The figures show a stark regional divide when it comes to child poverty, with the 20 worst affected areas all in the North of England and Birmingham. Just 1% of children in Godalming Holloway in Waverley and Oatlands and Burwood Park in Elmbridge were living in poverty last year.
Child poverty is relative poverty – under 60% of median household income adjusted for size of household and before or after housing costs to taste.
But it is *national* median household income. Which means that it grossly overstates poverty in low living cost areas of the country and grossly understates it in high living cost/high wage.
But expecting a political economist to understand the politics of economics is too much, no?
If you define poverty as a % of average income the poor will always be with us.
Even if the numbers were tweaked to reflect the cost of living I suspect that you’d find more poverty in Sparkbrook, Birmingham, than in Godalming, Surrey.
‘Child poverty’ is a commie fabrication, an argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy.
All children are wards of their parents, and have no property.
Children are used as propaganda by those with an agenda because if they described it as Adult poverty no one bar a few hand wringers would give a shit.
If these people really cared about children’s welfare, they’d be lynching pakistani mohammedan rapists.
One of the biggest scams going is to whine about “poverty” in any situation that is referring to relative, not absolute. I think that whenever this is encountered, in print or a talk show, it should be discredited.
Is the income used before or after tax? Does it include benefits? Are the value of benefits then adjusted to reflect gross income (if gross income is used above)? Does it include non-cash benefits such as free travel or reduced fees (council tax, prescription etc)? Is housing benefit adjusted to reflect a free market rate of the residence? Do they the factor in proceeds of crime?
Many people then talk about the problem of relative poverty. That’s just about being left out. We’re non of these people picked last at school when playing sports. There is a reason you were picked last. That of course is the reason we have a welfare state. The better question to ask is how long to people stay in poverty, why do people move up and down the wealth distribution over time. What is holding people back, has the welfare safety net become a retiarius, entangling them until they give up?
Relative poverty is a measure of inequality, not poverty. And, in an opportunity-rich western society, poverty is largely a lifestyle choice.
@TW
Housing costs are much the biggest source of regional variation in living costs. So if the analysis is after housing costs, and if housing costs have been taken out of all the household data in a consistent way, then the regional and sub-regional comparisons are more valid.
NB I have no idea if this is the data that Capt Potato is using – haven’t checked – and I doubt that he’d understand the issue anyway, so as usual there is no reason not to have a go at him!…
As a journalist a major portion of living costs is the price of a pint. Regional variations in that are not, no, included here…..