More on this

[davywavy]

Amongst the comments to my earlier post, several people have raised questions about the definitions of poverty and their validity; especially that covered by Oxfam, which defines poverty as less than 60 of the national median disposable income.

According to the national office of statistics, after rent, bills and necessities are paid, this figure is £194 per week per household. If you're living on less than that, Oxfam says you're living in poverty; they don't appear to differentiate between households of people living alone and households with a dozen squalling children crammed into the front room because, as we all know, there's no difference in living costs between the two.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

That's us, David! We're officially poor! Right-ho, here goes

Dear David's readers,

This year, let's all help to "Make Poverty History."
Armbands whose sale will go to a fairer redistribution of the world's wealth can be obtained from this Livejournal, price £10 each. [note to David, I'll run these up from old yoghurt cartons if you deal with the distribution side, we'll split the proceeds*] And you too can do your bit towards eradicating hardship in the UK!

Thank you for your support.

The Wade Towers "Make Poverty History" Campaign

*80:20 to me

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Wow, I'm about 150 quid over the poverty line (calculated monthly) and my rent is relatively cheap. I need to show this to my employer...

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

It is quite likely that Oxfam may have a silly method for overall defining poverty, but it in no ways reduces the importance of the work they do.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

This was my basic point; by using such a ridiculous and unrealistic standard, they undermine their credibility and remove focus from actual problems which need dealing with.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Can we afford yoghurt cartons, Fagin?

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

That's true. It undermines them in the eyes of... who exactly?

Anyone smart enough to spend time calculating their statistics is smart enouh to realise that any mathematical measurement of poverty is meaningless in face of the complexity of the issue of poverty, and that some statistics should not be poked.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't you worry, Dodger, some people actually throw them away with the recycling. You can go out and get them back.

Fagin

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So we shouldn't poke a statistic saying "one person in four" when it's just not true?
I believe in truth in advertising myself.

And it's not the people who are smart enough to do the maths I'm worried about; it's the ones who aren't, and who are instead emotionally blackmailed into supporting something based upon false premises.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Frow them away? But there's good eating on an empty yoghurt carton!
For them as is rich enough to afford them, that is.

[borusa.livejournal.com]

How is "Disposable Income" defined?

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

One in four people is Chinese.

[borusa.livejournal.com]

And it's not the people who are smart enough to do the maths I'm worried about; it's the ones who aren't, and who are instead emotionally blackmailed into supporting something based upon false premises.

*cough*. You're about to regret that.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

Why? We can measure the distance to the moon, but poverty is something we cannot and should not understand?

What strikes me as odd about the UK poverty debate is that the vast majority of people raising it as a problem are not themselves poor.

[(Anonymous)]

That would be whatever's left after one has paid out for the weekly essentials of life, such as Orangettes, single malt, Emma Peel DVD's and suchlike.

H

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

The rich and enfranchised have to speak for the poor and disenfranchised.

And a mathematical measurement of distance is piss simple. A mathematical measurement of something as human and complex as poverty is ridiculous, it's like someone trying to mathematically measure attraction.

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

Someone needs themselves an LJ...

[twicedead.livejournal.com]

I'm not particularly bothered by it. Sure if someone were using it to rip people off them I would want to see them exposed, but people should be emotionally blackmailed into helping the poor of the world.

[borusa.livejournal.com]

That would be whatever's left after one has paid out for the weekly essentials of life, such as Orangettes, single malt, Emma Peel DVD's and suchlike.

And you fail basic economics, with an additional failure in elementary web page reading, subcategorised as "the small writing at the bottom".

Disposable income is gross income minus taxes, NI contributions and pensions contributions, plus interest from savings, plus or minus some other, comparatively insignificant and uncommon things.

It _does not_ include rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing or transport.

I quote (from the page davywavy linked to :-


The income data in the distribution of income chart are adjusted to 2002/03 prices using the Retail Prices Index less local taxes and are before the deduction of housing costs.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

"The amount of personal income an individual has after taxes and government fees, which can be spent on necessities, or non-essentials, or be saved."

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

In case you're wondering, I still qualify - us company directors get minimum wage, you know.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, well, I'd rather my Basic Economics failed than my sense of humour.

H

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

No they aren't - 6.446 billion people, 1.306 billion Chinese. It's closer to one in five.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not one of the poor of the world, but I still meet their criteria. I'm not sure that's right.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

The rich and enfranchised have to speak for the poor and disenfranchised.

That's the most patronising thing I've heard in politics in weeks - well done. Why can they not speak for themselves?

Attraction is immesurable because it is based on feelings. Poverty is about easily determinable things like not having enough to eat or not having clean water, widespread problems in the third world but very rare in this country, except among people recently arrived from third world countries with nothing.

[borusa.livejournal.com]

Eh? I grinned at the Emma Peel comments, posted what I was going to post anyway when someone replied that, with what I thought was a fairly jocular comment, and then you insult me?

Don't think it's my sense of humour that's failed.