Modern Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ighest-level-since-2010-official-figures-show

 

It's only. Going to get worse

 

Highest since Labour were in office. Terrible.

 

' there are more people in poverty in the UK than there have been for 20 years and a million more than at the beginning of the decade.

Makes you proud doesn't it?

 

Trying to turn a massive Tory failing of the people into a jab at labour. Dispicable man/ boy/ whatever you are

 

But it is the highest since Labour were in office. That's a fact, presented in the article. Along with the fact that there's still less inequality and poverty than there was before the financial crisis. But you're right, I don't give a **** about "the people". You could starve for all I care.

 

Guardian balls as usual, go to india or africa if you want to see poverty.

The rich are getting richer but the poor aren't getting poorer, they're just not getting richer as fast.

Massive EU immigration has been the major reason for this, and why wages haven't gone up with inflation, all due to a Labour government and the EU. But of course labour are for the poor, not for people in North London who want cheap nannies and plumbers.

 

The

You understand right that 2008 was low benchmark for child poverty that after the massive amount of child poverty inherited in 1997 it was finally under control. It rose after the financial crisis but still nowhere near pre 1997 levels. Then after 2010 because targets on child poverty were not being met the way it was calculated was changed by the coalition hence the 2010 comparison. In real terms in 6 years a million more children ( even under the revised method of calculation) are in extreme poverty.

Makes you proud.

Again I would have thought that the highest level of poverty in the UK for 20 years was a pretty straightforward statement.

Great Britain.

 

I have lived in India. Have you?

The Guardian didn't commission thr report. No party disputes it's findings.

I understand you are probably insane but the poor are not getting poorer is a classic. You are aware that the Red Cross for the first time since WW2 sends food parcels to the UK and talks about a humanitarian crisis.

 

There are now IT jobs in Mumbai and Bangalore paying more than the equivalent jobs in Sheffield. Poor India is still poor, but the GDP of India has now overtaken that of the UK thanks to the devaluation of the pound. The levels of education are as good, if not better than ours too.

BTW Successive governments have not controlled immigration because of the increasing pension bill. Over the next 10 years, we need at least an extra 200,000 workers *each year* earning the average wage just to cover the extra people retiring - if all their taxes go towards that. That does not cover the shortfall between those leaving school and entering the workforce and those retiring. If you just used their NI contribution, its nearer double that and it does not account for the extra healthcare costs associated with an increasingly aging population. EU migrants (who are significantly more likely to be Christian or atheist) are net tax contributors, whereas non-EU migrants are not.

 

Ball cocks.

 

As a software developer who's job was outsourced to the lads in Mumbai (some of whom I had to train before I left), I'd say that if they are getting as much money as people doing the same job in Sheffield, then they are MASSIVELY OVERPAID. To say that they hadn't a clue would have been generous. To a man they were fine pleasant people and keen to learn but as software developers they had a long long way to go. After I left they had to take on a succession of local (British) contractors to do my job - alongside the 3 Indian lads. They are still in the same boat from what I've heard from former workmates.

 

Folks need to stop having kids if they're unable to take care of them.

 

There are many factors that contribute to relative poverty; it is not a Tory manifesto pledge as some believe.

Is it really an issue of modern Britain? Was there less poverty in the past; of course there wasn't. Even as recently as the 70s, a time that a lot on here will remember, there was more poverty than there is today.

Relative poverty is different to poverty.

 

Having worked with Indian colleagues for nearly a decade I'd completely agree. We had server support people who had never actually seen a server (I know its not as important now, but at the time it was). The guys who came over here for a spell were significantly better than those that just worked in India, but as always there were good and bad ones. The devaluation of the pound over the last year has significantly brought the differential down.

For examples:
https://www.naukri.com/job-listings...9741975725&xp=14&qp=cloud architect&srcPage=s
https://www.naukri.com/job-listings...9741975725&xp=20&qp=cloud architect&srcPage=s
£36k or so in pounds

https://www.naukri.com/job-listings...9741975725&xp=27&qp=cloud architect&srcPage=s
£43k

Those are just examples, and probably top-end ones. Most of the roles were not disclosed, but compared to a similar job in Sheffield:
https://www.jobserve.com/gb/en/sear...gdom/DOTNET-CLOUD-DEVELOPER-72E8CCE3675A3414/
Paying £30-45k.

Leeds and Manchester pay a lot more for the same roles to be fair - in some cases 30+%

Wage inflation in the major tech cities in India has been in double-figures for years, and about 20-30% of staff leave every year. They rock up to a company, work for a couple of years then jump to the next company for a pay rise. Its a constant merry-go-round.

 

Whilst I do not subscribe to Gloria Stitts more extreme right wing views I do find the current definition of 'poverty' as used here a bit OTT. i.e. 60% median average wage. As quality of life / expectations improve, even those on low wages enjoy a standard of living in this country that people from the 30s and 50s would envy. The last time I looked there were no children playing in the streets without shoes on their feet like you saw in 1930w newsreels nor desperately malnourished kids (except where a minority of parents are guilty of neglect and spend money on drugs etc rather than their kids).. That said I do not agree with the oft stated right wing comments that poverty is defined as kids not having a gamestation in their bedroom and it is the fault of work shy scroungers.. The welfare state is not perfect . Neverthess, there has over the years, been an attitude that benefits are a right, or a lifestyle,rather than a safety net. Limited resources should be used to provide for those in most desperate need and not 'diluted' by those who work the system. Only anyone with extreme left wing views (and I am not accusing you of this) would disagree.

 

I couldn't agree more.

Saying kids are in poverty simply outrages those who are already permanently outraged or gives those who are minded a simple option to dismiss and undermine the point.

It doesn't change anything or anyone's opinion - and simply gives the populists another stick to beat the establishment with - especially when reported in the Guardian of all papers.

I'm not sure whether creating a minimum standard of living would be better - but that wouldn't work as it would be constantly challenged from both sides as to what was deemed a minimum requirement - and not least then the calls to minimum benefit levels to meet that standard.

I can't help think that this vague standard simply helps both sides keep their voters suitably in line without actually forcing either side to do anything about it.

 

I volunteer twice a week in a food bank. Poverty is real and getting worse. Mainly people in work mainly not able to make ends meet not having money for food after bills. Charities and government subsidising very rich and profitable companies to keep people poor. When people talk about the benefits bill most benefits are given to in work claimants propping up these companies and lining the pockets of exploitative landlords.

Kids not going to school because they can't afford sanitary products.

Zero hours contracts that leave people close to the edge if financial meltdown

The red cross delivering food parcels for the first time since the war.

It's easy to ignore these things and to an extent I agree that crude markers of poverty are not helpful but it doesn't mean they aren't happening.

 

These figures are very skewed, partly by the fact that there is no source to obtain accurate income details of the whole country. Along with the definition of poverty and analysing what those people in said 'poverty' actually spend their incomes on. Yes government policies play a part but also some elements should be looked at such as what the people in poverty are doing for themselves to get out of this bracket. Many will be genuinely struggling, others will bring it on themselves. What about the people who actually feel zero hours contracts work for them? What about those who don't want to get a job? What about those people who are content in their job and lifestyle but have been placed in this so called poverty bracket? On a personal level I looked at my finances and I must say that between the Labour government, Conlibs, Conservtives, not much has changed, if anything I'm slightly better off now than in 1997 taking into account taxes, spending vs income.

 

I'm not sure you can say people aren't living in poverty because the standard of life is better than it was 80 years ago. Median household income for 2 adults is apparently around £23,500. I'd say an income of £14,100 for a 2 adult household is pretty poor.