[t]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F5ecffe2a-4d28-11e6-89d8-0e4b6b908064.jpg?crop=5121,2881,0,267&resize=685[/t]
[quote=guardian]Plunging levels of home ownership and an increased reliance on state benefits to top up salaries have meant that Britain’s middle-income families increasingly look like the poor households of the past, according to one of the UK’s leading thinktanks.
A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that the old link between worklessness and child poverty had been broken, with record levels of employment leading to a drop in the number of poor children living in homes where no adult works.
...
“In key respects, middle-income families with children now more closely resemble poor families than in the past,” the IFS said. “Half are now renters rather than owner-occupiers and, while poorer families have become less reliant on benefits as employment has risen, middle-income households with children now get 30% of their income from benefits and tax credits, up from 22% 20 years ago.”
...
The report divided the population into five groups according to income and found that for the middle 20% of children, half were living in an owner-occupied house, down from 69% two decades ago.[/quote]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/19/middle-income-families-poverty-ifs-report[/url]
[quote=standard]
The standard of living of Britain's middle class is edging closer to that of the poor rather than the rich, according to a report into poverty and inequality.
...
The Institute of Fiscal Studies report also highlights that poorer families are less likely to rely entirely on benefits than 20 years ago.
These families, however, are still classed as living below the poverty line even though at least one parent is earning a wage.
The report argues that the income of working households needs to be lifted to bring families above the poverty line.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/middle-classes-living-standards-growing-closer-to-those-of-the-poor-a3298881.html[/url]
Key points:
Poor are less reliant on benefits than they were but are still living under the poverty line, despite working.
Middle class are 10% more reliant on benefits than they were
Middle class are far less likely to own their own home
Middle class will be less resilient to economic turmoil than they were in the past
[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/06/one-percent-2008-recession-recovery-income"]
Background to that the recovery from the 2008 benefited the rich far more than it did the poor and middle class globally.[/URL]
[URL="https://www.trusselltrust.org/2016/04/15/foodbank-use-remains-record-high/"]And apparently food bank use is at an all time high[/URL]
[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34858997"]More salt for you guys n gals[/URL]
Mod can choose to change the title if they feel it is too sensationalist.
It's a fair title, this is happening in most developed nations now. Separation of wealth even further after 2008, etc.
I'm making minimum wage and honestly I'm pretty comfortable. I imagine it's another story entirely when you're supporting a family though, I won't be in this position for long.
[QUOTE=SirJon;50783459]I'm making minimum wage and honestly I'm pretty comfortable. I imagine it's another story entirely when you're supporting a family though, I won't be in this position for long.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it is. Seriously irritates me when there's people who go "eeeeeh you're on X a week you should be grateful!" not realising that there's a difference between supporting yourself and supporting a family.
[QUOTE]
“In key respects, middle-income families with children now more closely resemble poor families than in the past,” the IFS said. “Half are now renters rather than owner-occupiers and, while [B]poorer families have become less reliant on benefits as employment has risen[/B], middle-income households with children now get 30% of their income from benefits and tax credits, up from 22% 20 years ago.”[/QUOTE]
The only reason that poorer families have become less reliant on benefits is because the government's been pushing 'back to work' programs on them that basically have them working slave wages. The statistics are inflated.
I honestly hope we wisen up to this shit and start cracking some conservative skulls before they pull what's left of the country out from under our feet. Screw the lot of them.
cant wait to abandon this sinking ship
[QUOTE=Scot;50783499]cant wait to abandon this sinking ship[/QUOTE]
where will you take refuge?
We have virtually an entire generation growing up now who hate the establishment.
We're going to be working for the rest of our lives moving the pension goalpost
Many of us are not going to have access to higher education
We'll be earning pittance, without the job security
We might not have an NHS so hello to crippling healthcare debt
We won't own our own homes and hell we might not even be able to get one of the state so we get to be 30 years old living at home with our parents, with our own kids.
List goes on and fucking on. And it all benefits 'Them' while screwing over 'Us'
You have to be a fucking blind cunt to think that this is not a recipe for disaster. I don't want riots, fuck no, but god damn that's whats coming.
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50783476]You're right, it is. Seriously irritates me when there's people who go "eeeeeh you're on X a week you should be grateful!" not realising that there's a difference between supporting yourself and supporting a family.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, absolutely. A young person like me is really low maintenance. A room in some half decent apartament and tesco cover all the basics. The rest I can spend on a hobby, higher quality groceries, tech equipment, or just put it in the bank. It's not great, but It's comfortable, but really only for one person.
I can't imagine how I'd make ends meet if I had to support a child.
[QUOTE=Scot;50783499]cant wait to abandon this sinking ship[/QUOTE]
Not sure where you would go, this is happening everywhere. If the UK was considered 'sinking' then most countries would also fit into that category.
The wonders of capitalism and "trickle-down" economics, wonderful, isn't it?
[QUOTE=Quark:;50783558]where will you take refuge?[/QUOTE]
Australia preferably but I know how unlikely that is.
Me and my partner were just talking about this recently.
We currently rent a house atm for £600 a month. Pretty good for the area we live in tbf. But we are looking at saving to buy a house, doing research into this, its becoming increasingly less likely that we will be able to do it alone without any type of financial help from anyone.
Between us, we roughly earn £30k a year, i save £200 a month from my job as personal savings, and so does he. I so far have about £1k saved up. I think he has about £1.5k saved but after bills, food, our cars, social activities (which we don't do a lot of) we're still pretty poor.
I know saying that £30k a year sounds good, but its actually pretty difficult. My car is going to die soon and those savings i have are going to have to go to getting a new one. So i'll be back at square one again and not even close to a deposit for a house.
We've done some really rough calculating at home and i think we worked out that it would take us at least 12 years to get enough for a deposit on a 2 bedroom house as good as the one we're currently renting (which isn't amazing anyway).
Deregulate housing and about 75% of the problems go away if you're anywhere in the south. In the north and Wales, with structural unemployment, it is much more difficult and complicated.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50783673]Deregulate housing and about 75% of the problems go away if you're anywhere in the south. In the north and Wales, with structural unemployment, it is much more difficult and complicated.[/QUOTE]
I'd love for you to explain that first asspulled statistic.
I'm just throwing a random number for rhetoric, but my point is that most of the problems are caused by housing expenses in the south, which can be resolved by deregulation (and some regulation the other way as well can also help)
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50783723]I'm just throwing a random number for rhetoric, but my point is that most of the problems are caused by housing expenses in the south, which can be resolved by deregulation (and some regulation the other way as well can also help)[/QUOTE]
Housing expense is likely the biggest problem, but you are missing the most crucial point of the thread, and that's that wealth is rapidly coalescing around a very small and specific number of people. We live in a society of finite resource - for one to be rich, it necessitates that others be poor, that is the reality. The fundamental issue, as I see it, is one of attitude towards wealth. It is unlikely to change without radical (probably violent, sadly) change.
[QUOTE=Mesothere;50783756]Housing expense is likely the biggest problem, but you are missing the most crucial point of the thread, and that's that wealth is rapidly coalescing around a very small and specific number of people. We live in a society of finite resource - for one to be rich, it necessitates that others be poor, that is the reality. The fundamental issue, as I see it, is one of attitude towards wealth. It is unlikely to change without radical (probably violent, sadly) change.[/QUOTE]
Firstly, mcdeciever mistakenly used data from America rather than Britain, thinking it would look the same, when in reality it is quite different.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/sMkEQVN.png[/img] ([URL="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/532416/households-below-average-income-1994-1995-2014-2015.pdf"]source[/URL] - page 4)
Inequality increased substantially under Thatcher, but then largely stood static under Blair, Brown, and Cameron. This isn't what happened in America, where there was a constant increase. In fact, what largely happened in Britain was a redistribution from the top 9% of earners to the top 1%, which is why you hear the same rhetoric as you do in the US (as well as lazy people not doing their research and applying completely inapplicable analysis from the US, as is often done on the topic of race, to the UK).
From a previous [URL="https://laeffyblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/the-longest-post-ever-on-piketty/"]post[/URL] of mine:
[QUOTE]Firstly, most countries haven’t seen inequality changes in the same way as the US. The US has seen a linear increase in inequality to the very highest earners. In contrast, the UK has seen a different change in inequality. Since the 1990s in Britain, the proportion of total income of the top 10% of earners in Britain has remained the same (25%) and the other 90% have seen their share also remain the same at around 75%. Where inequality has changed in Britain has been between those in the top 1% and the other 9%. this 9% have seen their incomes fall as a share of total income whilst the 1% have seen their incomes rise. I think it is no coincidence that those inside that 9% are often the most vocal about inequality. These people are high-paid journalists, academics and so on.
So why have these people seen their income shrink? I have seen very little written about this, so this is just anecdotal. I would suggest this is to do with shifts in some of the biggest employers of the 9%. The first is law: there are too many lawyers, and they have seen their pay squeezed. The second is journalism: Industry structure has changed due to the internet and pay has declined as a result. The third is the civil service and the NHS (both managers and doctors): both have seen pay freezes and their numbers have been culled (for managers) as a result of austerity. Most of this isn’t backed up by evidence. I might look into it more, but I personally am not too worried about the poor 9%, earning between £60k and £150k. I think they can look after themselves.[/QUOTE]
In reality, under Cameron and Osborne, the richest have been paying higher shares of tax, despite cuts to taxation.
[IMG]http://cdn2.spectator.co.uk/files/2016/07/Screenshot-2016-07-13-18.09.11.png[/IMG]
The reality is that the biggest problems lie in the distribution of wealth, rather than income. These are linked to Pikketty's thesis where there are increasing returns on capital. I think this is mostly linked to the fact that the biggest form of 'wealth' owned is in housing. Housing has an artificial, government created bubble that I would refer to as a [URL="http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/bubbles-and-balloons"]balloon[/URL]. This is nothing inherently to do with capitalism, but instead due to deliberate government policy.
Government policy regulates to benefit home owners (such as the green belt, excessive ability to block housing developments by locals, help to buy which mostly benefited buy-to-let) and simultaneously, to appear open to business, deregulates in areas for no reason (I personally think we are gaining basically nothing by allowing absent owners from Russia and Malaysia to launder their money in Britain), all to benefit key swing voters for both parties in the doughnut and elsewhere. This has been exacerbated by QE and extremely cheap money which has led to asset price inflation, furthering these issues.
Government policy to resolve this should involve both deregulation (ending the green belt, reducing height restrictions and other regulations on new builds) and regulation (taxing foreign ownership and combating corruption from foreign countries in this area, reducing mortgage downpayments, perhaps engaging in some house building by the government).
Ultimately, income inequality isn't the key issue right now. The main thing that has happened there is that the burden of people has been shifted from the government to employers, which I think is largely (not entirely, but largely, I accept that zero-hours contracts are often exploitative, but I would still rather we saved money and people worked if possible) a good thing because of the reduced pressure on government spending and the fact that often (not always, obviously) work has other, non-monetary benefits. The key issue is wealth inequality, as a result of deliberate government policy.
I mostly blame increasing property prices. You're practically forced to rent in major cities around the world and as we all know, renting is like throwing money into a black hole, unlike a mortgage, it amounts to nothing.
However the gap between the rich and poor isn't as bad here in Australia as it is in the US. I don't think the middle class would disappear, who would spend money if everyone was poor.
[editline]28th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coolboy;50783623]The wonders of capitalism and "trickle-down" economics, wonderful, isn't it?[/QUOTE]Trickle down economics is about as logical as leaving your car unlocked with the keys inside, in a bad neighbourhood and hoping nothing bad happens. It's so stupid they may as well admit to under the table deals Like most anterior motives, the cover up stories sound like something a moron would come up with in his lunch break.
[QUOTE=Mesothere;50783756]Housing expense is likely the biggest problem, but you are missing the most crucial point of the thread, and that's that wealth is rapidly coalescing around a very small and specific number of people. We live in a society of finite resource - for one to be rich, it necessitates that others be poor, that is the reality. The fundamental issue, as I see it, is one of attitude towards wealth. It is unlikely to change without radical (probably violent, sadly) change.[/QUOTE]
It's weird. We've been calling Russia out for its oligarchy for years, but how is the UK any different? The difference here is that the media has gone a shit-hot job of keeping a lid on any evidence to that fact.
[QUOTE=Jon27;50784006]It's weird. We've been calling Russia out for its oligarchy for years, but how is the UK any different? The difference here is that the media has gone a shit-hot job of keeping a lid on any evidence to that fact.[/QUOTE]
It should be obvious that regardless of our problems with inequality and social mobility why we aren't like Russia.
Most of the rich didn't simply loot their wealth from a collapsing state.
The level of corruption isn't even close to what it is in Russia.
The government isn't the key reason as to whether you're allowed to keep your wealth or not, and can't arbitrarily steal from you.
We have the rule of law.
We have fair and free elections.
We still have safety nets in our society and the state provides key services.
It's safe to say I will be poor as fuck for the rest of my days.
Because minimum wage ain't shit!
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50784048]It's safe to say I will be poor as fuck for the rest of my days.
Because minimum wage ain't shit![/QUOTE]
Most people won't be on minimum wage forever. People often neglect to mention is that people move between deciles over their lifetime. When smoothed out across a lifetime, inequality falls a lot:
[IMG]http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2015/09/blogs/free-exchange/20150926_woc855.png[/IMG]
The housing bubble must burst soon, it's at a point that it's not going to be attracting 1st time buyers, this in turn will stagnate the market.
The UK is synonymous with peaking and troughing periodically in the housing market.
Most of the time, it's rich people paying rich people to tell Middle-class people to blame poor people.
[editline]27th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scot;50783628]Australia preferably but I know how unlikely that is.[/QUOTE]
Or New Zealand.
[QUOTE=Mesothere;50783756]We live in a society of finite resource - for one to be rich, it necessitates that others be poor, that is the reality. [/QUOTE]
except this isn't true. it's possible for all sectors of society to get wealthier, which for the most part they have done for the past two centuries. you can become rich without stealing from the poor
economies aren't zero-sum. they grow and expand instead of remaining steady
[QUOTE=Steam-Pixie;50784241]Most of the time, it's rich people paying rich people to tell Middle-class people to blame poor people.
[editline]27th July 2016[/editline]
Or New Zealand.[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;4VxkltwS9g0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VxkltwS9g0[/video]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50784261]except this isn't true. it's possible for all sectors of society to get wealthier, which for the most part they have done for the past two centuries. you can become rich without stealing from the poor
economies aren't zero-sum. they grow and expand instead of remaining steady[/QUOTE]
Far too many people on the left somehow seem to forget the existence of economic growth, even very educated and intelligent people who then start talking about slices of a finite pie... I don't really understand it
At least David Cameron isn't a Russell Brand backing dumbass
Would you prefer this one?
[video=youtube;0YBumQHPAeU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU[/video]
Honestly, even if you support the Tories they're pretty funny.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
