|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Which one? Both of them are just counting, adding, and dividing numbers.
It's not akin to that union rep argument at all. Every country has rich and poor. In the UK, the poor are poorer than in other countries. The rich, otoh, are doing about average compared to the rich in other countries.
The JRF link. It's dumb and it would be shocking if it was published and made it past peer review. Here's how the conversation should go:
Random: Bean, have a guess what % of children live in poverty in the UK? It's shocking.
Bean: how are you measuring poverty?
Random: It says here it's based on a household income of 60% of the UK median.
Bean: ok, so about 30%.
Random: wait, how did you know that?
Bean: 50% median * 60% = 30%. Your results might differ a little bit if households with higher incomes have fewer or a greater number of kids on average.
Random: ah, ok. But shocking isn't it?
Bean: no, it's just basic maths. It doesn't tell us anything.
So it's exactly the same as my union rep example.
I've seen other poverty studies which say the minimum standard is one holiday per year, otherwise it's poverty. Right, ok.
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So some parents make "poor life decisions," (around 30% of the people in the country who have kids according to Ong). Even if you accept that argument, I still don't see why that means the kids should have to suffer. What poor life decisions have they made?
Agree kids shouldn't suffer obviously. I gather the estimate is 100,000 don't have one hot meal every single day. So a couple of %, which is still unacceptable. But, that's what free school meals are for and benefits, plus the social care system acts as some form of protection. I know a few people with kids unwilling to work that are all doing just fine on benefits. One of which prioritises themselves over their kids.
|
Reply With Quote