to remind people that 1 in 3 children born on Tuesday were born into poverty

(280 Posts)
kim147 Thu 25-Jul-13 00:16:09

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/15/poverty-map-britain#ward

Check out your local ward. 41% in inner city Leeds where I work.

Let's not forget them.

mummymeister Thu 25-Jul-13 00:22:04

the definition of poverty as used by this article and others means that there will always be the same number/percentage of children in poverty. as in if the bottom 25% (or whatever percentage) are deemed to be in poverty then there will always be a bottom 25% so there will always be 25% or whatever of the children in our population in poverty. poverty is a relative term. it means in western society less affluent than the top 25%. however if you compare our populations bottom 25% say with the bottom 25% of some of the African states then ours don't look quite so bad do they. sorry but threads like this get on my nerves. yes there are a large percentage of kids in poverty and yes we need to do something proactive and positive about it. but there will always, always always be a bottom X% in poverty by these definitions it will never never be eradicated. take the initiative and do something about it in your own area.

Darkesteyes Thu 25-Jul-13 01:07:42

Whats with the race to the bottom mummymeister. Why it it always comparisons to Africa. (you wouldnt go onto a thread about domestic abuse or child abuse and say "well think yourselves lucky because in such and such a country they have FGM so things could be worse for you) so why do it with poverty.

And why is it always comparisons with Africa. Why not France or Germany.

ilovesooty Thu 25-Jul-13 01:23:51

It's over 50% in the area of Hull where I'm working two days a week at the moment.

Darkesteyes Thu 25-Jul-13 01:28:06

Sooty sad

Yanbu - not that it seems to matter too much to the media in general.

softlysoftly Thu 25-Jul-13 01:30:48

Just Tuesday?

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 01:38:53

around here its jumps from 7% (which i struggle to believe) to 34% a few roads away sad

matilda101 Thu 25-Jul-13 01:39:51

They shouldn't have been born. There are wars and means of preventing pregnancies.

FreudiansSlipper Thu 25-Jul-13 01:42:17

who shouldn't have been born?

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 04:48:35

How is what mummymeister said anything to do with a "race to the bottom"?

As long as poverty is defined as the poorest 25%, there will always be children born into poverty.

DoodleAlley Thu 25-Jul-13 06:18:58

This is a very serious issue. I have long said that Tuesday is the worst day of the week.

SwishSwoshSwoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 06:32:32

Don't have much time for posters whose only response is to quibble the measure tbh, they know full well there are people struggling and children really suffering in this country whatever measure is used.

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 06:37:02

So use a measure that actually measures poverty, instead of a measure by which a certain percentage of people are in poverty no matter how prosperous the country is. The same percentage of people are in poverty in every country in the world using that measure. Are you going to argue the same % of children are growing up poor in Switzerland as in Ethiopia?

I do not think throwing money at parents is the answer to anything, it just breeds resentment among those who do not have children, many of whom are struggling as much if not more than those who choose to have kids.

SwishSwoshSwoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 06:45:39

Stop telling me what you don't agree with tabitha and say something about what you would do. You know, I know, everyone knows there are large numbers of people really struggling.

I can't be doing with people who spout guff about an equal society causing resentment. Just have the balls to come out and say you don't want a more equal society because you don't give a toss about other people and you believe it could never happen to you. A least then I could respect you.

This same argument has been going for decades now. The same facts about more equal societies being happier, lower crime, higher social cohesion etc - they don't breed resentment. That is a load of drivel trotted out every time.

UseHerName Thu 25-Jul-13 06:51:07
redcaryellowcar Thu 25-Jul-13 06:53:41

I had thought poverty might be measured on some key things like income housing access to basics e.g tv which would then be comparable with other countries in Europe or further afield. I have to agree that whilst 'poorest' 25% are deemed to be living in poverty then the stat won't change and consequently means very little. Apologies for bein naive but I didn't know how it was measured.

Joiningthegang Thu 25-Jul-13 07:02:21

I would agree that poverty is relative - and many that are working are also in poverty - but the bottom x% will always be the bottom x% even when everyone gets richer.

Also - this is material poverty - you could have less income but a richer life iyswim.

The increase in food banks and change in benefits is going to make it much much worse.

In my day job I am working to increase the life chance of many children who are in "bad" situations due to addiction - leading to poverty. What will everyone be doing to change the lives of children - rather than just hand wringing?

If this is just s dig at baby George the yabu - no more his or Williams fault they were born to be king than those children's fault their dad is a heroin addict.

Mummymeister it's the median that is ued. And even if you were right and nationally the same proportion were in poverty this is showing variation across the country which is still interesting

SwishSwoshSwoosh Thu 25-Jul-13 07:11:17

Redcar - the question I would ask is, given the irrefutable facts that many UK families can not afford necessities, are you personally ok with that or do you think we should aim for more fairness?

Whenever there is a discussion about poverty it resorts to a debate about which measure we should use. Which is a convenient way of not having to think about the real people involved.

TabithaStephens Thu 25-Jul-13 07:12:31

We need to address the root causes of poverty, instead of throwing money around to relieve the symptoms. For all the increased spending under Labour, there was more poverty at the end of their government than there was at the start.

ANormalOne Thu 25-Jul-13 07:16:31

Tabitha And are all the cuts under the coalition doing anything to reduce poverty?

Mrchip Thu 25-Jul-13 07:17:42

Agree with mummymeister
I think Africa is an obvious comparison to show differences in what being the bottom 25% entails in different continents/countries.
Our bottom 25% have access to nhs, schools, lunch 5/7 days....
Whether those in poverty access the services available is a different matter and having worked in SureStart I'd say this is a big issue.

littlewhitebag Thu 25-Jul-13 07:18:05

What has Tuesday got to do with it?

<disclaimer: didn't read link>

I thought the poverty line was 70% of average family income.
Though that's a tricky measure too, as a handful of super high earners losing their jobs will lower the mean income, so can then be said to lift hundreds of families out of poverty. Those families will not be any better off, just shifted the other side of a notional line by a change in the average measure.
A living wage would go some way to alleviating poverty, as it can be used to ensure that families in full time work remain above the poverty line.
There will always be those who either will not or cannot work, for myriad reasons, but it seems unjust that minimum wage is so low that even full time workers need benefits to top up to a poverty line income.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now