This child poverty thing is one of my pet gripes.
Recent figures reckon there are 2.3 million kids in poverty in the UK HERE
My opinion is that although there are, shall we say, less better off, or financially deprived kids in the UK, poverty, as I understand it does not exist here.
I am not saying we shouldn't be helping some of those at the bottom of the heap, it is simply the description that they are in 'poverty' that gets up my nose.
Now after that preamble I have happened across an article that seems to agree with me, and it appears that the definition as it is used, means there will always be people seen as poverty stricken however rich we become. HERE
UK Poverty.....again ?
UK Poverty.....again ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
UK Poverty.....again ?
Bruv;1481426 wrote: This child poverty thing is one of my pet gripes.
Recent figures reckon there are 2.3 million kids in poverty in the UK HERE
My opinion is that although there are, shall we say, less better off, or financially deprived kids in the UK, poverty, as I understand it does not exist here.
I am not saying we shouldn't be helping some of those at the bottom of the heap, it is simply the description that they are in 'poverty' that gets up my nose.
Now after that preamble I have happened across an article that seems to agree with me, and it appears that the definition as it is used, means there will always be people seen as poverty stricken however rich we become. HERE
It's all relative, Bruv. Back in the 20's, poor people often struggled to put enough food on the table to avoid malnutrition, and to provide decent clothes for kids. Shoes were a luxury. Long (16-odd) hours of work were commonplace in those times as well. How times have changed. But anything that changes once, can change again...
for better OR worse.
For example, the bee colonies in the UK are under threat of extinction from several directions (Varoa mite, pesticides, habitat/climate change). If we lose them, pollination of plants will be adversely curtailed, leaving plants struggling to reproduce.
If/when this happens, crops will be at a premium, and so will the price of food! Especially if this trend is duplicated world-wide.
Einstein once stated that mankind will die out a few years after the bees....
Recent figures reckon there are 2.3 million kids in poverty in the UK HERE
My opinion is that although there are, shall we say, less better off, or financially deprived kids in the UK, poverty, as I understand it does not exist here.
I am not saying we shouldn't be helping some of those at the bottom of the heap, it is simply the description that they are in 'poverty' that gets up my nose.
Now after that preamble I have happened across an article that seems to agree with me, and it appears that the definition as it is used, means there will always be people seen as poverty stricken however rich we become. HERE
It's all relative, Bruv. Back in the 20's, poor people often struggled to put enough food on the table to avoid malnutrition, and to provide decent clothes for kids. Shoes were a luxury. Long (16-odd) hours of work were commonplace in those times as well. How times have changed. But anything that changes once, can change again...
for better OR worse.
For example, the bee colonies in the UK are under threat of extinction from several directions (Varoa mite, pesticides, habitat/climate change). If we lose them, pollination of plants will be adversely curtailed, leaving plants struggling to reproduce.
If/when this happens, crops will be at a premium, and so will the price of food! Especially if this trend is duplicated world-wide.
Einstein once stated that mankind will die out a few years after the bees....
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
UK Poverty.....again ?
The definition of poverty that puts 2.3 children in poverty is "somebody is poor if they live in a household on below 60pc of median earnings, regardless of their actual quality of life or access to essentials" according to the article I linked to.......
“Poverty would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year, unless – or until – all top earners were taxed out of existence."
“Poverty would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year, unless – or until – all top earners were taxed out of existence."
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
UK Poverty.....again ?
Bruv;1481465 wrote: The definition of poverty that puts 2.3 children in poverty is "somebody is poor if they live in a household on below 60pc of median earnings, regardless of their actual quality of life or access to essentials" according to the article I linked to.......
“Poverty would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year, unless – or until – all top earners were taxed out of existence."
Shows what spin can be put on something. Today's standard of living is generally much higher now than in the 1920's, as is life expectancy. Spending power too.
“Poverty would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year, unless – or until – all top earners were taxed out of existence."
Shows what spin can be put on something. Today's standard of living is generally much higher now than in the 1920's, as is life expectancy. Spending power too.
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
UK Poverty.....again ?
Even the wording is ambiguous.
"Median". As I recall, that is the methods of working averages by taking the highest figure & the lowest figure & plotting the point smack bang between the 2.
"Mode" takes that which occurs most often.
"Mean", is the most commonly used, adding them all up & dividing by the number of cases used.
Therefore, the averages of 1, 2, 2, 10, 1000 would be...
Median: 500
Mode: 2
Mean: 203
Three very different results - all of which are 'Average'.
"Median". As I recall, that is the methods of working averages by taking the highest figure & the lowest figure & plotting the point smack bang between the 2.
"Mode" takes that which occurs most often.
"Mean", is the most commonly used, adding them all up & dividing by the number of cases used.
Therefore, the averages of 1, 2, 2, 10, 1000 would be...
Median: 500
Mode: 2
Mean: 203
Three very different results - all of which are 'Average'.