Over 50% of people
Comments
-
No, I stand by what I wrote. For example,BillyMansell wrote:
So you haven't read the article, understood the methodology and made assumptions of the journalistic intent. Surely the 'idiot' being misled is the one who chooses to misinform themselves in this way?GiantMike wrote:
I haven't read the news story (because I can tell from your first post that it's unlikely to be a very good one), but does it say that 50% of people of people in poverty are in FULL TIME work, or just in work?Frank the tank wrote:My feeling is, if I were to be working a full time job and fell into the catagory of poverty (within our nations concept) something is seriously wrong with the system and id it has chuff all to do with the benefits system. If you work full time benefits should not, I emphasise SHOULD NOT have a bearing on whether you live in poverty.
The concept of poverty based on ones earnings compared to a national median is seriously flawed. I live in the lap of luxury, have a yacht, several sports cars and a couple of houses. If everybody else in the UK got mega rich but my income didn't change, I'd still be considered to be in poverty. For me, poverty should be a measure of whether somebody has an income that allows them to live a life free from problems related to poorness.
It's also flawed because journalists don't understand statistics and usually quote them out of context because they're idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/listener.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation haven't used just a single measure of poverty but have combined numerous socio-economic measures to create a more rounded picture of poverty and social exclusion yielding 50 indicators. It throws up some welcome changes among the young and old yet even with the reduction in median income the rise of poverty among those in low paid work is surprising and is likely to be worse now as the data is two years old .
The intent here is to give the impression that JOBS are low paid and insecure. I don't know anybody unable to make ends meet and I know a lot of people. What she means is that SOME JOBS are, or MORE JOBS are than for the last report, or MORE JOBS are than they would like. I have a lot of time for the JRF, but they have an agenda, and any measure of poverty based on relative earnings will always have losers who may not even be in actual poverty*.We have a labour market that lacks pay and protection, with jobs offering precious little security and paltry wages that are insufficient to make ends meet.
The BBC's report's headlines states "Most people classed as being in poverty 'have job' ", then goes on to describe these people were from 'working families'. This is different from the misleading headline because it adds children and wives (or husbands) to the 'worker', multiplying the effect of the story. No mention is made in the BBC report about what is meant by 'in work'. Does 3 hours a week count as 'in work'? Would you expect somebody working 3 hours a week to be in poverty?
The reason I don't bother with reading these BBC reports is that they are lazy and regularly fail to apply any academic rigour to their reporting of facts because they don't understand statistics. They selectively grab snippets of information without making any effort to tie them together, slap a snappy headline which doesn't even agree with the first line of their own report and then people like Frank quote them as truth. So, an organisation with an agenda is reported on by attention-seeking idiots and this is then posted by the ill-informed as a social comment. As I said, I hadn't read it because I knew it was going to be sh!t, and having read it I'm now convinced I'm right.
*Actual poverty is not a measure of how poor I am compared to somebody else, or even everybody else.0 -
All research has an agenda but the difference here is whereas the agenda, or proposal, of the JRF research follows ethical research methods and is open to peer review, your agenda of needing to be seen to be right has caused you take a selective quote not in the research and interpret it at will. Your methods are unethical and without rigour or validity and you've failed to understand the principles and purpose of academic research.GiantMike wrote:No, I stand by what I wrote. For example,
The intent here is to give the impression that JOBS are low paid and insecure. I don't know anybody unable to make ends meet and I know a lot of people. What she means is that SOME JOBS are, or MORE JOBS are than for the last report, or MORE JOBS are than they would like. I have a lot of time for the JRF, but they have an agenda, and any measure of poverty based on relative earnings will always have losers who may not even be in actual poverty*.We have a labour market that lacks pay and protection, with jobs offering precious little security and paltry wages that are insufficient to make ends meet.
Again, your comments lack rigour and validity in relation to the research as the BBC article is not the complete research, not even the executive summary. Commenting on straw men is meaningless in this context although the question may have some merit in a philosophical discussion.The BBC's report's headlines states "Most people classed as being in poverty 'have job' ", then goes on to describe these people were from 'working families'. This is different from the misleading headline because it adds children and wives (or husbands) to the 'worker', multiplying the effect of the story. No mention is made in the BBC report about what is meant by 'in work'. Does 3 hours a week count as 'in work'? Would you expect somebody working 3 hours a week to be in poverty?0 -
Lets assume that a particular task requires 40 hours per week to complete. If a company pays 1 person 40 hours pay or 2 people 20 hours, the cost is the same.
It's often a lot more expensive to employ two part timers than a full timer due to certain per person costs such as training, induction, payroll supervision etc. It's also more economical to pay people overtime rates than employ an extra employee single time, but this has been stopped in some sectors in order to increase employment rates.0 -
I am not trying to produce a rigorous analysis of the JRF document or the BBC's account of it, just pointing out that the BBC's coverage (including the quote by JRF) is poor in the extreme, which explained why I don't bother to read these trite analyses by the BBC. My response to your post was because you called me an idiot for not reading the crappy BBC coverage. I now have and I stand by my assertion. By saying that the BBC's coverage is neither 'the complete research, not even the executive summary' rather highlights my point that it's therefore irrelevant as it adds nothing to the debate other than half-@rsed analysis and confusion.BillyMansell wrote:
All research has an agenda but the difference here is whereas the agenda, or proposal, of the JRF research follows ethical research methods and is open to peer review, your agenda of needing to be seen to be right has caused you take a selective quote not in the research and interpret it at will. Your methods are unethical and without rigour or validity and you've failed to understand the principles and purpose of academic research.GiantMike wrote:No, I stand by what I wrote. For example,
The intent here is to give the impression that JOBS are low paid and insecure. I don't know anybody unable to make ends meet and I know a lot of people. What she means is that SOME JOBS are, or MORE JOBS are than for the last report, or MORE JOBS are than they would like. I have a lot of time for the JRF, but they have an agenda, and any measure of poverty based on relative earnings will always have losers who may not even be in actual poverty*.We have a labour market that lacks pay and protection, with jobs offering precious little security and paltry wages that are insufficient to make ends meet.
Again, your comments lack rigour and validity in relation to the research as the BBC article is not the complete research, not even the executive summary. Commenting on straw men is meaningless in this context although the question may have some merit in a philosophical discussion.The BBC's report's headlines states "Most people classed as being in poverty 'have job' ", then goes on to describe these people were from 'working families'. This is different from the misleading headline because it adds children and wives (or husbands) to the 'worker', multiplying the effect of the story. No mention is made in the BBC report about what is meant by 'in work'. Does 3 hours a week count as 'in work'? Would you expect somebody working 3 hours a week to be in poverty?
My 'agenda of needing to be seen as right' is irrelevant to the discussion. In this discussion EVERYBODY is wrong, including the JRF and the OP, because 'being right' relies on 'being believed' as there isn't a truth that can be proven that means anything. All I'm trying to show is that the BBC and the JRF have an agenda, as does the OP, and these agendas make the report's coverage inaccurate. Drawing conclusions from the average of a whole population leaves far more out than it includes, but allow lazy jounalists to draw conclusions that aren't accurate, and reported under highly dubious headlines. They fail to see the difference between correlation and causation.
I have more legs than the average person in the UK. This statement is right and wrong.0 -
Probably as a surprise to Frank, and a few others on here, having right of centre politics, doesn't automatically put me on the side of big business. For instance, I abhor the practices of such as Amazon who are my absolute last resort for online shopping. Wage rates are dictated by numerous factors, but everyone should have reasonable conditions of service.
How many of the left wing brethren, blithely click on the likes of Amazon, knowing workers are being exploited, but are willing to do so because it saves money? In doing so, are they any different in their attitude than these businesses insofar as only being concerned with the bottom line?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -aint.html0 -
another shocker is that 50% of people are below average intelligence.Insert bike here:0
-
Nope, I posed a conundrum in response and with reference to your use of the word "idiot" and questioned who was being misled by asking, "Surely the 'idiot' being misled is the one who chooses to misinform themselves in this way?". That you had previously chosen to play the man and not the ball by calling journalists "idiots" probably explains your mindset but you shouldn't assume everyone stoops to the level of name calling.GiantMike wrote:My response to your post was because you called me an idiot for not reading the crappy BBC coverage.
It is relevant as you made it's importance very clear and particularly as research isn't all about being right or wrong but about the questioning throughout the research and the discussions that ensue afterwards. Seeking to deny research to stifle discussion by claiming everyone has an agenda is a juvenile reaction to something someone doesn't agree with, can't accept or doesn't understand. Your own agenda has trumped any rational thought for what is a fair topic for a reasonable discussion pertinent to the research but that's okay as I wouldn't expect everyone to be excited by or objective towards academic research.My 'agenda of needing to be seen as right' is irrelevant to the discussion.0 -
I actually called them idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/reader. The BBC report on the JRF study is either written by somebody who doesn't know what they're doing (i.e. an idiot), or somebody that knows they're selectively using elements from a much larger piece and using a misleading headline to get people interested. Had I called the reported a tw@t, that would be namecalling. Idiot is a correct description (assuming they're not trying to mislead).BillyMansell wrote:
That you had previously chosen to play the man and not the ball by calling journalists "idiots" probably explains your mindset but you shouldn't assume everyone stoops to the level of name calling.GiantMike wrote:It's also flawed because journalists don't understand statistics and usually quote them out of context because they're idiots or are trying to mislead the viewer/listener.
You're continuing to miss my point. You are assuming I'm arguing against the JRF study, which I'm not. I don't care about the JRF study, I'm commenting on the BBC's reporting of it. I am not denying the JRF's research to stifle discussion. Happy to keep on this discussion, but stop putting words into my mouth or at least try to keep up with what I'm saying.BillyMansell wrote:
It is relevant as you made it's importance very clear and particularly as research isn't all about being right or wrong but about the questioning throughout the research and the discussions that ensue afterwards. Seeking to deny research to stifle discussion by claiming everyone has an agenda is a juvenile reaction to something someone doesn't agree with, can't accept or doesn't understand. Your own agenda has trumped any rational thought for what is a fair topic for a reasonable discussion pertinent to the research but that's okay as I wouldn't expect everyone to be excited by or objective towards academic research.GiantMike wrote:My 'agenda of needing to be seen as right' is irrelevant to the discussion.0 -
It's nice to know that, despite appearances, the people I stayed with in Africa recently aren't actually poor at all, since everyone else in the village is just as poor as they are! It must come as a great comfort to them.0
-
Bally, the subject of leftie hypocrisy is probably too extensive to cover in this threadBallysmate wrote:Probably as a surprise to Frank, and a few others on here, having right of centre politics, doesn't automatically put me on the side of big business. For instance, I abhor the practices of such as Amazon who are my absolute last resort for online shopping. Wage rates are dictated by numerous factors, but everyone should have reasonable conditions of service.
How many of the left wing brethren, blithely click on the likes of Amazon, knowing workers are being exploited, but are willing to do so because it saves money? In doing so, are they any different in their attitude than these businesses insofar as only being concerned with the bottom line?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -aint.html
That said, if anyone fancies another 'big business avoiding tax, aren't they all bar stewards' type argument then I'm game. I had a lot of fun in commuting chat a while back when certain people tried to claim the moral high ground on this one
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't believe you.Stevo 666 wrote:I had a lot of fun in commuting chat a while back when certain people tried to claim the moral high ground on this one
No one has fun in Commuting Chat.
Well, not anymore anyway!
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
True, though if you saw whose argument I was demolishing you'd see why I was having fundaviesee wrote:
Don't believe you.Stevo 666 wrote:I had a lot of fun in commuting chat a while back when certain people tried to claim the moral high ground on this one
No one has fun in Commuting Chat.
Well, not anymore anyway!
Sure I can find it if you don't believe me... "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I remember it well.Stevo 666 wrote:True, though if you saw whose argument I was demolishing you'd see why I was having fun Sure I can find it if you don't believe me...
There used to be fun to be had over there but some are taking life too seriously as they "mature".None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:
I remember it well.Stevo 666 wrote:True, though if you saw whose argument I was demolishing you'd see why I was having fun Sure I can find it if you don't believe me...
There used to be fun to be had over there but some are taking life too seriously as they "mature".
Perhaps we could send you and the other BB pensioners over there to lull them into a false sense of security :P"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
i wish i was articultae in typing, i could spout tosh bollox as i put it across well it would be lapped up.
poverty is relative. if one of the wealthy types on here, say vtech for example, had 200 kids he might be in poverty. wheras if he had none he'd be minted
the bbc have an inherent political leaning.0 -
I think people are scared of dying of boredom if they go in. Although one of the original whingers seems to have disappeared so there's less obvious fun to be had.daviesee wrote:
No one over there is putting their head over the parapet any more.arran77 wrote:
Perhaps we could send you and the other BB pensioners over there to lull them into a false sense of security :P
Anyhow, most of the leftiebollox threads are in here now so I can have fun without going on tour :P"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I saw another one this morning (going around on Facebook) that said that 40% of homeless people have jobs. Not sure if that was UK, worldwide, or USA.Frank the tank wrote:Living in poverty in the UK.......................... ARE IN WORK!! :evil:
According to an item on the BBC news today.0 -
Where do you start with this one?
The foundation of UK industry has been eroded by miss-management, over unionisation and competition from the far east. We have tried to replace the lost industry with service sector employment. It is fickle. It is far more susceptible to global economic change.
The likes of the big supermarkets employ far too many people on a part time basis. This is a good example as the majority of people worrking part-time have to claim some sort of benefits from HB to working tax credits.
That means that the state is indirectly inflating the supermarkets profits and those companies who employ people on a part time basis. Working part time means that an employer does not have to provide a state pension or make other employer contributions. The employee probably does not pay tax as he/she is under the threshold and is therefore not contributing to the tax pool.
Back to the OP. Should we not be measuring the income ratio? Statistically the ONS disregards the top and bottom 5% of earnings as there figures skew the stats. The earnings ratio between the top earners and bottom earners of 14-1 is more telling than the subjective markers for what is classed as poverty. This underlines our very unequal society. It is time we moved away from a high cost/low wage economy to a high cost/high wage economy but that would take a fundamental change in ecomomic strategy from our inherent and incidious short-termist approach to long term investment in infrastructure to education and training.
Countries like Japan and Germany have an ethos that education, training, health, communications is there for the collective good and for the general ecomomic health of the nation.
For too long, the UK has been squeezed by the rich and by the vested interest of the elite and representatives of the elite in 'UK plc' in an archaic, one dimensional Milton Freidman style.
What do people expect?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
