A big determinant of absolute poverty is the cost of essentials and cost of living based on things that are unavoidable such as housing, food and shelter and legalistic bills such as Council tax and maintenance security costs such as house insurance. If running a car legalistic as well as necessary insurance cover. If buying a house with a mortgage insurance requirement as part of the mortgage agreement plus to cover for risks to property in all aspects. Alternatives to buying a home or running a car are not free. Renting can be just as expensive as buying, in fact for anyone becoming redundant after paying a mortgage for years, renting can be a lot more expensive than a mortgage would be. But renting is also often the only means of getting housing when the large amount required to secure a mortgage and maintaining it is not possible on extremely low incomes, no incomes and poor job security. Not running a car cuts the insurance and maintenance aspects, but public transport is expensive, especially so on low and no incomes can be impossible to travel very far and restricts geographical mobility.
Most of the so-called ‘new’ jobs have been in London and the south East, although the quality, job security and pay rates of new jobs are not usually referred to, but again of all new jobs, the best paid and most secure may also be in London and the South-East, with the majority of newer jobs outside these areas tending to be in the most insecure lowest pay sectors. Also there can be great disparities within cities, with enclaves of poverty amongst great wealth, often showing some of the greatest divisions of wealth, also with dangers of property prices in areas with more better paid work pushing out lower paid workers who cannot afford to buy or rent property on low incomes. This means there is a poverty problem outside London and the South-east, which is masked by a skewing of economic statistics because of the London and South-east bubble, but also within the same otherwise more affluent regions an increase in poverty amongst the lowest paid, often insecure and unemployed, the poorest.
Since 2010, according to the Adonis Report, 80% of all new jobs have been London and another 10% in 9 other cities, leaving just 10% in the rest of UK spread unevenly:
Guardian article: Lord Adonis review backs devolution as key to ‘balanced economic recovery’
Cost of Essentials and Cost of Living in UK are discussed in the following article on the Living Standards Gap published by JRF:
“Party leaders must close the living standards gap facing the worst-off families”
Vox Political – ” The minimum income is 2-5-times what people get on benefits but still they are labelled scroungers”
According to Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), Minimum income standard (MIS) many of the UK poorest will never have the opportunity to be able to achieve even this what is after all meant to be a minimum standard of living:
Guardian: Many British people will never afford an acceptable minimum living standard
Back in 2012 it was found in a report that the average person required £30 per day to cover the cost of bills, as food is one component amongst many essentials.
As the cost of essentials has continued to rise rapidly since then even that data is already out of date and therefore the cost of living is even higher. What the following article points out is it i snot the spending of the poor that counts most when determining an absolute minimum requirement as often the poorest people go without essentials such as food and heating in order to pay bills. This can be mothers skipping meals to ensure children are fed and even then not necessarily able to give them what they most need. Also single people are often under-represented in that benefits for single people are the lowest, although no child costs, but also no child benefits. Single parents too are under-represented as in couples even if one is low paid often one partner brings in some income and cost of living, such as mortgage, rent, heating, utilities, insurance is shared between two adults and any children, but for single people or single parents with children this is not an option. Also being single is often not the choice of the individual, either they have not managed for many reasons, including not being able to afford to socialise through being poor or just two compatible people just not meeting, or to becoming a couple or they have been but have ended up separating or getting divorced, with UK having one of the highest divorce rates in the world, so being single is just as common as being in a relationship.
The next article highlights something that is lacking in many reports, that of data lag, but also when reports are written with the purpose of propaganda dates can be deliberately selected so as to alter the results. As most of the worst cuts in benefits occurred after the data collection of many published reports, this means the situation is already far worse than is indicated in many even recent reports.
All told, essentials make up a very large proportion of the use of income and benefits are often inadequate to maintain even the basic cost of living requirements. This is where austerity and poverty is very under-represented and appreciated in terms of it now becoming absolute poverty in the developed world.
Many comparisons are often expressed for the purposes of excusing or belittling the problems of the poor in developed countries by making comparisons with the absolute poverty of living on, for example, £1 a day in the Third world, which is dire, and should not be in the first place. But this simplistic comparison also lacks taking account of the very high cost of living in many developed countries.
UK is one of the most expensive countries in the world to live, just to cover these essential non-negotiable costs. Because of this it would not be possible for anyone to pitch up a tent, along with UK climate and land regulations, Council tax, water rates, plus service such as sanitation and if trying to get to work in urban environments, transport, where to put one suit for interviews etc. and cost of produce in shops, to live on £1 a day. The essential costs now require above benefit levels for non-disabled and the additional sums for disabled are required for additional cost of being disabled, with many having to use these to pay for essentials and with cuts in disability befits also to endure absolute poverty, with even fewer ways out due to limits of disabilities and discrimination by employers.
Many have no choice but to resort to benefits as a safety net because of insufficient numbers of jobs that pay adequate wages to support the cost of living for essentials and then have to endure living with a shortfall of income to meet basic needs, many having to resort to debt or go without essentials, which in effect means many more in the developed world moving from relative to absolute poverty.
In any country there are added problem where there is relative poverty, as inequality in itself causes psychological and social problems, with social division. In developed countries there is sufficient wealth within the macroeconomic system pertaining to each country. Np one should have forced to be in absolute poverty in rich countries and inequality can be minimised, with everyone having as reasonable as possible lifestyle, and especially equality of opportunities in education and employment as well as all aspects of society. There should not be anyone in absolute poverty, economically there is no reason for it, unless the economics are those of deliberate division and inequality.
World Bank report finds GDP growth in unequal countries, when deconstructed into top and bottom quartiles, that as inequality rises, poor wealth declining whereas wealth of rich increasing:
Ideally underdeveloped countries too should also be able to eliminate or at least minimise absolute poverty too, as the UN and UNICEF have often stated in their mandates for a more equal world and the poverty of the Third world is related to exploitation of the richer developed countries, so also a need for a more equal world too.
Helen Keller > Quotes > Quotable Quote:
“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all … The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands – the ownership and control of their livelihoods – are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.”
Psychological and Physical Effects of Relative and Absolute Poverty and Austerity
Effects of poverty and austerity are wide-ranging and noticeably affect the lives of the poor, physically and mentally, with many alarming comparisons available as well as many not often sufficiently accepted in the media and by governments that are working on different agenda, where the poor are given low priority or in unequal countries are a priority in that they are used a spawns in enabling the rich to get richer, by exploitation or discarded, cast aside.
In psychological terms all these stresses of the poor are manifest by relative deprivation that adds to immense psychophysical and biological, and even neurobiological consequences of relative and absolute poverty.
Ongoing blog item shall be added to as appropriate