Relative poverty
There has been a lot of discussion recently (see here, and see below)of the merits of relative v. absolute poverty, particularly with respect to the measuring of the extent of poverty. The former sets the poverty line (which if you are below you are classed as 'in poverty') as a proportion of median income, currently 60%, whereas the latter is usually set as a fixed amount of money or goods and services one is thought to need to not be in poverty. The debate is often confused because those who argue for the latter tend to be those who would not recognise poverty if it was on their doorstep -- in fact those who do not recognise poverty when it's on their doorstep (strangely thought they think the sky is falling in if anyone suggests those earning over £100,000 a year should pay a little more tax). In fact there is no reason why an absolute poverty level cannot be progressive -- e.g. a rising amount of goods and services or money (or even a falling amounts of money if, say food, is getting cheaper). However that makes it perilously close to a relative measure, so let's for now assume we are talking about a fixed amount (in real terms). (7)So if it's an absolute measure which we are not going to annually assess, where should we fix it? Usually the advocates of this seem to think that all you require is food and shelter, a view exemplified by Ross Clarke in yesterday's Telegraph who in saying that poverty today was something Dr Barnado would not recognise, presumably wants the poverty line to be where Dr Barnado would have put it.
Well I can't find that out. But in The Road to Wigan Pier (written some time afer Barnado so I am being generous) George Orwell noted that 'As I said earlier, the average unemployed family lives on an income of round about thirty shillings a week, of which at least a quarter goes in rent.'. Presuming the government of the day fixed benefits at an absolute poverty level we can assume that this in the 1930s was 22.5 shillings a week.
Now 22.5 shillings in 1936 has the same purchasing power as £57 does today. So let's set that as the poverty line for a family, not the £242 Barnados has today. Those on £60 a week might be poor, but they are not in poverty. Those families on £100 a week are basically rich. Maybe the Conservative party could adopt it as party policy and set benefits accordingly.
posted by Matthew @ 11/17/2003 09:44:00 AM
Comments: 0
