Poverty research needs you!

[Sheik Yir Erse]

This doesn't change the arguement! This is effectively an article on health at both ends of the spectrum. All this states is that - shock horror when you look at whole bunch of statistics there are people who are at both extremes, and there's a gap between them. This is an article entirely based upon extremes. It negates the 99% of the population who niether live in Bearsden nor Easterhouse!

The study shows an almost linear relationship between welfare dependency and hospital admissions for alcohol abuse. And while only 23 per cent smoke in Prime Scotland, the figure for Third Scotland is 48 per cent.

The above quote identifies precisely the point that alot of people are making. How much of this life expectancy is down to choices made by people. Perhaps those in Milngavie choose not to smoke and drink alcohol to the same degree. My point out of all of this is that it is NOT the fault of the person in Milngavie, that someone in Easterhouse wants to live on benefit (probably Incapacity Benefit, as stated above, because you get more for this), get wellied, smoke fags, go to the sunbed, and eat crap.

Male life expectancy in Dalmarnock, Calton, Kinning Park and Townhead is below 60: Britain, as a country, passed this mark during the Second World War.

If you wanted to be objective about this, you wouldn't compare the lowest extreme with the national average. What you would do would compare the lowest extreme with the lowest extreme at that same point. But there's not much of a headline in "Life expectancy in Calton has risen by 15(?) years since WW2" As I said, someone else could look at the same NHS statistics and give you an entirely different persepective, depending upon their political leanings.

Gordon Brown has chased the poor with money

Precisely the point that was made previously, as everyone gets "wealthier" the threshold for what is defined as 'poverty' also rises. Still people in 'poverty', it's just their not as poor as they were 5 years ago.

I saw no mention in the NHS figures of the 'large numbers' of people dying as a result of their housing Your arguement would therefore be - if you take someone who smokes, drinks, eats crap and lies on sunbeds, put them in a nice house in Milngavie, they'll suddenly live another 20 years? No, didn't think so

PS. Malky - perhaps this should be shifted to Speakers Corner

[Sweltered]

Very, very well put.

How many former residents of those poorer areas of the central belt, who now reside in, oh I don't know , a wee seaside town, take with them, all their former habits? Does the sea air improve their lot, or are they living in the same "poverty" form whence they came? Does their life expectancy suddenly rise?

[ionnsaigh]

Sheik, change what argument ? who is arguing ? If I could pay attention to your opinion regarding the article.
You state that the article is based on extremes - however you see both as being in some way equal- extremities in
Bearsden and Easterhouse. Greater Easterhouse has a population of over 40.000 people - not sure of the population figures for Bearsden ( although you can bet your bottom dollar it is considerably lower ) . To suggest that 99% of the population don't live in these areas- is crossly misleading - when one considers the other high density areas both in Glasgow and Dundee. Maryhill has more of a population of the whole of Kintyre combined.
Therefore the numbers affected by poverty - are far greater than your interpretation suggests.

As far as choices are concerned - these should be informed choice - one based on understanding and a degree of knowledge. Mental Health problems in deprived areas - far out way those in affluent communities- fags drugs and alcohol abuse is rife- however anyone with any understanding of human behaviour would in the first instance examine the conditions that shape who we are. I have absolutely no animosity towards the better off- Why in heavens name should I.

In terms of making any comparative judgement - you measure both ends of the spectrum - which happens to be economic - in order to gain some insight one has to measure not like with like - as you suggest- rather the opposites -
and the gulf in-between- then again by your own figures this only includes 1% of the population- I think not.

So the poor are wealthier than they where Five years ago. Please substantiate this bold claim. By all accounts the gap between the two grows wider - as the rich get richer- the poor get poorer- fact of life.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

This is where you get sucked into the old "the rich get richer therefore the poor get poorer" debate.

Forget about the rich getting richer, because as poverty is RELATIVE, this by sheer definition will mean the poor are comparatively poorer. Here's the deal - There are 20 houses in the same street, all with an income of £10,000. We then we give 19 of the houses another £1,000. Poverty defines that House No. 20 is now 'poorer', the gap between rich and poor has increased. I contend that House 20 is not actually any poorer financially, it's just relatively they are, as they now fall below the average.

Now, House 20's outgoings have never actually changed. House 20 might have the most amount of disposable income in the street, but they are still the poorest and now living in relative poverty. Even if we gave House 20 another £500 they'd still be poorer, because the street on average is wealthier!

I suppose to work out whether the poor are financially any better off than 5 years ago you'd need to look at average incomes per household over that time - I'm sure if I looked through my back catalogue of Poor Persons Weekly I'd be able to dig these out.

Poverty is defined relative to the standards of living in a society at a specific time. People live in poverty when they are denied an income sufficient for their material needs and when these circumstances exclude them from taking part in activities which are an accepted part of daily life in that society.

This is when you get people defined as living in poverty because they don't have a bloody PS2!

What people confuse is the difference between this "relative" poverty (which I contend will always exist by nature of definition) and absolute poverty.

Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together.

My premise is that absolute poverty is declining in this country.

Finally one last point ....

As far as choices are concerned - these should be informed choice - one based on understanding and a degree of knowledge.

So are you therefore trying to say that people living in Easterhouse are unaware that smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, going to sunbeds is causing them harm? . I put it to you that they are aware of the dangers, however continue to make those choices.

[deirdreh]

I have seen a lot on this thread about poverty.

Poverty is an issue very close to my heart. To me poverty is a structural violence of a Government against its less valued people. However, how people experience poverty (relative or absolute poverty) is personal and affects them in different ways. I am always wary of judging people too quickly without understanding the path they have taken in their shoes.

Speaking from my own experience of relative poverty, growing up in a lone parent family on benefits, my experience was not one that I would want any other child to experience. The difficulty of generalising about people brought up or living in poverty is that the statistics mask the personal experience. The ongoing grinding stress of not being in control, not knowing what the future holds, fearing being cut off by the electricity/gas company or being evicted. In my case we were evicted by my father when I was fourteen and luckily we were rehoused by the Council in the area, which enabled me to continue in my own school. The local Councillor was my English and Form Teacher, as well as Chair of the Housing Committee. I was lucky. I cannot imagine what my life might have been if I have moved to some other area. Poverty is demoralising, destabilising, and destructive.

Readers might like to look at Abraham Maslow's 'Hierachy of Needs' that looks at the ability of individuals to reach their potential if certain stages of development are not in place. Poverty severly undermines those developments.

I was heartened to hear that those who attended the research session that I attended recognised what I think is the more common experience of poverty. people struggling to survive and pay bills. I think it suits the Government to make poverty a personal issue - 'it's your own fault because you are lazy' - because they don't have to set a minimum wage that enables people to pay their bills, they don't have to take responsibility for providing adequate healthcare, benefits, or educational support, or support self employed workers who struggle to keep going, or pay pensioners enough to keep their heaters on in the winter.

By keeping the majority fighting amongst ourselves the elite can carry on with business in their interests as usual.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

To me poverty is a structural violence of a Government against its less valued people.

I think this sums up much of the posturing we've heard before from Ionns. Why exactly, is it always the fault of the Government?

....they don't have to take responsibility for providing adequate healthcare, benefits, or educational support, or support self employed workers who struggle to keep going, or pay pensioners enough to keep their heaters on in the winter

I suggest that, proportionately, certain sections of society take up more of our healthcare resources, due to their lifestyle choices.

Many people would also contend that the benefits in this country are adequate, they should not be a disinsentive to work.

Not sure what educational support is missing. I believe I received the same comprehensive education as everyone else, no better no worse, regardless of my personal circumstances. I had a teacher and that was about it. Now you have teachers, multiple classroom assistants, educational support workers, special educational needs workers, guidance teachers, educational psychologists, year heads, social work liaison officers - ALL on top of generally better infrastructure. These staff are generally even more prevalent in poorer areas.

By keeping the majority fighting amongst ourselves the elite can carry on with business in their interests as usual.

That's right - it's those bloody elite at it again. They're just at it all the time, trying to keep us non-elitists down. I hate the elite, and their unfair elitist ways

[Sweltered]

But WHY are people struggling to pay bills? Is it beccause they are pay off a PS2? Or Smoking and Drinking and using sunbeds. Or paying for SKY Digital..how much of their income goes on these "necessities" like a cellphone. If I can't afford something, I don't buy it.

[Sheik Yir Erse]

Greater Easterhouse has a population of over 40.000 people - not sure of the population figures for Bearsden ( although you can bet your bottom dollar it is considerably lower ) . To suggest that 99% of the population don't live in these areas- is crossly misleading

Population of Easterhouse = 40,000
Population of Bearden = 4541
Combined population = 44,451
Population of Scotland = 5,116,900

Percentage of population not living in Bearsden or Easterhouse = 99.1313%

Apologies for misleading the public Your Honour

"Take him down"

PS. Ionns - appreciate that was a bit of a cheap shot

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Maybe it is the definition of poverty that bothers me. I don't consider people who eat every day and have warmth and a roof over their head to be poverty stricken just because there are other things they want, but can't afford, or, as Sweltered and others in this thread have said, have other priorities instead of taking care of their basic needs. I also dislike it when there is real poverty in the world, and people cry poverty because they don't have everything their neighbors have. Thank god we don't live in Darfur.

Dierdre, you said "poverty is demoralising, destabilising, and destructive." I think that depends on the people involved. There are multitudes of people who were brought up in humble means who are good people, who learned early to roll with the punches, who learned coping skills, who learned that "things" are not what makes life valuable, who weren't destroyed, but made stronger, and have made successful lives for themselves.

[ionnsaigh]

In order to attempt to negate - antagonistic trends in this debate - I propose establishing agreed definitions.
Otherwise we will get nowhere fast.
deidreh suggested- ( Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs ) as a positive benchmark - I would second - can't speak for anyone else - so what do you others - think ?.

[ionnsaigh]

Maybe it is the definition of poverty that bothers me. I don't consider people who eat every day and have warmth and a roof over their head to be poverty stricken just because there are other things they want, but can't afford, or, as Sweltered and others in this thread have said, have other priorities instead of taking care of their basic needs. I also dislike it when there is real poverty in the world, and people cry poverty because they don't have everything their neighbors have. Thank god we don't live in Darfur.

Dierdre, you said "poverty is demoralising, destabilising, and destructive." I think that depends on the people involved. There are multitudes of people who were brought up in humble means who are good people, who learned early to roll with the punches, who learned coping skills, who learned that "things" are not what makes life valuable, who weren't destroyed, but made stronger, and have made successful lives for themselves.

Aye your right enough Bobbie - definitions require definition - I love the terms you use - that put a protective coating around the harsh reality of deprivation. ( humble means ) made me smile - roll with the punches . Things are not what makes life valuable may be superficially true - however the real point should be. Not having these things kills. Thank God we don't live in Drumchapel

[Sweltered]

Again, this depends on your definition of deprivation..a child may feel deprived because they don't have a ps2, but are they really deprived?

[Bobbie En Tejas]

In order to attempt to negate - antagonistic trends in this debate - I propose establishing agreed definitions.
Otherwise we will get nowhere fast.
deidreh suggested- ( Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs ) as a positive benchmark - I would second - can't speak for anyone else - so what do you others - think ?.

As for Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, I don't think most of those things can be bought. "Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness" "Needs for Self Esteem" "Needs for Self-Actualization" "self-respect" lets add "self-sufficiency" to that list.

[ionnsaigh]

Bobbie, perhaps it's premature to suggest - that the response - to the request for some guidelines - has been poor.
Absolutely meagre - when it comes to reaching an understanding of Human needs, and the subsequent contention - that for some - these needs are not met -for whatever reason.
Self- sufficiency is little more than a middle class fallacy - No one on this Earth is self sufficient - We are social beings by nature - each depending on the other - to produce the goods- a friendly chat - or a can of beans - it makes no difference.

We are born dependent on others - and we die dependent on others. This is a universal law- an indisputable fact of all lifeforms. Human history shows quite clearly that we have grouped together - That in itself provides adequate testament - to the accuracy of the basic structure of Maslov needs pyramid.
In order to advance this debate in a positive direction - then we have to have some agreement on definitions.
Agree - Disagree ?.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

..."each depending on the other," but is that the reality? Can we always depend on each other to carry an equal load? ...or is one expected to carry his own load, plus the load of the other, plus the other who will jump on his back expecting a free ride, since the first is going in that direction anyway. And then, of course, if he makes any complaint about the extra burden he is told that it is his responsibility because the other is too out of shape from sitting on the backs of others to be able to walk with his own load. Just as the "rich put the burden on the workers", so are you putting the burden on the workers by telling them they need to work even more to take up the slack for those who don't.

You believe in equal reward. I believe in equal responsibility + equal effort = equal reward. I will give as much as I can to anyone I feel moved to give to, but I'm not going to feel strong-armed into feeling that I owe someone who doesn't feel compelled to also give anything of himself.

Can this conversation actually progress? Unfortunately, I don't think so.. but I enjoy the back and forth anyway