless person?  What is society obligated to provide a person who chooses to live in a tent or a cave or a shanty? 

[itsnotoutthere]

15 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Funny how we all live in a country of equal opportunity and yet some find themselves in poverty. What is it that this small number is doing that the vast majority are not.

 

 

Relying on the state to look after them.

[stevewinn]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

So what do you provide a homeless person?  What is society obligated to provide a person who chooses to live in a tent or a cave or a shanty? 

The same opportunities as everyone else. But can you force them make the most of it. And the answer is no, and so we'll always have those in poverty. Through individual choice.

[ethereal_scout]

Quote

 Through individual choice.

Disagree. You simply can't as an individual choose to have a paying job, it requires an employer to want to give you one. The UK is (for the present) underpinned by a free-market society (confusing to a communist gov) meaning a jobs market that depending on whether its in surplus or demand, depends on whether you get a job or not. Add to this the lock and key of skill sets (a plumber is unlikely to be awarded work as a chef). Sticking to church, church doesn't work, masons do, catholics are not supposed to join the masons etc, catholicly work is either criminal or dead leaves us with a truth, at any one time approx 25% of the population may not be working. This needs properly funded rather than just being left to death, they are after all valued and respected customers who, if they had the money, would act as a catalyst for the creation of jobs.

[Eldorado]

Related news:

One in four children in Scotland are living in poverty, new research has shown.

STV News: Link

[Eldorado]

Child poverty set to become 'national crisis'

"The government will have to act and to recognise that you cannot build a national consensus around health or the economy if you have a divided society, where it is clear that the poorest people are losing out and feel that they are being treated as second-class citizens."

Sky News