Child poverty

[Arthur]

 

Don't forget, it isn't the people in work who are subsidising those on benefits, it the reverse which is true. In an economy which has lost the mass employment manufacturing industries, it is those who are taking a very much reduced cut of the national wealth who enable those who are still in employment to maintain their levels of income. Look at all the industries which have increased profitability by drastically cutting the number of people they employ, meaning that those who keep their jobs can enjoy higher levels of income while those who are no longer required have to live on much less. If instead of reducing the number of employees those businesses had shared out the hours among all their workers income levels would be more equitable but the incomes of those now in work would be lower. How many people in work would support a cut in the working week of say 15% along with the corresponding reduction in income in order to create jobs for those who are unemployed? Very little 'work' actually increases the total wealth of the nation. In fact some, which rely on imported goods or materials but only sell within the UK, can be seen to reduce it. Employment acts predominantly as a means of circulating wealth around the economy rather than creating it. The more people who are outside that circle of wealth the larger the share for those who are within.

 

A frightening picture until considered in the light of the fact that despite large numbers of economic immigrants and the worst recession since the 1930's, the Employment rate in this country is still 92%, the vast majority of people eligible to work are still working and earning. In the recent years of boom, 2002-2004, it was only a little higher at 95%. To suggest that vast numbers are currently being squeezed out of employment is wrong. A tragedy for those who are yes, but most people are still in work.

To suggest that those unemployed are subsidising those in work by leaving jobs for them is the logic of the asylum. To put it bluntly, the employed would survive without the unemployed, would the reverse be true? (and don't take that out of context, I know that any of us could be unemployed at any time and need help, I use it merely to illustrate the absurdity of the concept).

[NGT6 1315]

My advice to all of you concerned about such issues would be to disregard the malevolent, malicious bile that passes for journalism in the UK media. It seems to me that the media today are on a mission to spread as much hatred and anger about certain matters as they can. Some of their content would shame a 1938 copy of the Frankfurter Allegemeine.

 

As I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about specific social issues in the UK, I probably cannot comment on them with a sufficient kind of background knowledge to appraise them soundly, but one thought that just crossed my mind a few minutes ago is related to this observation you made and which I believe I can comment on, as the situation here in Germany is not all that different from the one in the UK you described.

 

I guess you could say I am afraid that just disregarding blatant and willful misrepresentations such as those you described is easier said than done for many of those who, by all standards, are being unfairly targetted that way...and who will, sadly, most likely continue to find them in a situation where they need to pointlessly defend and justify themselves for as long as there is a receptive audience for such things like tabloids and bilge TV programming. Of course, this observation will then also apply to those who are not in dire straits themselves, but continue to speak up for those who are.

 

Then, of course, there is the question of what makes people receptive for such misrepresentations in the first place, which might otherwise be fairly obvious and easily recognised as such. In a nutshell, I do tend to believe it may have much to do with people harbouring lingering fears of being really badly off themselves, and thus deflecting their horror at the sheer thought of so being at those faceless "others" who are so easily targetted due to their very facelessness. On one hand, I can understand the basis of that kind of fear, but at the same time I certainly cannot condone the kind of result I've just been describing.

[BlackRat]

Pick up the phone, ring your nearest nick (if you can get through) and ask for the Beat Manager for the local sink' estate (as they are patronisingly called).

 

Ask for a trip out and about with him, (many forces now encourage this) and ask him to show you deprivation and poverty.

 

Its there, it exists, its real.

 

Even in sweet old Devon and Cornwall. The view may be nice, there may be roses around the door, but its what you see inside, like I do, most days.

 

But of course its relative, especially in comparison to some countries I have visited.

 

One thing I did notice tho, despite grinding poverty in places like Sri Lanka, India etc the people I have met have been the kindest and even those with almost nothing at all would still share anything they had with you.

[edcayton]

If everyone on benefits was shot then Jeremy Kyle and his team would be thrown on the (s)crap heap. Be very careful what you wish for.

 

Ed

[Jamie]

If everyone on benefits was shot then Jeremy Kyle and his team would be thrown on the (s)crap heap. Be very careful what you wish for.

 

Ed

Think we'd be wise to take a few steps back from notions of shooting the poor/disabled/elderly who claim benefits, tbh.

[arran]

Pick up the phone, ring your nearest nick (if you can get through) and ask for the Beat Manager for the local sink' estate (as they are patronisingly called).

 

Ask for a trip out and about with him, (many forces now encourage this) and ask him to show you deprivation and poverty.

 

Its there, it exists, its real.

 

Even in sweet old Devon and Cornwall. The view may be nice, there may be roses around the door, but its what you see inside, like I do, most days.

 

But of course its relative, especially in comparison to some countries I have visited.

 

One thing I did notice tho, despite grinding poverty in places like Sri Lanka, India etc the people I have met have been the kindest and even those with almost nothing at all would still share anything they had with you.

 

You can always tell the houses as they have the toys all spread around the garden, the place usually looks like a bomb has go of in Toysrus.

you dont get the cars so much now as there worth to much as scrap so they have been sold for some special lager and fags.

 

and the thing is these people have the worst landlord known to man "the council"

 

Regards Arran

[Guest Natalie Graham]

Arthur, while what I describe may be counter-intuitive it is, nonetheless, the reality. I will give a simple illustration: My sister works at a further education college. Recently they had to make a reduction of, I think, 15% off their wages costs. The ideas was mooted that everyone could take a 15% pay cut. This was dismissed as people didn't want to work for less money. So the result was jobs cuts and redundancies. Thus some of the workforce are now unemployed and receiving less money while those who remained in work have maintained their incomes. This has been the situation throughout the UK economy for at least the last thirty years. Businesses have cut staff to retain their profitability meaning that those who were retained have been able to maintain their incomes because others have become unemployed.

 

I am surprised you don't consider between 5% and 8% of the total UK workforce to be a vast number (although if it is not then there seems little reason to be concerned over the cost of paying them benefits) but the fact remains that those people exist and some means of enabling them to survive needs to be in place. You ask.could the unemployed survive without the employed? Well I am sure that they could survive, as could we all, without a great many of those who are employed. For example if every luxury car dealer, airline, five star hotel and Michelin starred restaurant laid off all their staff tomorrow the impact on the lives of the great majority of unemployed people would be minimal.

 

More importantly, in terms of overall wealth, the country could also manage without them. As I posted earlier most 'work' does not create wealth it merely serves to circulate it around the economy. Take for example, (as it's a model railway forum) Hornby's UK activities. They import their models from China and sell them mostly to buyers in the UK. Therefore every time Hornby sells one of its products it actually costs the economy money. In terms of total wealth the UK would benefit if Hornby closed its doors right away. However the people employed by Hornby and those who sell its products and other model railway products which supplement them would lose their jobs and no longer be part of the work economy.

 

Unless you could get all those out of work into jobs directly leading to export sales it would do nothing to increase the total wealth of the UK economy, indeed it could lead to a decrease in the total wealth of the nation. Therefore it must follow that if an additional 8% of the population were to receive an increased share of that wealth through being in paid employment then there will be less to share among the other 92%. Clearly, as your figures suggest, the idea of getting them all into employment has not proved possible since even in the 'boom' only 95% were in work.

 

That figure also masks the nature of unemployment rates. I read recently that in North Ayrshire the unemployment rate has now topped 25%. Those areas where employment was traditionally in heavy, labour-intensive, industries are typically where the large numbers of long-term unemployed people are. Even if we were able to re-instate those industries they would now be mechanised and automated and have no places for those unskilled or semi-skilled workers who would traditionally have worked in them. In a region where a quarter of the people are unemployed and are therefore largely excluded from a work-based economy then relying on them getting jobs to solve the issues involved isn't going to work.

 

Unless we can overcome the experience of the last 30+ years and get back to close to full employment and in particular generate employment for those who would traditionally have gone into the mass-employment manufacturing industries we will need to accept that the unemployed are a natural part of our economy and, indeed, enable others to enjoy a better standard of living or come up with an alternative to total reliance on employment as the means of distribution wealth around the economy.

[tetleys]

I appear to have kicked the hornets nest but at least I now have some notion of the criterior used by politicians. I certainly know that there is genuine hardship out there such as Natalie describes but am I correct to assume that Natalie has no children sharing her roof, if this is the case maybe that is why she is struggling, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that more children does generate more benefits.

 

It is a shame that the plight of genuine hardship cases has been 'hijacked' by others to further their own ajenda, I hope Natalie and other genuine cases soon find a resolution.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Blackrat is bang on the money there and raises the interesting parallel of poverty in the developing world. I think the difference is that the poor in those places still have work and therefore some sense of purpose and even direction in their lives.

 

Dave.

[Russ (mines a pint)]

there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that more children does generate more benefits.

 

 

It does make you wonder how true that is its generally put about that SOME people have kids just to get further up the housing ladder or more benefits. I always remembered on the old family allowence you got a certain amount for one child, another amount for two but then it tapered off after three so you were getting little more than for two. I dont know how different it is now?

 

Again I think anything which is read in the press has to be taken with a pinch of salt, in a system that is designed to deal with the population as a whole there will always be someone who is significantly better or worse off due to where a particular line is drawn. And as already mentioned people with an agenda to persue will use the most extreme and emotive examples in order to persaude?

 

Unless we are going to have a system like China, can we really do anything but educate people about how not to have children if you dont really want them? - anything else becomes totalitarian. And whoever the parents are and however much you dissaprove of them the children should not suffer, its hardly their fault.

[The Stationmaster]

It does make you wonder how true that is its generally put about that SOME people have kids just to get further up the housing ladder or more benefits. I always remembered on the old family allowence you got a certain amount for one child, another amount for two but then it tapered off after three so you were getting little more than for two. I dont know how different it is now?

It is currently £20.30 per week for the first child and £13.40 per week for all subsequent children. I won't say much more apart from a strongly and long held view that it should be abolished (perhaps gradually) for greater numbers than say 2 or 3 children at the most as we face problems with population growth. I believe we should think very carefully about qualification to receive it but I would make it a universal benefit for the 1st child (don't forget it used to be a Tax Allowance, not a benefit), the current intention to take it away from higher rate tax payers is a nonsense and one which does not take into account total family income. There is little doubt that it is a confusing element in considering total 'benefits' payments and payment of it can cause distortion.

[Steve Williams]

It is currently £20.30 per week for the first child and £13.40 per week for all subsequent children. I won't say much more apart from a strongly and long held view that it should be abolished (perhaps gradually) for greater numbers than say 2 or 3 children at the most as we face problems with population growth. I believe we should think very carefully about qualification to receive it but I would make it a universal benefit for the 1st child (don't forget it used to be a Tax Allowance, not a benefit), the current intention to take it away from higher rate tax payers is a nonsense and one which does not take into account total family income. There is little doubt that it is a confusing element in considering total 'benefits' payments and payment of it can cause distortion.

 

I believe that there was a time when one didn't get any allowance for the first child. I'm pretty certain that my Mother didn't get any for me. I have long thought that it should be abolished completely. However, were such a decision made, then it should come into effect twelve months hence from the decision and not impact retrospectively. This would eliminate potential hardship for parents who already had children or who were expecting a child at the time the decision to abolish it was made.

[Ohmisterporter]

That is correct Steve, no child allowance for the first child but that was when a tax allowance was made. IIRC the change to removing the tax allowance and introducing Child Benefit for all children came about as an attempt to give the money directly to the mother rather than in the father's wages.

[Guest Max Stafford]

It's clear that in a post-industrial society, there is less demand for a large unskilled workforce. It's also clear that in the wake of the industrial era we have a 'bubble' of surplus people, so I would think it an urgent priority to discourage further population growth to a degree. We will always need successor generations, that is a biological fact, but we need to discourage large families beyond say two children until our population in the island reaches sustainable levels in terms of there being sufficient opportunity for education and employment.

Clearly we cannot force the issue upon people, that's a step down a dark and dangerous road that the world has sadly seen before and should never again, but perhaps we should consider incentives to discourage people from having large families they cannot really afford. It won't stop the problem, but it may allow a degree of control and allow us to manage it towards more sustainable levels. Education will also be required to play a major part here so that those who are born, are given the skills to prepare them for a useful and happy life. There is little point in bringing people into a place where there is little or no hope or opportunity for them to improve themselves.

 

Sometimes, I suspect that the powers that be rather like things as they are...

 

Dave.

[Guest dilbert]

... but perhaps we should consider incentives to discourage people from having large families they cannot really afford. It won't stop the problem, but it may allow a degree of control and allow us to manage it towards more sustainable levels. Education will also be required to play a major part here so that those who are born, are given the skills to prepare them for a useful and happy life. There is little point in bringing people into a place where there is little or no hope or opportunity for them to improve themselves.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if a 'non-child benefit' at some stage in the future was introduced. One of the big problems in society today is the relative high number of families that break up and this obviously affects children (with an emphasis on future relationships with their parents - especially as there is rarely a friendly separation that involves children, and kids become a weapon in that spectacle), earning power is reduced etc... it also places strain on the housing market because after a split there is a need to provide two dwellings (for at least an undetermined period of time)... dilbert

[The Stationmaster]

Education will also be required to play a major part here so that those who are born, are given the skills to prepare them for a useful and happy life. There is little point in bringing people into a place where there is little or no hope or opportunity for them to improve themselves.

Sometimes, I suspect that the powers that be rather like things as they are...

Dave.

We clearly have, and have had for some years, a major problem with education in Britain. It seems that 'somoene' has increasingly pushed the ideas of 'equality' and everyone wins something' and 'everyone gets a qualification' at the expense of neglecting the fact that we are all different and naturally have faculties which lead us to different skill sets or - in some cases no skill set at all.

 

One consequence of this is such daft ideas as 'everyone should go to university' - irrespective of the fact that some can't even string together a meaningful sentences or calculate their weekly budget while at the same time we have all but eliminated just about every craft skill training you care to name and in some cases replaced it with heavily debased training courses which are mainly meant to reduce unemployment statistics. At the same time we are crying out for all sorts of everyday skills ranging from HGV drivers to plumbers and have ended up having to import them. As I often say to a Czech guy who has done some bricklaying in the garden for me - 'You realise that you doing this work is helping to keep our layabouts in the style to which they have become accustomed?'

 

And similarly 'we' have exported jobs - not just in manufacturing but in 'modern' skills such as computing (particularly code writing - your friendly neighbourhood electronic signalling is almost certainly controlled by computer code written in India) and even call centres. A lot of that is down to Natalie G's comment about 'profitability' but a goodly chunk is also down to lack of a trained or willing labour force capable of doing the work. We should be educating to develop skills and inborn abilities - not to churn out a load of clones who have a pile of useless paper 'qualifications' such as daft NVQs or 'How I Get' to school, worth 4 GCSE passes!!

[arran]

It's clear that in a post-industrial society, there is less demand for a large unskilled workforce. It's also clear that in the wake of the industrial era we have a 'bubble' of surplus people, so I would think it an urgent priority to discourage further population growth to a degree. We will always need successor generations, that is a biological fact, but we need to discourage large families beyond say two children until our population in the island reaches sustainable levels in terms of there being sufficient opportunity for education and employment.

Clearly we cannot force the issue upon people, that's a step down a dark and dangerous road that the world has sadly seen before and should never again, but perhaps we should consider incentives to discourage people from having large families they cannot really afford. It won't stop the problem, but it may allow a degree of control and allow us to manage it towards more sustainable levels. Education will also be required to play a major part here so that those who are born, are given the skills to prepare them for a useful and happy life. There is little point in bringing people into a place where there is little or no hope or opportunity for them to improve themselves.

 

Sometimes, I suspect that the powers that be rather like things as they are...

 

Dave.

 

HI All

 

What this country has is a bubble of people right enough, but the wrong sort.

 

There must be near 1.5 million Easter Europeans here now doing jobs in the fields and factories in hotels and so on, moslty manual jobs.

Which brings me to the point that the indigenous population cat be arsed.

In the good years this country should have had as close to zero unemployment if the goverment of the day had the balls to make poeople work.

But hay ho turkeys dont vote for christmas, but the other thing is now turkey looks to be off the menu.

 

Regards Arran

[Horsetan]

....We should be educating to develop skills and inborn abilities....

 

Note that that's "inborn", as opposed to "inbred".

[Guest Max Stafford]

Mike, you have articulated something I too have been thinking. As I understand it, the Scottish Government is already planning a new strategy to address the knowledge and skills gaps described. I think it is something that needs to be addressed all over the British Isles as a matter of urgency.

 

Dave.

[NGT6 1315]

I personally am also having the impression that what feels like almost all professions which exist have been "professionalised" to such a degree that A-levels (or whatever equivalent degrees are called in different countries) are now required for a large number of jobs which for decades had no such requirement, and still got done to most everyone's satisfaction. I am quite sure this also constitutes another obstacle for many young people just about to enter the job market, and thus an artificial limit to social mobility.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 

Clearly we cannot force the issue upon people, that's a step down a dark and dangerous road that the world has sadly seen before and should never again, but perhaps we should consider incentives to discourage people from having large families they cannot really afford. It won't stop the problem, but it may allow a degree of control and allow us to manage it towards more sustainable levels. Education will also be required to play a major part here so that those who are born, are given the skills to prepare them for a useful and happy life. There is little point in bringing people into a place where there is little or no hope or opportunity for them to improve themselves.

 

 

A lower birth rate, though, is only going to exacerbate the much discussed problems of an increasingly elderly population.

[DavidB]

 

We should be educating to develop skills and inborn abilities - not to churn out a load of clones who have a pile of useless paper 'qualifications' such as daft NVQs or 'How I Get' to school, worth 4 GCSE passes!! [/i]

 

You are so right Mike - my organisation has a policy of recruiting graduates with a minimum 2.1 degree from 'top' universities, and I've interviewed some right muppets in recent years, with minimal self awareness and/or commerciality. Conversely some of the best people that I've recruited (in breach of the policy) have no Further Education, but are savvy, entrepreneurial and very hard working people who are driven to succeed - they may 'only' have studied at the 'university of life', but they have so much to offer. I would love to see a greater recognition given to people who may have come from poor backgrounds, but who are bursting with potential. I know that it's really hard for many children born into poverty (or indeed with disabilities) to raise their aspirations and realise that they can use their talents to climb the ladder, but it's brilliant when they do, and some of the best people in my team had the least promising starts to their lives.

 

David

[Mickey]

Now this thread has gone so far OT its almost impossible to answer anything without going into politics, or at least political ideal / ideas (Ernest Bevin seeing as you ask )

 

BUT something has to be done about the "state of the country" (not the Country is in a state etc)

 

Without going into the "dirty P" its not about Poverty per se, a lot of the time its about a virtually unreachable aim of living standards fostered by ( a lot of the time) the media -IF you want it, the only way to get it is to work for it...

Im quite happy to have next to nowt and get on with life, but so many people are way too materially oriented and feel they are missing out or been cheated i they dont get cars satelite tv, foreign jollies, a PS3 etc....I dont have any of em and Im ok.....the words "get a grip" do jump to mind.

 

 

Ive had the fortune (i mean that) to live in some seriously poverty stricken areas of the country and often its those "just above" the poverty line that squeal most

[Mickey]

Ive just been thinking and talking about this idea again....and it really is so hard to keep off politics, let alone party ones, but.......

 

If the entire wealth of the country was divivded up equally, amongst us all, within five years we would be back where we started - some have the abililty to amke more of it and some don't - that is harsh but fair

 

So we do "something about it" - then we are truly back to square one

 

Why not a programme to ease people gently back to work?

 

 

then it gets political...... *CUT*

[Guest Max Stafford]

It's more and more about education fit for purpose and geared to people's aptitudes the more you look into it.

 

Dave.