Ruth Lister: fool

It would be a terrible indictment if New Labour left office with child poverty and inequality both rising.

Of course they move in tandem! For they are the same thing!

Child poverty is measured as relative poverty: it\’s a measure of inequality.

It\’s one thing to argue that it\’s terribly important, as I don\’t, or that it\’s not very important, as I do, but for a professor to not note that they are the same thing simply makes that professor a seeming fool.

2 thoughts on “Ruth Lister: fool”

  1. Strictly speaking, they are not quite the same thing.
    Poverty could fall and inequality rise if the numbers of children in households with incomes just below 60% of the median were to be raised above the threshold whilst high earners moved even further above median earners.
    More sinisterly, if government reduced the numbers living in moderate poverty, but increased the poverty of the really poor, we’d get fewer people in poverty (as some rise above the 60% threshold), but more inequality.
    That said, your point holds as a generality. Generally speaking, we’d expect child poverty and inequality to move in the same direction. But they are not (quite) the same thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *