Definition of poverty

York Press: Definition of poverty Definition of poverty

JULIA UNWIN, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, asked for her opinion of the Chancellor’s autumn statement, stated 13 million people – a staggering figure in itself – are living in poverty in England today.

Poverty is a very emotive subject, particularly at this time of year, so could the foundation please advise the public as to their definition of same appropriate to the 21st century?

It could prove to be a major surprise or insult to many hard-working families.

Peter Rickaby, West Park, Selby.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:25pm Sat 28 Dec 13

gwen4me says...

There are very few people living in poverty in england, apart from the truly homeless. Poverty means not having the basic things in life, i.e. food, water, clothing, and the means to support yourself. Basics does not mean a huge flat screen telly, unlimited offspring and 40 fags a day.
There are very few people living in poverty in england, apart from the truly homeless. Poverty means not having the basic things in life, i.e. food, water, clothing, and the means to support yourself. Basics does not mean a huge flat screen telly, unlimited offspring and 40 fags a day. gwen4me

5:39pm Sat 28 Dec 13

Sillybillies says...

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation lost its way years ago. Gewen4me is quite correct, as this story shows -

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/pay
day-loans-mum-benefi
ts-left-2960282
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation lost its way years ago. Gewen4me is quite correct, as this story shows - http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/pay day-loans-mum-benefi ts-left-2960282 Sillybillies

2:30pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

Quite right, Sillybillies.

JRF sat on £260m of stock market investments and cash, excluding their social housing portfolio.
Annual income £8m from investments.
Annual costs for their 499 staff (including JRHT) £13m

Too much money spent on research, and not enough on housing . Julia Unwin should put her money where is mouth is, and use it to address poverty and housing rather than just being a social policy lobby group.

Joseph Seebohm Rowntree would be appalled at how his legacy is being used !
Quite right, Sillybillies. JRF sat on £260m of stock market investments and cash, excluding their social housing portfolio. Annual income £8m from investments. Annual costs for their 499 staff (including JRHT) £13m Too much money spent on research, and not enough on housing . Julia Unwin should put her money where is mouth is, and use it to address poverty and housing rather than just being a social policy lobby group. Joseph Seebohm Rowntree would be appalled at how his legacy is being used ! Rocking Horse

3:52pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Maquis says...

In a recent study by jrf they found New Earswick to be one of the loneliest places in the country. Supprisingly a Quaker settlement set up by mr Rowntree himself.
No pubs no community = loneliness.
In a recent study by jrf they found New Earswick to be one of the loneliest places in the country. Supprisingly a Quaker settlement set up by mr Rowntree himself. No pubs no community = loneliness. Maquis

4:32pm Sun 29 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc.
I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc. CaroleBaines

9:39am Mon 30 Dec 13

perplexed says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Quite right, Sillybillies.

JRF sat on £260m of stock market investments and cash, excluding their social housing portfolio.
Annual income £8m from investments.
Annual costs for their 499 staff (including JRHT) £13m

Too much money spent on research, and not enough on housing . Julia Unwin should put her money where is mouth is, and use it to address poverty and housing rather than just being a social policy lobby group.

Joseph Seebohm Rowntree would be appalled at how his legacy is being used !
According to Seebohm Rowntree's seminal study, Poverty, A Study of Town Life published in 1901 based on 46, 000 people in York . 20,000 were living in poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing. One of the chief reasons for such poverty. was in 25% of the cases, individuals or families were impoverished as a result of an absolute lack of income, on account of the chief wage-earner being either dead, disabled or otherwise unable to work. However, in around 50% of cases, the chief wage-earner was employed in regular work, but paid mere pittance, unable to sustain a healthy level of living,

Not surprisingly the report had its critics such as the Charity Organization Society who advocated the principles of self-help and limited government intervention in regard to poverty; which fundamentally indicated that the poor were poor of their own accord.

Curious , the more things change the more they seem to stay the same!
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: Quite right, Sillybillies. JRF sat on £260m of stock market investments and cash, excluding their social housing portfolio. Annual income £8m from investments. Annual costs for their 499 staff (including JRHT) £13m Too much money spent on research, and not enough on housing . Julia Unwin should put her money where is mouth is, and use it to address poverty and housing rather than just being a social policy lobby group. Joseph Seebohm Rowntree would be appalled at how his legacy is being used ![/p][/quote]According to Seebohm Rowntree's seminal study, Poverty, A Study of Town Life published in 1901 based on 46, 000 people in York . 20,000 were living in poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing. One of the chief reasons for such poverty. was in 25% of the cases, individuals or families were impoverished as a result of an absolute lack of income, on account of the chief wage-earner being either dead, disabled or otherwise unable to work. However, in around 50% of cases, the chief wage-earner was employed in regular work, but paid mere pittance, unable to sustain a healthy level of living, Not surprisingly the report had its critics such as the Charity Organization Society who advocated the principles of self-help and limited government intervention in regard to poverty; which fundamentally indicated that the poor were poor of their own accord. Curious , the more things change the more they seem to stay the same! perplexed

2:38pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Sillybillies says...

poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of today, the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods,
[quote]poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing. [/quote] According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of today, the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods, Sillybillies

4:34pm Mon 30 Dec 13

perplexed says...

Sillybillies wrote:
poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of today, the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods,
Could you please provide a link to assertion that the JRF has stated that the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods? I cannot seem to find this reference in any of their documentation.

Drawing on figures provided by the Office of National Statistics, the poorest people spend a much larger proportion of their budget on essential fixed-price items, such as heating and energy, staple foods, and buses. They spend a much lower proportion than middle or high earners on recreation, culture, leisure, eating out and going out for a drink.
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]poverty; defined by falling below a calculated minimum weekly sum of money 'necessary to enable families to secure the necessities of a healthy life'. 28% of York's population were living in the most serious poverty (or absolute poverty), unable to acquire even basic necessities such as food, fuel and clothing. [/quote] According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation of today, the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods,[/p][/quote]Could you please provide a link to assertion that the JRF has stated that the necessities of a healthy life and basic necessities, are large flat screen TVs, a top of the range satellite or cable package, the latest designer label clothes and trainers, and the latest in mobile phones on contract, game consoles and ipods? I cannot seem to find this reference in any of their documentation. Drawing on figures provided by the Office of National Statistics, the poorest people spend a much larger proportion of their budget on essential fixed-price items, such as heating and energy, staple foods, and buses. They spend a much lower proportion than middle or high earners on recreation, culture, leisure, eating out and going out for a drink. perplexed

5:23pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Sillybillies says...

When we talk about poverty in the UK today we rarely mean malnutrition or the levels of squalor of previous centuries or even the hardships of the 1930s before the advent of the welfare state. It is a relative concept. ‘Poor’ people are those who are considerably worse off than the majority of the population –
a level of deprivation heavily out of line with the general living standards
enjoyed by the majority of the population in one of the most affluent countries in the world.

Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.

See http://www.jrf.org.u
k/sites/files/jrf/po
verty-definitions.pd
f
[quote]When we talk about poverty in the UK today we rarely mean malnutrition or the levels of squalor of previous centuries or even the hardships of the 1930s before the advent of the welfare state. It is a relative concept. ‘Poor’ people are those who are considerably worse off than the majority of the population – a level of deprivation heavily out of line with the general living standards enjoyed by the majority of the population in one of the most affluent countries in the world. Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.[/quote] See http://www.jrf.org.u k/sites/files/jrf/po verty-definitions.pd f Sillybillies

5:43pm Mon 30 Dec 13

perplexed says...

Sillybillies wrote:
When we talk about poverty in the UK today we rarely mean malnutrition or the levels of squalor of previous centuries or even the hardships of the 1930s before the advent of the welfare state. It is a relative concept. ‘Poor’ people are those who are considerably worse off than the majority of the population –
a level of deprivation heavily out of line with the general living standards
enjoyed by the majority of the population in one of the most affluent countries in the world.

Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.

See http://www.jrf.org.u

k/sites/files/jrf/po

verty-definitions.pd

f
Interesting link and a good point about poverty being relative to the 1930, but I can still find no reference at all to the JRF advocating necessities of life to include Sky Tv, mobile phones and designer clothing. Might this be case of hyperbole perhaps or do you have any empirical evidence ? Whatever your definition of Poverty without facts, the debate is meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]When we talk about poverty in the UK today we rarely mean malnutrition or the levels of squalor of previous centuries or even the hardships of the 1930s before the advent of the welfare state. It is a relative concept. ‘Poor’ people are those who are considerably worse off than the majority of the population – a level of deprivation heavily out of line with the general living standards enjoyed by the majority of the population in one of the most affluent countries in the world. Professor Peter Townsend, a leading authority on UK poverty, defines relative poverty as when someone’s “resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”.[/quote] See http://www.jrf.org.u k/sites/files/jrf/po verty-definitions.pd f[/p][/quote]Interesting link and a good point about poverty being relative to the 1930, but I can still find no reference at all to the JRF advocating necessities of life to include Sky Tv, mobile phones and designer clothing. Might this be case of hyperbole perhaps or do you have any empirical evidence ? Whatever your definition of Poverty without facts, the debate is meaningless. perplexed

8:40pm Mon 30 Dec 13

gwen4me says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc.
Being in debt is up to the individual. If you choose to live on credit and you can`t afford the repayments you will soon be far worse off than if you try to live within your means and resist the temptation to spend on unnecessary things..
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc.[/p][/quote]Being in debt is up to the individual. If you choose to live on credit and you can`t afford the repayments you will soon be far worse off than if you try to live within your means and resist the temptation to spend on unnecessary things.. gwen4me

3:38am Tue 31 Dec 13

Maquis says...

Maquis wrote:
In a recent study by jrf they found New Earswick to be one of the loneliest places in the country. Supprisingly a Quaker settlement set up by mr Rowntree himself.
No pubs no community = loneliness.
I would be interested to find out why his got any thumbs down? It's a statement about jrf's own findings.
[quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: In a recent study by jrf they found New Earswick to be one of the loneliest places in the country. Supprisingly a Quaker settlement set up by mr Rowntree himself. No pubs no community = loneliness.[/p][/quote]I would be interested to find out why his got any thumbs down? It's a statement about jrf's own findings. Maquis

10:21am Tue 31 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

gwen4me wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc.
Being in debt is up to the individual. If you choose to live on credit and you can`t afford the repayments you will soon be far worse off than if you try to live within your means and resist the temptation to spend on unnecessary things..
I was not making a judgement on whose fault debt is, but since you have plunged in, quick to condemn, can you explain how losing one's job or becoming ill and not being able to repay a mortgage is 'up to the individual'?? It is possible to be in debt because of circumstance and misfortune and not recklessness.
[quote][p][bold]gwen4me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: I would imagine judging poverty is tricky nowadays. A lot of people are in serious debt, a hell of a lot of people. It is not just about being able to buy food, heating etc.[/p][/quote]Being in debt is up to the individual. If you choose to live on credit and you can`t afford the repayments you will soon be far worse off than if you try to live within your means and resist the temptation to spend on unnecessary things..[/p][/quote]I was not making a judgement on whose fault debt is, but since you have plunged in, quick to condemn, can you explain how losing one's job or becoming ill and not being able to repay a mortgage is 'up to the individual'?? It is possible to be in debt because of circumstance and misfortune and not recklessness. CaroleBaines

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree