We seem to have killed poverty, possibly a the cost of a slight rise in inequality. Credit, House of Commons Library, Crown Copyright

One of the problems with starting new definitions of words and concepts is that it’s possible to forget that you are indeed using that new definition. So it is with poverty these days. Once poverty meant looking forward to tomorrow’s crust because there wasn’t one today. In modern times poverty is having less than 60% of what the average everyone else has. These are not even the same concept let alone the same thing.

Why the reason for the change? Because as Barbara Castle said way back in 1959, that actual poverty simply doesn’t exist in the UK any more. We solved all of that in the 1930s. Even someone homeless – which as a long term issue is almost entirely about addictions or mental health problems anyway – and rough sleeping has a higher living standard than many a working man in the 1820s, better than some slum dwellers of the 1920s in fact. Yes, yes, I know, hard to believe. But that’s just because us moderns don’t get what poverty really was. That current global definition of under $1,90 a day – that existed, just, in England into the 1900s. Note again that this is consumption to the value of $1.90 a day at modern prices in the here and now. That’s the value of housing, clothing, food and all – not bought, consumed.

Barbara Castle was right, that’s gone. Which is why the definition has changed to that relative matter, for what’s a campaigner to use against capitalism and markets if they’ve just solved the very problem being complained of?

Therefore we all stop talking about poverty and instead go on to inequality.

But then we get that problem. We might forget that we are talking about inequality. Which will lea us into error, as it does Larry Elliott:

While it is true that unemployment is at its lowest since early 1975, by almost any other metric – growth, productivity, investment and living standards – the recent performance of the economy has been woeful. Britain’s labour market was much less flexible in 1975, but back then work paid. Today, two-thirds of those in poverty live in households where at least one person is working – and people who are low-paid tend to stay low-paid.

And here is how poverty has actually changed over that time:

We seem to have killed poverty, possibly a the cost of a slight rise in inequality. Credit, House of Commons Library, Crown Copyright

Note that this is another definition of absolute poverty being used, not the $1.90 a day one. It’s the proportion of the people below that 60% of median measure, but fixed to the one year. So it shows how many live below that relative poverty standard with the relative bit fixed to incomes in one year.

Well, obviously, we can differ over this. But I would say that’s a decent victory over poverty bought, possibly, at the cost of a little bit more inequality. A deal I’m just fine with and I find it difficult to think of why anyone wouldn’t be. Unless they were a campaigner against summat or other and needed to change definitions in order to have something to whine about.

Oh, and arguments that something must be done about this tend to fail really, don’t they?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

10
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
6 Comment threads
4 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Esteban DeGolfjghSurreptitious EvilTim WorstallSpike Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
jgh
Member
jgh

I don’t think relative poverty has increased, I think relative richness has increased. I was a child in the 1980s with a mother who was unemployed about 75% of the time – we felt comfortable. Food on table, roof over head, I saved up my paper round and bought a computer. Even today, with “exteme” inequality, signing on 75% of the year I don’t feel poor, I have food on the table, a roof over my head, five computers in front of me at the moment as I test some networking code, killing a bit of time before going to… Read more »

Spike
Member

And good teeth and perfect vision, at your age! (Whatever it is.) As the “poor” have as well. To claim there is a problem with lawfully gained wealth, one must truly have no perspective at all.

jgh
Member
jgh

NHS patient at private dentist, annual checkup and minor treatment, £21.50. At my current level of employment that’s about 1/8 of a week’s income. Is that poverty?

isp001
Member
isp001

I could be wrong but the poverty definition looks at households. Many households have two people working, their income will be more than those with one person (but their childcare costs probably much higher).

If a chunk of your population don’t believe in women working then is it logically correct to compare their household income with households where both people work? If this reduced household income is due to choice rather than the cruel world, then is it voluntary and not something to be remedied?

Raffles
Member
Raffles

Tim may have given the definition of absolute poverty, but what’s the definition of “absolute low income” that these charts use? Is it $1.90/day or not having the latest iPhone?

Surreptitious Evil
Member
Surreptitious Evil

iPhone 10 XS Max with 512GB storage? £1449. WTF? It’s a phone, ffs!

Spike
Member

A policy change that instantly doubled everyone’s purchasing power would “widen the earnings gap.” Labour and Democrats would piss and moan. No, there really isn’t a poverty problem any more — There is a grievance.

Esteban DeGolf
Member

To quote St. Margaret of Thatcher “they would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich”.