The wonders of austerity

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Oh I know that a large swathe of the electorate are stupid and are easily swayed by the horrifically demonised image of those on benefits peddled by the BBC, the Daily Mail and the Government.

But you appear to be one of those people, to an extent.

No I bloody am not.

Actually read what I said for once not what you thought I said.

I said that the vast majority of people on benefits, who are perfectly normal people like you and me, were being tarred with the same brush as a tiny minority of irresponsible benefit claimants.

It's not right. It's certainly not fair or honest.

What needs to change is the whole tone of the debate. Benefits claimants are not scroungers as the Mail and other right wing media would have us believe.

So why are so few politicians standing up and taking these b*****ds on?

[Confidemus]

No I bloody am not.

Actually read what I said for once not what you thought I said.

I said that the vast majority of people on benefits, who are perfectly normal people like you and me, were being tarred with the same brush as a tiny minority of irresponsible benefit claimants.

It's not right. It's certainly not fair or honest.

What needs to change is the whole tone of the debate. Benefits claimants are not scroungers as the Mail and other right wing media would have us believe.

So why are so few politicians standing up and taking these b*****ds on?

If I misread what you said I apologise.

It angers me on a daily basis when I read and hear about "benefit scroungers" from people who have no fucking clue what it's like on benefits. I count myself fortunate to never have had to depend on benefits, but I do know that for 99.9% of claimants it's far from the cushy lifestyle that Daily Mail readers believe.

What angers me even more is the likes of Gideon Osborne and Cameron continually banging on about "hardworking people". How does that make people who physically can't work due to disability feel? I don't know how we can change it, but the Government and media need an attitude change and a touch more humility.

There but for the grace of the sky pixie go all of us.

[ayrmad]

No I bloody am not.

Actually read what I said for once not what you thought I said.

I said that the vast majority of people on benefits, who are perfectly normal people like you and me, were being tarred with the same brush as a tiny minority of irresponsible benefit claimants.

It's not right. It's certainly not fair or honest.

What needs to change is the whole tone of the debate. Benefits claimants are not scroungers as the Mail and other right wing media would have us believe.

So why are so few politicians standing up and taking these b*****ds on?

Because they're a bunch of slimy cheating I'm alright b*****ds who encourage/agree with them.

It might be different after a YES vote, it certainly won't after a NO vote.

[H_B]

Because they're a bunch of slimy cheating I'm alright b*****ds who encourage/agree with them.

It might be different after a YES vote, it certainly won't after a NO vote.

Why might it be different after a Yes vote but not a No vote?

Is the entire political elite leaving Scotland after we vote Yes including the expert liars in the SNP?

[Confidemus]

Why might it be different after a Yes vote but not a No vote?

I see you were up at the crack of dawn. What's the matter, couldn't sleep? Is your No vote weighing heavy on your conscience?

I think, deep down, you know WHY it will be different after a Yes vote but not a No vote. I think you're just being awkward.

[Confidemus]

Just got this email:

inShare4

An extra 30,000 Scottish children have been pushed into poverty over the past year, while as many as a million Scots live below the breadline when housing costs are taken into account, according to a new report from the Scottish Government.

Last year, Scotland’s economy grew, unemployment fell, exports rose and investment soared. But stagnating wages, Westminster cuts to benefits and tax credits and the rising cost of living have left families across the country struggling.

Indeed, today’s paper shows that in-work poverty is on the rise in Scotland. 60% of children living in poverty come from a household where at least one adult is in employment.

And the most worrying thing is that 70% of welfare cuts are still to come, while the Westminster parties plan to make further cuts to Scotland’s budget, jeopardising services and the quality of life of people living here.

The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that by 2020 an additional 100,000 Scots children will be pushed into poverty by appalling policies from a UK Government that the people of Scotland have rejected.

Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, in the top twenty according to the Financial Times. We are richer per head than the UK, France and Japan. Our public finances are healthier than the UK as a whole and we have an abundance of resources and economic strengths.

There is absolutely no good reason why, in a country as rich as Scotland, more and more of our children should be living in poverty. Yet it is no wonder that people in Scotland are feeling the pain when decisions about how to use our vast wealth and resources are left in the hands of distant and out-of-touch Westminster governments – governments which we did not vote for and which have different priorities from us.

Instead of wasting £250million of Scots taxpayer’s money a year on nuclear weapons and £50million on sending Scots MPs to Westminster, we should be using our resources to benefit our people.

Independence means Scotland can choose to end the brutal Tory austerity agenda which threatens our children’s wellbeing, and instead invest in better jobs, higher wages and a transformational increase in free childcare to give our children the best possible start in life.

With a Yes vote on September 18, we can make our resources work better for our people, and make sure that more people in Scotland feel the benefit of our country’s vast wealth.

Only by voting to put Scotland’s wealth and resources in Scotland’s hands can we reject the road Westminster is taking us down – and choose to create a better future for our children.

[Ad Lib]

In the interests of full disclosure, that 30,000 figure relates to relative poverty not absolute poverty. Relative poverty is defined as follows:

"Relative poverty: individuals living in households whose equivalisd income is below 60% per cent of the median income in the same year. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

This gives zero indication as to material deprivation, which is measured separately. What that 30,000 figure therefore represents is, we should be clear, emphatically not an increase by that amount in the number of children EITHER being "worse off" than before or forced into material deprivation.

What it discloses is that the distribution of growth in incomes is skewing towards the more affluent and those without children. that may well be a problem, and it may contribute towards some children in Scotland becoming materially worse off, some of whom may in consequence of that be driven into poverty. But the number of Scottish children in either absolute poverty or significant material deprivation categorically has not increased by 30,000.

[Baxter Parp]

In the interests of full disclosure, that 30,000 figure relates to relative poverty not absolute poverty. Relative poverty is defined as follows:

"Relative poverty: individuals living in households whose equivalisd income is below 60% per cent of the median income in the same year. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

This gives zero indication as to material deprivation, which is measured separately. What that 30,000 figure therefore represents is, we should be clear, emphatically not an increase by that amount in the number of children EITHER being "worse off" than before or forced into material deprivation.

What it discloses is that the distribution of growth in incomes is skewing towards the more affluent and those without children. that may well be a problem, and it may contribute towards some children in Scotland becoming materially worse off, some of whom may in consequence of that be driven into poverty. But the number of Scottish children in either absolute poverty or significant material deprivation categorically has not increased by 30,000.

But the number in relative poverty has. Thank you for your contribution.

Incidentally 60% of the median income is something like £14000 per household so f**k your pedantry.

[Confidemus]

In the interests of full disclosure, that 30,000 figure relates to relative poverty not absolute poverty. Relative poverty is defined as follows:

"Relative poverty: individuals living in households whose equivalisd income is below 60% per cent of the median income in the same year. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

This gives zero indication as to material deprivation, which is measured separately. What that 30,000 figure therefore represents is, we should be clear, emphatically not an increase by that amount in the number of children EITHER being "worse off" than before or forced into material deprivation.

What it discloses is that the distribution of growth in incomes is skewing towards the more affluent and those without children. that may well be a problem, and it may contribute towards some children in Scotland becoming materially worse off, some of whom may in consequence of that be driven into poverty. But the number of Scottish children in either absolute poverty or significant material deprivation categorically has not increased by 30,000.

Wow. That's some amount of whataboutery to cover up the poverty and destitution your party have assisted in giving to the poor of this country.

[Baxter Parp]

In the interests of full disclosure, that 30,000 figure relates to relative poverty not absolute poverty. Relative poverty is defined as follows:

"Relative poverty: individuals living in households whose equivalisd income is below 60% per cent of the median income in the same year. This is a measure of whether those in the lowest income households are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole."

This gives zero indication as to material deprivation, which is measured separately. What that 30,000 figure therefore represents is, we should be clear, emphatically not an increase by that amount in the number of children EITHER being "worse off" than before or forced into material deprivation.

What it discloses is that the distribution of growth in incomes is skewing towards the more affluent and those without children. that may well be a problem, and it may contribute towards some children in Scotland becoming materially worse off, some of whom may in consequence of that be driven into poverty. But the number of Scottish children in either absolute poverty or significant material deprivation categorically has not increased by 30,000.

[Baxter Parp]

It's really not that worrying.

...if you're a c**t.

[Ad Lib]

But the number in relative poverty has. Thank you for your contribution.

Incidentally 60% of the median income is something like £14000 per household so f**k your pedantry.

When relative poverty is defined as a percentage of median household earnings, "relative poverty" will increase only if the incomes of those in the fifth/sixth decile increase faster than the prevailing increases in incomes below them. This means that people just above the "relative poverty" line can be dragged into "relative poverty" even if their own household income increases by above the rate of inflation, because the incomes of people in early career professions or experienced skilled labour increase by more. Perversely, if all of the rise in incomes accrued to the highest earning 50% of the population, there would be more inequality, but no effect whatsoever on the relative poverty line!

Here's an example why this measurement is not a useful indicator of poverty. The UK median household income is about £25k. The "relative poverty" line, defined as 60% of median household income, is therefore about £15k. If all the households earning in the region of £24-26kpa received a £2kpa increase in their pay (the equivalent of about £1 wage rate rise), the national median wage would rise to about £27kpa. This would raise the relative poverty line to over £16kpa. Let's then say that the UK introduces a living wage (£7.65 outside of London according to the Living Wage Foundation) to replace the minimum wage (£6.19), which would raise the income of the lowest paid full-time workers from about £12.5kpa to just over £15kpa. This would have zero effect on the median wage.

In such a scenario, those who were now in receipt of the living wage, a popular and progressive policy, would still be classified as living in relative poverty, but those who, before the policy, earned marginally less than them, would have been considered "not in relative poverty" before these changes took effect. All of this against a background where the incomes of the lowest 50% in our society increase quite dramatically.

Compare this with a situation where there is no increase in the wages of those earning £30kpa or less, but the top 30% of earners see an increase in their incomes of 5%. The median doesn't move, society becomes less equal, and the lot of the poor does not get better. Yet, according to the statistics, fewer people are in relative poverty.

[Confidemus]

When relative poverty is defined as a percentage of median household earnings, "relative poverty" will increase only if the incomes of those in the fifth/sixth decile increase faster than the prevailing increases in incomes below them. This means that people just above the "relative poverty" line can be dragged into "relative poverty" even if their own household income increases by above the rate of inflation, because the incomes of people in early career professions or experienced skilled labour increase by more. Perversely, if all of the rise in incomes accrued to the highest earning 50% of the population, there would be more inequality, but no effect whatsoever on the relative poverty line!

Here's an example why this measurement is not a useful indicator of poverty. The UK median household income is about £25k. The "relative poverty" line, defined as 60% of median household income, is therefore about £15k. If all the households earning in the region of £24-26kpa received a £2kpa increase in their pay (the equivalent of about £1 wage rate rise), the national median wage would rise to about £27kpa. This would raise the relative poverty line to over £16kpa. Let's then say that the UK introduces a living wage (£7.65 outside of London according to the Living Wage Foundation) to replace the minimum wage (£6.19), which would raise the income of the lowest paid full-time workers from about £12.5kpa to just over £15kpa. This would have zero effect on the median wage.

In such a scenario, those who were now in receipt of the living wage, a popular and progressive policy, would still be classified as living in relative poverty, but those who, before the policy, earned marginally less than them, would have been considered "not in relative poverty" before these changes took effect. All of this against a background where the incomes of the lowest 50% in our society increase quite dramatically.

Compare this with a situation where there is no increase in the wages of those earning £30kpa or less, but the top 30% of earners see an increase in their incomes of 5%. The median doesn't move, society becomes less equal, and the lot of the poor does not get better. Yet, according to the statistics, fewer people are in relative poverty.

And there we have it, ladies and gents. Poverty is not an issue in Scotland. Ad Lib has bored it away with yet more tl;dr fluff.

[Baxter Parp]

When relative poverty is defined as a percentage of median household earnings, "relative poverty" will increase only if the incomes of those in the fifth/sixth decile increase faster than the prevailing increases in incomes below them. This means that people just above the "relative poverty" line can be dragged into "relative poverty" even if their own household income increases by above the rate of inflation, because the incomes of people in early career professions or experienced skilled labour increase by more. Perversely, if all of the rise in incomes accrued to the highest earning 50% of the population, there would be more inequality, but no effect whatsoever on the relative poverty line!

Here's an example why this measurement is not a useful indicator of poverty. The UK median household income is about £25k. The "relative poverty" line, defined as 60% of median household income, is therefore about £15k. If all the households earning in the region of £24-26kpa received a £2kpa increase in their pay (the equivalent of about £1 wage rate rise), the national median wage would rise to about £27kpa. This would raise the relative poverty line to over £16kpa. Let's then say that the UK introduces a living wage (£7.65 outside of London according to the Living Wage Foundation) to replace the minimum wage (£6.19), which would raise the income of the lowest paid full-time workers from about £12.5kpa to just over £15kpa. This would have zero effect on the median wage.

In such a scenario, those who were now in receipt of the living wage, a popular and progressive policy, would still be classified as living in relative poverty, but those who, before the policy, earned marginally less than them, would have been considered "not in relative poverty" before these changes took effect. All of this against a background where the incomes of the lowest 50% in our society increase quite dramatically.

Compare this with a situation where there is no increase in the wages of those earning £30kpa or less, but the top 30% of earners see an increase in their incomes of 5%. The median doesn't move, society becomes less equal, and the lot of the poor does not get better. Yet, according to the statistics, fewer people are in relative poverty.

Pish from the Lib Dem apologist.

[Ad Lib]

And there we have it, ladies and gents. Poverty is not an issue in Scotland. Ad Lib has bored it away with yet more tl;dr fluff.

No. That is not what I said. I have merely explained why this 30,000 figure is meaningless and not an accurate measure of poverty in Scotland. Poverty is a very real issue in the UK, just as it is in every society on the planet. We should deal with actual evidence of deprivation, though, not flawed measures which make it possible to argue that poor people with higher household incomes in societies with less extreme wealth at the top are worse off than those with lower household incomes in societies with more extreme wealth at the top, but with poorer typical earner households.

[doulikefish]

Better nukes is the answer,that will sort it right out

[ayrmad]

No. That is not what I said. I have merely explained why this 30,000 figure is meaningless and not an accurate measure of poverty in Scotland. Poverty is a very real issue in the UK, just as it is in every society on the planet. We should deal with actual evidence of deprivation, though, not flawed measures which make it possible to argue that poor people with higher household incomes in societies with less extreme wealth at the top are worse off than those with lower household incomes in societies with more extreme wealth at the top, but with poorer typical earner households.

How would you measure poverty in Scotland?

[Ad Lib]

How would you measure poverty in Scotland?

By material deprivation.

ETA: It's worth noting that the current level of "relative poverty" among children in Scotland is down from 28% in 1999 to 19% in 2013. The "increase" about which this press release talks still places us with fewer children in "relative poverty" than in 2009. The proportion for the "absolute poverty" measure (which itself isn't a measure of absolute poverty at all, but one of low incomes relative to inflation) sees a decline from 36% to 20% over the same period, now finding itself at the levels of 2009.

We only started to measure material deprivation in 2004, when it was at about 17% (compared to absolute and relative poverty which were, at that point, 21%). Since then, material deprivation has declined to a low of 9% in 2012 and rose to about 11% this year. That 11% is still lower than any year other than 2011 since they introduced it. The rise in material deprivation is also smaller than the only other year in which we have seen an increase in it. That happened under Labour in 2006, when it rose from 13% to 16%.

Put simply, by relative poverty, by absolute poverty, or by material deprivation, despite the scaremongering of the Yes campaign, there has scarcely been a better period in history to be a young person with respect to poverty in the United Kingdom.

This is not a reason to be complacent, and much work is to be done. But heralding a doomsday on the basis of figures that say we are about as deprived society as we were in 2009 and a much less deprived society than we were for the overwhelming majority of 13 years of Labour Government isn't evidence of a moral atrocity committed by our current set of politicians.

[ayrmad]

By material deprivation.

And what is material deprivation in Maryhill?

[10 CC ICT]

By material deprivation.

ETA: It's worth noting that the current level of "relative poverty" among children in Scotland is down from 28% in 1999 to 19% in 2013. The "increase" about which this press release talks still places us with fewer children in "relative poverty" than in 2009. The proportion for the "absolute poverty" measure (which itself isn't a measure of absolute poverty at all, but one of low incomes relative to inflation) sees a decline from 36% to 20% over the same period, now finding itself at the levels of 2009.

We only started to measure material deprivation in 2004, when it was at about 17% (compared to absolute and relative poverty which were, at that point, 21%). Since then, material deprivation has declined to a low of 9% in 2012 and rose to about 11% this year. That 11% is still lower than any year other than 2011 since they introduced it. The rise in material deprivation is also smaller than the only other year in which we have seen an increase in it. That happened under Labour in 2006, when it rose from 13% to 16%.

Put simply, by relative poverty, by absolute poverty, or by material deprivation, despite the scaremongering of the Yes campaign, there has scarcely been a better period in history to be a young person with respect to poverty in the United Kingdom.

This is not a reason to be complacent, and much work is to be done. But heralding a doomsday on the basis of figures that say we are about as deprived society as we were in 2009 and a much less deprived society than we were for the overwhelming majority of 13 years of Labour Government isn't evidence of a moral atrocity committed by our current set of politicians.

I suppose access to foodbanks has reduced the "absolute" poverty level.

Yay LibDems, WooFuckingHoo!