Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

[Clitheroekid]

Your choice!

https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/well ... elling-up/

As sweeping generalisations go this is a Sweeping Generalisation with Capital Letters, but it's quite entertaining.

I was relieved to see that I'm apparently prosperous and flourishing, which sounds to be the best combination of all, but surrounded by enclaves of the poor and miserable.

Though on reflection perhaps I should be worried, as it sounds like a recipe for revolution ...

[Lootman]

I was relieved to see that I'm apparently prosperous and flourishing, which sounds to be the best combination of all, but surrounded by enclaves of the poor and miserable.

Everyone who lives in the UK is well off by global standards.

Surely the important thing about success is relative. If everyone in your postcode is as rich as you, you would not even feel "prosperous and flourishing".

[UncleEbenezer]

I was relieved to see that I'm apparently prosperous and flourishing, which sounds to be the best combination of all, but surrounded by enclaves of the poor and miserable.

Everyone who lives in the UK is well off by global standards.

Erm ... are you sure?

Surely the important thing about success is relative. If everyone in your postcode is as rich as you, you would not even feel "prosperous and flourishing".

Up to a point. I imagine by some of the definitions of poverty our pressure groups use, there might be more kids in poverty at Eton than at BashEmUp Comprehensive. 'Cos some of those at Eton are so extremely rich as to drag the average way up, leaving the merely-top-1% at less than 60% of the average.

[scrumpyjack]

Poverty in the UK is defined as relative to UK household incomes. So one could certainly debate whether it is a misleading and tendentious definition.

"Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year."

[Mike4]

Poverty in the UK is defined as relative to UK household incomes. So one could certainly debate whether it is a misleading and tendentious definition.

"Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year."

The cliché of a poor widow living on state pension in a £1m house is undoubtedly true. I fix boilers for such people once in a while, and I can never decide if I should charge my full rate, or what! They are sometimes quite candid about being poor i.e. having bugger-all income, but living on a hefty but finite lump sum paid out by the life assurance when their spouse passed away. Often very interesting and charming people.

[Lootman]

I was relieved to see that I'm apparently prosperous and flourishing, which sounds to be the best combination of all, but surrounded by enclaves of the poor and miserable.

Everyone who lives in the UK is well off by global standards.

Erm ... are you sure?

There may be pockets of hunger in the UK. But there is no famine.

I was at an Oxfam fundraiser once and I asked the question: Why does Oxfam send almost all its money overseas rather than spend it in the UK?

I was told that the real need is overseas. Was I told wrong?

[Dod101]

Poverty in the UK is defined as relative to UK household incomes. So one could certainly debate whether it is a misleading and tendentious definition.

"Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year."

The cliché of a poor widow living on state pension in a £1m house is undoubtedly true. I fix boilers for such people once in a while, and I can never decide if I should charge my full rate, or what! They are sometimes quite candid about being poor i.e. having bugger-all income, but living on a hefty but finite lump sum paid out by the life assurance when their spouse passed away. Often very interesting and charming people.

Yes but they are not poor by world standards and of course could sell their property if they wanted to.

Dod

[Mike4]

Poverty in the UK is defined as relative to UK household incomes. So one could certainly debate whether it is a misleading and tendentious definition.

"Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year."

The cliché of a poor widow living on state pension in a £1m house is undoubtedly true. I fix boilers for such people once in a while, and I can never decide if I should charge my full rate, or what! They are sometimes quite candid about being poor i.e. having bugger-all income, but living on a hefty but finite lump sum paid out by the life assurance when their spouse passed away. Often very interesting and charming people.

Yes but they are not poor by world standards and of course could sell their property if they wanted to.

Dod

Well yes obviously. My point was not spelled out as I didn't think it needed it, but clearly it does need splling out. These people, while not being poor by world standards, are below the the UK poverty line described in the post to which I was replying and which I quoted.

[redsturgeon]

Interesting that near me there is prosperous and flourishing Portsmouth, next to poor and miserable Chichester and the New Forest.

Not quite sure I buy that, have the authors ever been to Portsmouth?

John

[robbelg]

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos moved to Necker Richard Branson would be living in relative poverty

Rob

[DrFfybes]

Interesting that near me there is prosperous and flourishing Portsmouth, next to poor and miserable Chichester and the New Forest.

Not quite sure I buy that, have the authors ever been to Portsmouth?

John

Or Chichester

I always thought of Chi as posh when I lived in Worthing.

The article does note that wealth and wellbeing aren't necessarily linked, which is something many people get wrong. I feel happy when my assets go up, I feel sad when they decline. I don't really enjoy spending money, but do enjoy people's reaction when I give it away. I was probably happier 30 years ago, budgeting my £40 of cash per week between food and going out. Enjoyment used to be a reward, now it is easily available there is less pleasure in it.

Paul

[Lootman]

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos moved to Necker Richard Branson would be living in relative poverty

That is the fatal flaw with this whole "inequality" argument.

Warren Buffett moves into your town and it simultaneously becomes both more unequal and more prosperous.

[XFool]

If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos moved to Necker Richard Branson would be living in relative poverty

That is the fatal flaw with this whole "inequality" argument.

Warren Buffett moves into your town and it simultaneously becomes both more unequal and more prosperous.

Err...

Never mind!

[Lootman]

[quote="ro?

"inequality" argument.

Warren Buffett moves into your town and it simultaneously becomes both more unequal and more prosperous.

Err...

Never mind!

Which part are you struggling with?

That someone worth $100 billion moving into your town makes it more "unequal"?

Or that someone with that amount to spend won't generate jobs and economic activity?

[Dod101]

Poverty in the UK is defined as relative to UK household incomes. So one could certainly debate whether it is a misleading and tendentious definition.

"Households are considered to be below the UK poverty line if their income is 60% below the median household income after housing costs for that year."

The cliché of a poor widow living on state pension in a £1m house is undoubtedly true. I fix boilers for such people once in a while, and I can never decide if I should charge my full rate, or what! They are sometimes quite candid about being poor i.e. having bugger-all income, but living on a hefty but finite lump sum paid out by the life assurance when their spouse passed away. Often very interesting and charming people.

Yes but they are not poor by world standards and of course could sell their property if they wanted to.

Dod

Well yes obviously. My point was not spelled out as I didn't think it needed it, but clearly it does need splling out. These people, while not being poor by world standards, are below the the UK poverty line described in the post to which I was replying and which I quoted.

No you did not need to spell it out. I know what you are saying. What it means is that the UK poverty line definition is in need of some refinement. I thought, in turn, that that was pretty obvious, but maybe not.

Dod

[Bminusrob]

The area where I live comes in the "Deprived but content" category. Well, from my point of view, they are half right. I am content and not deprived, in fact, I am more than content. It's a great place to live, and most of my neighbours feel the same way. One of the few things which could come along to spoil this satisfaction level is the government, or to be more precise, their green agenda. Before they ruin things, they should all be made to live in an area where public transport is almost non-existent (my nearest railway station is 20 miles away, and two buses a day only a mile away), and try buying an electric car on the national minimum wage, which most people round here earn.

[CliffEdge]

Equality is the enemy of fairness.

[servodude]

The area where I live comes in the "Deprived but content" category. Well, from my point of view, they are half right. I am content and not deprived, in fact, I am more than content. It's a great place to live, and most of my neighbours feel the same way. One of the few things which could come along to spoil this satisfaction level is the government, or to be more precise, their green agenda. Before they ruin things, they should all be made to live in an area where public transport is almost non-existent (my nearest railway station is 20 miles away, and two buses a day only a mile away), and try buying an electric car on the national minimum wage, which most people round here earn.

Rather than ruin things.. couldn't they improve the public transport, set a useful minimum wage and encourage healthy competition in the E-Vehicle market?

I know politicians are more interested in claiming to have done stuff but I'm not sure making anyone live in a place that's inadequate or no longer fit for purpose will help
(other than to rub their noses in it I suppose)

-sd

[UncleEbenezer]

The area where I live comes in the "Deprived but content" category. Well, from my point of view, they are half right. I am content and not deprived, in fact, I am more than content. It's a great place to live, and most of my neighbours feel the same way. One of the few things which could come along to spoil this satisfaction level is the government, or to be more precise, their green agenda. Before they ruin things, they should all be made to live in an area where public transport is almost non-existent (my nearest railway station is 20 miles away, and two buses a day only a mile away), and try buying an electric car on the national minimum wage, which most people round here earn.

Rather than ruin things.. couldn't they improve the public transport, set a useful minimum wage and encourage healthy competition in the E-Vehicle market?

-sd

Better still, roll back the elements of modern life that rely on unlimited mobility and tend to marginalise anyone who doesn't drive.

[ayshfm1]

There are no poor in the UK, my grandad wrote that in the 1980 before he died, he was comparing then with him going with his mother to help the poor in the late 1800's early 1900's and they were the definition of poor. Dressed in rags, living in hovels and actually hungry.

I have a real issue with how poverty is measured in this country. It's always relative, there will thus always be poor when compared with others. It is an unsolvable problem, I always suspected this was because certain charities are on a gravy train and benefit from this.

If poverty were defined in absolute terms them I'm confident we as a nation could at least in this country end it.