Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

[AF62]

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

“improve public transport” - not easy, or cheap.

In my town they ‘improved’ the local bus service to the nearest city which lots of people used to get to work, college, shopping, etc. by adding in additional stops in surrounding villages.

The villagers were over the moon - a bus service. The previous users from the town were less happy as the bus now takes twice as long to do the journey, so are moving back to driving, which makes the bus less financially viable (particularly as the villagers mostly use a bus pass so the bus company gets little money from them).

And now the local authority has introduced ‘demand led busses’ - you book the bus on an app or by phone and tell them when you need to go, where to pick you up and were you want to go in around a 20 mile radius.

Now the system is supposed to amalgamate journeys so the bus can pick up multiple people from different places and take them to all the different places they want to go. Trouble is that in a rural area that those journeys they can amalgamate are virtually nonexistent so there is usually one one passenger on the 50 seat bus at any time.

And the fare for this ‘taxi’ service - £2 unless you have a bus pass when it is free. It is costing the local authority a fortune and it would be far cheaper just to pay for real taxis - but then that isn’t good public transport but bad cars - and people couldn’t use a bus pass for a free trip.

[UncleEbenezer]

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.

Living in hovels? As opposed to, say, dossing under London's Embankment, which I recollect (seeing, not doing) around that time.

Or its modern counterpart, those who doss in shop doorways?

The theory kind-of works: people have entitlements to certain benefits if they need them. The reality is that the rules and assessments are complicated, and poverty can easily happen if you are unable to get what The System says you are entitled to. And of course so much in The System cascades: for example, food banks[1] require you to be referred from within The System, so are closed to those in real poverty.

[1] I've heard food bank operators reporting this, though I've no idea how widespread this policy is.

[Dod101]

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.

Living in hovels? As opposed to, say, dossing under London's Embankment, which I recollect (seeing, not doing) around that time.

Or its modern counterpart, those who doss in shop doorways?

The theory kind-of works: people have entitlements to certain benefits if they need them. The reality is that the rules and assessments are complicated, and poverty can easily happen if you are unable to get what The System says you are entitled to. And of course so much in The System cascades: for example, food banks[1] require you to be referred from within The System, so are closed to those in real poverty.

[1] I've heard food bank operators reporting this, though I've no idea how widespread this policy is.

But at least there is a System. And none of the street sleepers that I see (not that I see many) are actually in rags. I do not think that there are many in the UK nowadays that conform to the description of the 'poor' that ayshfm1 describes.

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

But at least there is a System. And none of the street sleepers that I see (not that I see many) are actually in rags. I do not think that there are many in the UK nowadays that conform to the description of the 'poor' that ayshfm1 describes.

Dod

I wouldn't know how many there are. But an anecdote from some years after my own last spell of absolute poverty looks like the kind of example we never generally hear about.

I had a mountain bike that had been unusable since it developed a big rusty hole in the frame, where I'd dripped sweat on the uphills (the same bike I'd been unable to afford spare parts for when in real poverty). I hadn't taken it to the tip 'cos it had some parts that were in decent nick and deserved recycling. Since my own new bike was a touring bike (I had no space for more than one), few if any of the components were ever going to fit it as potential spares. So I'd been vaguely thinking what to do with it: something like freecycle might've made sense.

One day in summer 2010 I got chatting to a chap who was wheeling a very incomplete bike through town. It was a bike in a similar situation: he had rescued it from the tip and was going to reclaim serviceable spares. I told him about my old bike: was he interested? He said yes, and came for a look. Yes he would like to take it for serviceable parts.

Now you might be thinking, man with a bike repair business? There are one or two locally, they have workshops, and vans for carrying less-than-roadworthy bikes around. This chap came on foot to collect it: he had no vehicle. I pumped the tyres to make it easier to wheel, but they went straight back down again. He had several miles to walk with it in that condition. And the token (non-monetary) payment he insisted on thrusting on me was truly sad: if I hadn't had my own experience of serious poverty I'd just have thought it weird, but I recognised the pressure: he felt strongly that something was necessary, but seriously struggled to afford anything at all. The pint I might have suggested as payment if he'd been a man with a van and a business was - as for me some years earlier - out of the question.

I met him again some weeks later, and he reported that he had indeed gained some mobility with a steed improvised from components of my old bike and others. So I was glad it had found a use!

[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

“improve public transport” - not easy, or cheap.

In my town they ‘improved’ the local bus service to the nearest city which lots of people used to get to work, college, shopping, etc. by adding in additional stops in surrounding villages.

The villagers were over the moon - a bus service. The previous users from the town were less happy as the bus now takes twice as long to do the journey, so are moving back to driving, which makes the bus less financially viable (particularly as the villagers mostly use a bus pass so the bus company gets little money from them).

And now the local authority has introduced ‘demand led busses’ - you book the bus on an app or by phone and tell them when you need to go, where to pick you up and were you want to go in around a 20 mile radius.

Now the system is supposed to amalgamate journeys so the bus can pick up multiple people from different places and take them to all the different places they want to go. Trouble is that in a rural area that those journeys they can amalgamate are virtually nonexistent so there is usually one one passenger on the 50 seat bus at any time.

And the fare for this ‘taxi’ service - £2 unless you have a bus pass when it is free. It is costing the local authority a fortune and it would be far cheaper just to pay for real taxis - but then that isn’t good public transport but bad cars - and people couldn’t use a bus pass for a free trip.

Sure there are plenty of ways to mess something up.
It seems that the default position is often " X didn't work so why bother" - and that leads to a downward spiral of inadequacy

There are plenty of places that run effective and efficient public transport - but I've yet to see one run a Dial A Bus service well
When I first saw it (late 80s i think it was introduced in Paisley) it quickly became a poor version of patient transport

But it takes joined up thinking - which is a bit of an anathema to a system set up on the principle of "it's someone elses problem to deal with"

- sd

[Lootman]

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.

Living in hovels? As opposed to, say, dossing under London's Embankment, which I recollect (seeing, not doing) around that time.

Or its modern counterpart, those who doss in shop doorways?

The theory kind-of works: people have entitlements to certain benefits if they need them. The reality is that the rules and assessments are complicated, and poverty can easily happen if you are unable to get what The System says you are entitled to. And of course so much in The System cascades: for example, food banks[1] require you to be referred from within The System, so are closed to those in real poverty.

[1] I've heard food bank operators reporting this, though I've no idea how widespread this policy is.

But at least there is a System. And none of the street sleepers that I see (not that I see many) are actually in rags. I do not think that there are many in the UK nowadays that conform to the description of the 'poor' that ayshfm1 describes.

I have seen some of these "homeless" sleepers using smart phones. Some can evidently afford to buy alcohol or illegal recreational drugs. There are hostels where people can have shelter and a bed of sorts, but of course those have a 9 p.m. curfew and no drugs, so people choose the streets instead.

[scotview]

Attached is a photo of a fish smokehouse from a local fishing village. These people lived without electricity, running water, no flushing toilets, they lived by what they caught at sea. An extraction below describing the smokehouse. The fishing boats were sail powered.

"The photo of what remains of a smoke house at 15 Main Street (Ellen Mays) Cairnbulg which was built round about 1870 if not before. Apparently at one time there were a large number of these smoke houses in both Belger and Cotton. The smoke houses were used to smoke part of the catch which the wives would take up into the country in their creels to sell and barter the fish (dried as well as smoked) for eggs, butter and vegetables among other things."

I think it fair to say that this is poverty. Now, imagine how life was before this period. I am certainly glad I was born post 1950.

[Dod101]

Attached is a photo of a fish smokehouse from a local fishing village. These people lived without electricity, running water, no flushing toilets, they lived by what they caught at sea. An extraction below describing the smokehouse. The fishing boats were sail powered.

"The photo of what remains of a smoke house at 15 Main Street (Ellen Mays) Cairnbulg which was built round about 1870 if not before. Apparently at one time there were a large number of these smoke houses in both Belger and Cotton. The smoke houses were used to smoke part of the catch which the wives would take up into the country in their creels to sell and barter the fish (dried as well as smoked) for eggs, butter and vegetables among other things."

I think it fair to say that this is poverty. Now, imagine how life was before this period. I am certainly glad I was born post 1950.

I appreciate what you say except of course that if you were born into these conditions, you would have accepted them as the norm, especially if all around you were similar. In many ways that life would have been a lot healthier than working a 12 hour day in a factory.

Dod

[scotview]

I appreciate what you say except of course that if you were born into these conditions, you would have accepted them as the norm,

Dod

I tend to look at things in absolute terms, possibly wrongly. I think we all fail to appreciate just how far we have come since those times. Maybe I didn't get that point across too well.

[Lootman]

I appreciate what you say except of course that if you were born into these conditions, you would have accepted them as the norm,

I tend to look at things in absolute terms, possibly wrongly. I think we all fail to appreciate just how far we have come since those times. Maybe I didn't get that point across too well.

I don't think it's wrong at all. Looking at poverty and wealth in relative terms serves no useful purpose, except to those who wish to promote some kind of class war. Comparing yourself to others just leads to envy. Better to focus on yourself and what you can do to improve your own wellbeing.

[Dod101]

I appreciate what you say except of course that if you were born into these conditions, you would have accepted them as the norm,

Dod

I tend to look at things in absolute terms, possibly wrongly. I think we all fail to appreciate just how far we have come since those times. Maybe I didn't get that point across too well.

The area where I live is according to CK's map, prosperous and flourishing. No doubt like many of us here. It is certainly that judging by the sort of car that wafts up and down my little road, but to some my road would simply be a place where the poor people live, if, that is, you have the sort of resources of a half decent premier league footballer. Life is all relative. Actually you do not need to go back to 'those times'. Almost all of us and our families have come a very long way since say 1950 (since you mentioned that date)

To answer the question posed in the heading, many can be poor but content and some rich but dissatisfied. Unless you are born into riches, often the rich got rich only by being dissatisfied with their lot and striving for something better. And just seen Lootman's comments. I think he is right.

Dod

PS This probably reads wrongly. I am nowhere near any premier league footballers and am not very well off compared to many (probably on here and almost certainly some in my road!)
D

[AF62]

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

“improve public transport” - not easy, or cheap.

In my town they ‘improved’ the local bus service to the nearest city which lots of people used to get to work, college, shopping, etc. by adding in additional stops in surrounding villages.

The villagers were over the moon - a bus service. The previous users from the town were less happy as the bus now takes twice as long to do the journey, so are moving back to driving, which makes the bus less financially viable (particularly as the villagers mostly use a bus pass so the bus company gets little money from them).

And now the local authority has introduced ‘demand led busses’ - you book the bus on an app or by phone and tell them when you need to go, where to pick you up and were you want to go in around a 20 mile radius.

Now the system is supposed to amalgamate journeys so the bus can pick up multiple people from different places and take them to all the different places they want to go. Trouble is that in a rural area that those journeys they can amalgamate are virtually nonexistent so there is usually one one passenger on the 50 seat bus at any time.

And the fare for this ‘taxi’ service - £2 unless you have a bus pass when it is free. It is costing the local authority a fortune and it would be far cheaper just to pay for real taxis - but then that isn’t good public transport but bad cars - and people couldn’t use a bus pass for a free trip.

Sure there are plenty of ways to mess something up.
It seems that the default position is often " X didn't work so why bother" - and that leads to a downward spiral of inadequacy

There are plenty of places that run effective and efficient public transport - but I've yet to see one run a Dial A Bus service well
When I first saw it (late 80s i think it was introduced in Paisley) it quickly became a poor version of patient transport

But it takes joined up thinking - which is a bit of an anathema to a system set up on the principle of "it's someone elses problem to deal with"

- sd

The issue I see with politicians, but especially local politicians, is they want to be seen to do something 'new and shiny' which they can have their photo taken in front of and a story in the local press.

What they don't want to do is anything to do with improving or rectifying issues that either they or a predecessor created as something 'new and shiny', or even maintaining those 'new and shiny' things.

At the moment the local politicians in my town want to throw vast amounts at redeveloping the roads in the 1/2 square mile of the town centre to encourage cycling, but have conveniently overlooked that the reason why many don't cycle into the town is a previous cycle scheme that leads from the housing areas to the town centre and was implemented about 25 years ago.

That scheme could be held up as a masterclass in what not to do. There is a cycle lane that starts and stops. Where it stops there are a multitude of mini-roundabouts or central carriageway road narrowing so drivers cannot overtake the cyclist by moving into the other lane but try to squeeze by. Where the cycle lane does exist it is sandwiched between a long row of parked cars to the left and the carriageway to the right - so cyclists have to ride in the 'door zone' - and that is when people are not double parked in the cycle lane.

Now the town centre money would be far far better spent ripping out that old scheme and putting in something modern and well designed - but that isn't 'new and shiny' and admits the failings of the previous local politicians.

[redsturgeon]

I can understand why those who have worked hard all their lives and built up their riches to a reasonable level tend to scoff at the "poor".

"If only they worked harder, or didn't waste their money on fripperies then they too could be wealthy" is the oft heard cry.

This tends to ignore those who do work hard, putting in long unsociable hours at essential jobs, things like care work, or hospitality work yet still find themselves unable to find an affordable place to rent, let alone be able to afford to "get on the housing ladder" (said in a Michael Gove fake accent).

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) gets thrown out of her rented accommodation in the town where where was born and bred because the owner can earn more money through AirBnB?

OK she is not in rags, she may even have a smart phone, not poor? Is her life a result of her bad choices? Is she lazy or feckless? Maybe be maybe not. Some people work hard, lead a good life but still get kicked in the teeth.

I guess they should just stop moaning and work (even) harder.

John

[Lootman]

I can understand why those who have worked hard all their lives and built up their riches to a reasonable level tend to scoff at the "poor".

"If only they worked harder, or didn't waste their money on fripperies then they too could be wealthy" is the oft heard cry.

This tends to ignore those who do work hard, putting in long unsociable hours at essential jobs, things like care work, or hospitality work yet still find themselves unable to find an affordable place to rent, let alone be able to afford to "get on the housing ladder" (said in a Michael Gove fake accent).

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) gets thrown out of her rented accommodation in the town where where was born and bred because the owner can earn more money through AirBnB?

OK she is not in rags, she may even have a smart phone, not poor? Is her life a result of her bad choices? Is she lazy or feckless? Maybe be maybe not. Some people work hard, lead a good life but still get kicked in the teeth.

I guess they should just stop moaning and work (even) harder.

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that people are powerless to improve their situation. And therefore that cases like your hypothetical single mum in Cornwall on minimum wage really had no other options and so was somehow predestined to have that life and only that life. Then what are we supposed to do about that?

OK, that is a political question and so cannot be answered here. But that line of reasoning is essential political in nature, implicitly arguing for more interventionist and redistributive policies. I guess what I am saying is that I do not really see the purpose of such commentary, nor the entire business of comparing people with each other, unless it is merely a personal motivation to give more to charity or volunteer more.

[CliffEdge]

Equality is the enemy of fairness

[redsturgeon]

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that people are powerless to improve their situation. And therefore that cases like your hypothetical single mum in Cornwall on minimum wage really had no other options and so was somehow predestined to have that life and only that life. Then what are we supposed to do about that?

OK, that is a political question and so cannot be answered here. But that line of reasoning is essential political in nature, implicitly arguing for more interventionist and redistributive policies. I guess what I am saying is that I do not really see the purpose of such commentary, nor the entire business of comparing people with each other, unless it is merely a personal motivation to give more to charity or volunteer more.

Who is saying that people are powerless to improve their situation? Some people just give in but most strive to get the best out of life they can.

It is not an easy problem but some people in any society will need some help at certain times. There will also be other people who are lucky enough to have caught the right cards in the poker game of life and they may wish to help out those less fortunate.

Why should they wish to do that and not just say I'm alright Jack? Perhaps they remember that the society that affords them such a comfortable existence does not operate without people to do the dirty, boring low-paid but essential jobs.

John

[CliffEdge]

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that people are powerless to improve their situation. And therefore that cases like your hypothetical single mum in Cornwall on minimum wage really had no other options and so was somehow predestined to have that life and only that life. Then what are we supposed to do about that?

OK, that is a political question and so cannot be answered here. But that line of reasoning is essential political in nature, implicitly arguing for more interventionist and redistributive policies. I guess what I am saying is that I do not really see the purpose of such commentary, nor the entire business of comparing people with each other, unless it is merely a personal motivation to give more to charity or volunteer more.

Who is saying that people are powerless to improve their situation? Some people just give in but most strive to get the best out of life they can.

It is not an easy problem but some people in any society will need some help at certain times. There will also be other people who are lucky enough to have caught the right cards in the poker game of life and they may wish to help out those less fortunate.

Why should they wish to do that and not just say I'm alright Jack? Perhaps they remember that the society that affords them such a comfortable existence does not operate without people to do the dirty, boring low-paid but essential jobs.

John

Interventions are always based on the idea of making poor people's lives equal to non-poor people's lives, not on effectiveness. Your example of a single mother in Cornwall will produce a vast list of ways in which she is relatively disadvantaged and isn't that shocking, but effective ways of making her life bearable will be blocked by unwillingness to recognise that only her basic needs should be guaranteed. How do you guarantee her basic needs are met? It would inevitably mean taking away some of her choices, cue uproar.

[redsturgeon]

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that people are powerless to improve their situation. And therefore that cases like your hypothetical single mum in Cornwall on minimum wage really had no other options and so was somehow predestined to have that life and only that life. Then what are we supposed to do about that?

OK, that is a political question and so cannot be answered here. But that line of reasoning is essential political in nature, implicitly arguing for more interventionist and redistributive policies. I guess what I am saying is that I do not really see the purpose of such commentary, nor the entire business of comparing people with each other, unless it is merely a personal motivation to give more to charity or volunteer more.

Who is saying that people are powerless to improve their situation? Some people just give in but most strive to get the best out of life they can.

It is not an easy problem but some people in any society will need some help at certain times. There will also be other people who are lucky enough to have caught the right cards in the poker game of life and they may wish to help out those less fortunate.

Why should they wish to do that and not just say I'm alright Jack? Perhaps they remember that the society that affords them such a comfortable existence does not operate without people to do the dirty, boring low-paid but essential jobs.

John

Interventions are always based on the idea of making poor people's lives equal to non-poor people's lives, not on effectiveness. .

Really? I disagree.

Can you give me examples?

John

[CliffEdge]

Let's assume for a moment that we all agree that people are powerless to improve their situation. And therefore that cases like your hypothetical single mum in Cornwall on minimum wage really had no other options and so was somehow predestined to have that life and only that life. Then what are we supposed to do about that?

OK, that is a political question and so cannot be answered here. But that line of reasoning is essential political in nature, implicitly arguing for more interventionist and redistributive policies. I guess what I am saying is that I do not really see the purpose of such commentary, nor the entire business of comparing people with each other, unless it is merely a personal motivation to give more to charity or volunteer more.

Who is saying that people are powerless to improve their situation? Some people just give in but most strive to get the best out of life they can.

It is not an easy problem but some people in any society will need some help at certain times. There will also be other people who are lucky enough to have caught the right cards in the poker game of life and they may wish to help out those less fortunate.

Why should they wish to do that and not just say I'm alright Jack? Perhaps they remember that the society that affords them such a comfortable existence does not operate without people to do the dirty, boring low-paid but essential jobs.

John

Interventions are always based on the idea of making poor people's lives equal to non-poor people's lives, not on effectiveness. .

Really? I disagree.

Can you give me examples?

John

The whole yardstick for the definition of being "below the poverty line" is based on comparison, thereby creating a spurious target model for equality and missing the opportunity for effective interventions. Put simply, it's actually all hypocrisy based on the notion that no-one must be a "second class citizen". Something like a modern version of the workhouse would be effective. Emmaus, Bristol could be a good model, rolled out nationwide.

[redsturgeon]

I don't think anyone here is under the impression that there would or even should be a society where everyone has an equally good life.

I just happen to think that in this country, one of the richest in the world, if someone works full time at a worthwhile job they might expect to be able to afford a warm and dry place to live and enough food to eat, without handouts. Increasingly in some places in the UK it seems that this is not possible.

John