Howmanheyman 26983 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 The biggest drop in living standards since the Victorian age is seeing low and middle earners suffering an unprecedented squeeze on their incomes as austerity measures continue to bite, with women and part-time workers disproportionately affected, research reveals today. More than five million people are officially classified as low paid and an increasing number of public sector workers are struggling to make ends meet, according to the New Economics Foundation (NEF) think-tank. It warned: “Workers on low and middle incomes are experiencing the biggest decline in their living standards since reliable records began in the mid-19th century.” The NEF has calculated that the public sector now employs one million low-wage workers – double the previous estimate – with health and social care staff, classroom assistants and council employees trapped on small earnings. Sales assistants and retail workers make up the largest group of low-paid workers in the private sector, with large numbers also working as waiters, bar staff and cashiers. The study blames the continuing drop in disposable incomes on pay freezes and below-inflation rises, leading to wages steadily lagging behind prices. Separate research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation concluded yesterday that for the first time the number of working families living in poverty exceeds those without anyone in work. The cost of living has moved up the political agenda in recent months with Labour claiming that the average person is £1,600 worse off than when the Coalition Government took power in May 2010. Ministers counter that economic recovery is finally under way, with employment levels growing steadily, and that they have taken steps to lower the cost of petrol and energy and to raise the income tax threshold. However, one in four local authority employees is now on low pay, which is defined as less than 60 per cent of the average national income – equivalent to £7.47 an hour or £13,600 a year. Helen Kersley, a senior economist at the think-tank, said: “Up to now it was assumed low pay was confined to the margins of the public sector. But take into account the 500,000 low-wage workers employed by outsourced service providers and you can see the problem runs a lot deeper than that.” As squeezed local councils award contracts to the cheapest providers, these workers are often even worse off than their counterparts employed directly by the public sector. “A care worker earns only £6.44 to £7.38 per hour in the private sector compared to £9 to £11 in the public sector,” the report adds. Karen Jennings, assistant general-secretary of Unison, which commissioned the report, said: “Wages are being benchmarked against those in the worst parts of the private sector... the public sector needs to start proving that society benefits from decent wages.” Frances O’Grady, the TUC General Secretary, said: “The Chancellor has revelled in his attacks on the living standards of those who educate and care for our families.” A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “Our welfare reforms are designed to further increase work incentives and improve the lives of some of the poorest families in our communities, with the [new benefits system] universal credit making three million households better off.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-poorest-pay-the-price-for-austerity-workers-face-biggest-fall-in-living-standards-since-victorian-era-8991842.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 26983 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I know politicians on all sides use these sort of statistics for a Punch and Judy but I do think we over use the word poverty in this country. Sure we have poor people, always have always will but Poverty is a word that to me conjures up images of worse off countries or pre war times. ``If they would rather die,'' said CT, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'' ``But you might know it,'' observed the gentleman. ``It's not my business,'' CT returned. ``It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!'' Profound stuff, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 If CT was in the Monty Python three classes sketch would it just be a short fat man arguing with himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34640 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Wow to CT's comments. Just wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 What you mean is you don't personally know anyone in poverty and it doesn't get the news coverage it should. The media being more interested in tales of dole scum claiming tens of thousands of pounds a month in handouts as easily as putting the lottery on. ..but you saw a Catherine Cookson once where a kid had a wash in a stream. No, what I mean is I dont think we have 13 million people in this country living in what I would consider "poverty". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 No, what I mean is I dont think we have 13 million people in this country living in what I would consider "poverty". Based on what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38847 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Based on what? Ignorance and Daily Mail, mainly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 Wow to CT's comments. Just wow. My god you lot do go into fanny mode so quickly. Poverty.... Thats poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 Based on what? Based on what I believe the word Poverty means to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38847 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My god you lot do go into fanny mode so quickly. . Fanny mode- It's a natural reaction to cuntishness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Based on what I believe the word Poverty means to me. You've confused poverty with shanty towns. I agree. 13 million brits do not live in shanty towns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 From the BBC report on that figure... the amount of earnings before a household was said to be in poverty was £128 a week for a single adult; £172 for a single parent with one child; £220 for a couple with no children, and £357 for a couple with two children. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25287068 £128 a week. Include £20 a week for energy, £20 a week for council Tax, £3 a week for water, £100 a week for rent. So you're £18 short for surviving before you've paid for any food, travel, clothes or communications. If anything I'd say the definition used is too low, unless malnourishment is a comfortable choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 It's those luxury food banks they have nowadays Happy Face. People don't know they're born! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34640 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My god you lot do go into fanny mode so quickly. Poverty.... Thats poverty. And THAT is ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Somebody do a photo comparison of The Nook and Darras Hall (by no means anywhere near the top) so the idiot might get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I think I have found the explanation.... http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/health/child-poverty-figures-shock-1-3185398 TWICE as many children are living in poverty in parts of South Tyneside than other parts of the country. 28 per cent of under-18s in the borough are living below the breadline. You'd think CT would see some of that, but i guess most of those people aren't jumping in Taxi's with what limited funds they have.... The most affluent ward is Cleadon and East Boldon, with just four per cent. Him and his mates clearly stuffing trotters full of buttered slices and duck pizza's into their fat faces, oblivious to what's going on up the road. ...proper Tory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Somebody do a photo comparison of The Nook and Darras Hall (by no means anywhere near the top) so the idiot might get the point. The Nook's moved up in the world now man. It's had quite a bit of regeneration. Biddick Hall however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34640 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Didn't look enough like Slumdog Millionaire to convince CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted December 9, 2013 Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 I think I have found the explanation.... http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/health/child-poverty-figures-shock-1-3185398 You'd think CT would see some of that, but i guess most of those people aren't jumping in Taxi's with what limited funds they have.... Him and his mates clearly stuffing trotters full of buttered slices and duck pizza's into their fat faces, oblivious to what's going on up the road. ...proper Tory. Sums up my point perfectly "breadline". It's a word that means a totally different thing. I'm not saying people are not poor or struggling, I just think we should use the word poverty properly. It also has fuck all to do with Politicical parties as child poverty rose under Labour. As for Foodbanks Tom, the fact that they are more popular could have something to do with this governments decision to advertise them through job centres and not try and keep them quiet like Labour did. Or we could discuss the rise of child poverty under Labour ....... A waste of time with the blinkered though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3212 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Sums up my point perfectly "breadline". It's a word that means a totally different thing. I'm not saying people are not poor or struggling, I just think we should use the word poverty properly. It also has fuck all to do with Politicical parties as child poverty rose under Labour. As for Foodbanks Tom, the fact that they are more popular could have something to do with this governments decision to fuck over the poor in order to cut taxes to the rich. Or we could discuss the rise of child poverty under Labour ....... I am either a wum or a moron though fyp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Sums up my point perfectly "breadline". It's a word that means a totally different thing. I'm not saying people are not poor or struggling, I just think we should use the word poverty properly. It also has fuck all to do with Politicical parties as child poverty rose under Labour. As for Foodbanks Tom, the fact that they are more popular could have something to do with this governments decision to advertise them through job centres and not try and keep them quiet like Labour did. Or we could discuss the rise of child poverty under Labour ....... A waste of time with the blinkered though Poverty is what makes you a poorer member of your own society. It cannot be defined globally. Kings live in mud huts in places where money has no meaning. You'd be a moron anywhere in the world though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38847 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 The Centre for Economics and Business Research said ......that around 4.7million Brits could be described as living in food poverty. That is defined as having no choice but to spend significantly more than 10 per cent of their household income on food. 10% ? CT is most definitely below the buttered breadline of Food Poverty, the poor fat cunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 CT is most definitely below the buttered breadline Quote of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I want to say for the record that I fundamentally reject CT's stance on poverty - it does exist here, even if it isn't as widespread as the emerging economies. I'd argue that if we had to wait until we were at the same level as them before taking any action, we'd be in serious bother. With that said, the recession has apparently managed to level the playing field a bit more, and our Gini coefficient has fallen in 2012 - which would be encouraging except that I can't shake this feeling that the super rich aren't paying for it. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/10/income-gap-narrowest-margin-25-years With that said, you may also be interested in this graph showing that Thatcher was responsible for the coefficient going through the roof while she was in power. Which I think sums up the Tory viewpoint. Sweden is at around 25%. http://www.the-crises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/gini-index-uk.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now