Child Poverty Worse It Was In The 1960S

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401664/Britains-child-poverty-social-apartheid-Problems-faced-young-worse-1960s-claim-researchers.html

How can this possibly be, answers please?

[New Judge]

With apologies to Tony Capstick:

“We dint av no tellies nor shoes nor bedclothes, we med us own fun in them days, duz tha know, wen ar wur a lad, wid ger a tram darn t' tarn, get three new suits, four pair of good boots an an ovvercoat, see George Formby at Palace Theatre, get blind drunk, av sum steak and chips, bunch o bananas and three stone o monkey nuts and still av change art of a farthing!!”

You can’t do that today so child poverty has obviously increased enormously.

Child poverty is a relative measure (relative to average earnings) and is completely meaningless. Anyone who believes children (or indeed adults) are more financially deprived today than they were fifty years ago is talking large round things. I cannot even be bothered to support my argument with facts (of which there are plenty). The George Rowntree Foundation would still find abject poverty in the richest nation on earth given the opportunity.

[starone]

I loved sqad's reply. I was brought up in the 1930's when there was true poverty. No-one had anything. Doors were left open because there was nothing worth stealing. But we were all the same and so I did not notice that we were poor. When children now reach the stage we were then I will believe they are poverty stricken. Also I have noticed that there is quite often money for cigarettes and alcohol so please, do not tell me there is not enough money for food especially when there is still a car in the driveway and a flat screen tv in the family room.

[Gromit]

It could be that the original 'Born to Fail' report, published in 1973 was wrong. There are so many people coming forward on this thread who were poverty stricken in the 1960s who are now comfortable and have had prosperous lives?

[Sqad]

Gromit

\\\There are so many people coming forward on this thread who were poverty stricken in the 1960s who are now comfortable and have had prosperous lives?\\

I think that you have missed our points......we were NOT poverty stricken.
Poverty then 1950/60's was...no shoes, dirty, no money for soap to wash, one would smell and was hungry and begged for food.

THAT was what we thought was POVERTY.

[Brenden]

That is my definition of poverty sqad. Now they think they are poor if they have no Ipod, flatscreen tele and up todate mobile.

[horseshoes]

I'm with Yogasun, Dot etc. I was an only child in the 50s too. Mum worked as well as Dad yet I'm sure they weren't well off. Mum worked in the school holidays just so she could keep her job, but all her wages went on child care! I remember when I passed my 11+ to go to Grammar School and the only shop which sold the uniform was the dearest shop in town, my Mum took ANOTHER little job to pay for it. We didn't have a phone until I was about 15 and holidays were always in a caravan in Cornwall. It's all relative, but there are too many people who want things on a plate. I was always taught if you want something, you work for it. I don't believe there is real poverty in the UK, but I do think there are a lot of feckless people who make things worse for themselves.

[ummmm]

I think the difference is there were jobs. My mum and dad have always worked (70's child) but the options are not there anymore.

[ummmm]

And there is much more pressure on youngsters today. When I was a kid we weren't judged by what clothes we were wearing.

I'd hate to be a kid is this day and age....

[tamborine]

Collecting coal spill from railway, coal stove as only heating (10y bruv's job to maitain). Tin bath water shared by parents & 4 kids (1pw). Walk 2m to school (scrump for extras). Hand me downs or SSAFA clothes. No tv or car, only pram wheel cart! Lived in tin nissan hut, Maghull 1960ish.

Then to Singapore & live like royalty ;)

[tamborine]

G'kids cant carry towel & bathers, let alone a bucket of coal

[jake-the-peg]

I haven't yet seen anybody go off and find out what relative poverty is - everybody instead seems to want to jump together and polish each others halos with 'When I was a lad' stories

Shame really because there's something really interesting here.

You're in relative poverty if you earn less than 60% of the average (median) income.

So if you stop and think about it for a second you'll see that roughly speaking you'll always have about the same number of people in relative poverty.

What this report is telling us is there are now more children in these famillies.

Because they are having more children?

Because people with more children losing their jobs and can't get the benefits they used to?

[Sqad]

Jake

\\\\I haven't yet seen anybody go off and find out what relative poverty is - everybody instead seems to want to jump together and polish each others halos with 'When I was a lad' stories \\\\

You could never cope with the "stories from the people on the ground", without a statistical analysis of a situation, you tend to flounder.

\\\\You're in relative poverty if you earn less than 60% of the average (median) income. \\

The thread isn't about "relative" poverty, or a definition of poverty, it is the experiences of a group of people two generations apart.......no more, no less.

\\\So if you stop and think about it for a second you'll see that roughly speaking you'll always have about the same number of people in relative poverty. \\\

Well, that may be YOUR assessment, but clearly not the opinion of many posters on this thread.

\\\Because people with more children losing their jobs and can't get the benefits they used to?\\\

Yes, unemployment now is a consideration, but BENFITS? there were not the benefits available 60 years ago as there is now.

[Gromit]

As I stated much earlier, unemployment is not rrally mugh different. The problem is underemployment. Not as many hours available and more working for the minimum wage.

[sandyRoe]

There seems to be one of two distinct threads of 'poverty' being described. we're seeing here people from families who had little money yet managed by example to set their children on the right path. There was no poverty when it came to self respect, or lack of ambition when the opportunity arose.

[horseshoes]

@ ummmm, my friend went to a primary school (this would be early 60s), in the days when there used to be massive fireplaces in the classrooms. Her teacher would stand with her skirt hoisted up at the back, warming her backside. Then on a Monday morning she'd ask the class "is anyone wearing anything new this week"? Whoever put their hand up would have to go to her and she'd look at the label!!!!!! So it seems SOME were judged by what they wore! LOL

[pastafreak]

I'm finding this thread interesting because of the huge contrast between my childhood in the States,and that of squad/craft and so ,many others on here...and we are roughly the same generation.
My parents were not materialistic by any stretch of the imagination,nor did they have much money. But they always had a car, and a fridge,cooker and washing machine were the norm when I was quite young. Our first telly was bought by my elder sister...I remember watching the coronation on it. My mother made a lot of my cloths,and we always had home grown veg. We lived in an area about 35 miles from NYC that was changing from agricultural to the new post war housing estates. Migrant workers-the real poor then-were a common sight still.

[atalanta]

In the 1960's, to my knowledge, there were appalling slums in many cities, notably London and Birmingham. It was quite possible to rent a back-to-back, 2up, 2down, with no inside tap or lavatory, for a whole family . One outdoor tap would be shared by several families, and all water would have to be carried indoors as required. Many children ran about unshod and in rags.
In some places in Birmingham, there was "hot mattressing" : when one man got up to go to work, another man who had just finished a night-shift would take over the mattress on the floor. The floor would be solid - from wall to wall - with mattresses, and sleeping men.
Mind you, Dublin was even worse.
I could tell more stories . . . .

[naomi24]

Perhaps expectations are higher now and people less content with what they have.

[New Judge]

Yes you are exactly right naomi. That's why the "relative poverty" measure is a nonsense. Jake is completely right - by the very nature of the measurement there will always be roughly the same number of children "in poverty" because there will always be roughly the same number of families living on less than 60% of the average income however high that might be.

A measure of absolute poverty would be far more meaningful.

[anotheoldgit]

DJHawkes

/// i don't think mum got much family allowance ///

You are quite right she wouldn't have, in 1960 parents only got paid 'Family Allowance' for the first child.