OT: En Attendant les Barbares (Long Rant from Paris)

[[email protected]]

Mark Thompson wrote:

> <url:http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/needf.htm#measure>
> suggests where you're going wrong

Thanks for the link.

'Relative poverty is based on a comparison of poor people with others
in society. Peter Townsend defines poverty as "the absence or
inadequacy of those diets, amenities, standards, services and
activities which are common or customary in society."

Yup, there is definately plenty of such poverty in the UK...

 

[[email protected]]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

>
> Their friends then took to the streets, burning schools and creches,
> torching public libraries... Three of them ganged up on
> a man who was photographing lamp-posts for an urban development project.
> They smashed his skull open with clubs while his wife and daughter
> looked on from a parked car. It seems they liked the guy's camera and
> thought they should have it rather than him.
>

One thing Elisa, this is a coulourful account of the troubles, but
where did you get this 'clubbing' story from? I don't recall reading it
anywhere else.

 

[Jim Ley]

On 8 Nov 2005 11:56:49 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>The UK has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Europe and is one
>of the least equitable countries in the developed world. The UK is the
>4th richest nation on earth and yet almost 20% of it's population live
>below the official poverty line

The poverty line is defined relative to incomes though, so unless
everyone has the same income you will always have people below the
poverty line, large numbers below the poverty don't actually mean all
that much in itself, the other distributions are important.

As you note later, it's having a few very wealthy people at the top
which make the difference, and the fact that the UK has very rich
immigrants choosing to live here says very little about the actual
opportunities available to people.

For example, of the top 5 people in the Sunday Times rich list, only 2
are native.

>- nearly 3 times as many as in France

Yet the French unemployment rate is double the UK rate, that's hardly
something to aspire too.

Jim.

 

[Jim Ley]

On 8 Nov 2005 13:19:33 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>> <url:http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/needf.htm#measure>
>> suggests where you're going wrong
>
>Thanks for the link.
>
>'Relative poverty is based on a comparison of poor people with others
>in society. Peter Townsend defines poverty as "the absence or
>inadequacy of those diets, amenities, standards, services and
>activities which are common or customary in society."
>
>Yup, there is definately plenty of such poverty in the UK...

No there's not, we're all human, and everyone in the UK has, unless
through their own choice standards of all of the above considerably
higher the human norm.

Jim.

 

[gds]

Jim Ley wrote:
> >
> The poverty line is defined relative to incomes though,

No it isn't!
Poverty is defined by what things (goods & services) people need to
live at a certain standard and then the income level is associated with
that by calculating the income necessary to achieve the standard.

So, you can have a group with no one living in pverty and another with
everyone living in poverty.

 

[Ken Clements]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Might I suggest that you read something like Polly Toynbee's 'Hard Work
> to get an insight into the reality of Britain's low-pay, zero-security
> employment market. It might make a change from reading 'The Daily
> Mail!

Why the Daily Mail? Seems to be a fan of Blair World. More like the
Gaurdian.

Ken
>

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:
>
> Yet the French unemployment rate is double the UK rate, that's hardly
> something to aspire too.
>

>From my experience the 'low' unemployment in the UK is largely because
so few actually qualify for 'unemployment benefit' in the UK any more.
With JSA you get 12 weeks to find a job comparable to that you had
before, then are pressurised to take just about anything. If you
partner has an income you might not qualify at all. This is why so many
have resorted to living on incapacity benefits or simply don't qualify
for benefits. Just look at the number of working aged people in the UK
who are registered as economically inactive but don't count as
unemployed, about 6 million isn't it?

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

> it's having a few very wealthy people at the top
> which make the difference,

No its having an awful lot of people living on low incomes that makes
the real difference...

 

[Jon Senior]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> Apologies for OT but posting because it seems some people here enjoy my
> writing.
>
> As my fellow list-members know, I live in a suburb of Paris. Although
> the rioters have not yet reached full stride on this side of town, it is
> only a matter of time.

<snip - tale of the siege>

> So there you have it.
>
> EFR
>
> Embattled in Ile de France

On the bright side; having recently finalised the arrangements for my
long-planned (and oft-delayed) move to France, I find that I have quit
my job, and arranged my temporary move back to my parent's just in time
for my future home city to catch fire. My peers here in Edinburgh seem
to delight in mentioning that it is currently burning at most opportunities!

Take care out there.

Jon

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:


> Yet the French unemployment
> rate is double the UK rate, that's > hardly something to aspire too.

>From my experience the 'low' unemployment in the UK is largely because
so few actually qualify for 'unemployment benefit' in the UK any more.
With JSA you get 12 weeks to find a job comparable to that you had
before, then are pressurised to take just about anything. If you
partner has an income you might not qualify at all. This is why so many
have resorted to living on incapacity benefits or simply don't qualify
for benefits. Just look at the number of working-aged people in the UK
who are registered as economically inactive but don't count as
unemployed, about 6 million isn't it?

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

>
> Yet the French unemployment rate is double the UK rate, that's hardly
> something to aspire too.



>From my experience the 'low' unemployment in the UK is largely because
so few actually qualify for 'unemployment benefit' in the UK any more.
With JSA you get 12 weeks to find a job comparable to that you had
before, then are pressurised to take just about anything. If you
partner has an income you might not qualify at all. This is why so many
have resorted to living on incapacity benefits or simply don't qualify
for benefits. Just look at the number of working aged people in the UK
who are registered as economically inactive but don't count as
unemployed, about 6 million isn't it?

 

[Jon Senior]

Ken Clements wrote:
> Why the Daily Mail? Seems to be a fan of Blair World. More like the
> Gaurdian.

I think that was kinda the point... ;-)

Jon

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

" the French unemployment rate is double the UK rate, that's hardly
something to aspire too."



>From my experience the 'low' unemployment in the UK is largely because
so few actually qualify for 'unemployment benefit' in the UK any more.
With JSA you get 12 weeks to find a job comparable to that you had
before, then are pressurised to take just about anything. If you
partner has an income you might not qualify at all. This is why so many
have resorted to living on incapacity benefits or simply don't qualify
for benefits. Just look at the number of working aged people in the UK
who are registered as economically inactive but don't count as
unemployed, about 6 million isn't it?

 

[Jim Ley]

On 8 Nov 2005 14:06:37 -0800, "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Jim Ley wrote:
>> >
>> The poverty line is defined relative to incomes though,
>
>No it isn't!
>Poverty is defined by what things (goods & services) people need to
>live at a certain standard and then the income level is associated with
>that by calculating the income necessary to achieve the standard.

Er yes it is the 20% figure quoted is based on the EU/OECD measure of
60% of the Median income, this means that if just a few people int
middle get a better job, and earn a few more pounds so the 50% figure
is higher, more people are suddenly in poverty despite the fact no-one
actually got poorer, in fact everyone could've got richer, and more
people are suddenly below the poverty line.

Jim.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> Jim Ley wrote:
>
> > it's having a few very wealthy people at the top
> > which make the difference,
>
> No its having an awful lot of people living on low incomes that makes
> the real difference...

Same difference

 

[Jim Ley]

On 8 Nov 2005 14:47:48 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Jim Ley wrote:
>>
>> Yet the French unemployment rate is double the UK rate, that's hardly
>> something to aspire too.
>>
>
>>From my experience the 'low' unemployment in the UK is largely because
>so few actually qualify for 'unemployment benefit' in the UK any more.

Which is why the unemployment statistics aren't based on claimants...

> Just look at the number of working aged people in the UK
>who are registered as economically inactive but don't count as
>unemployed, about 6 million isn't it?

Well if you want to look at Employment rates instead of unemployment,
then the UK still is considerably higher than France, I couldn't find
any up to date figures for france to go with the UK's 74.8%
economically active 15-64yr olds. However in 2001
http://www.ibeurope.com/Database/Resources/R015emp.htm
it was 71.6% in UK compared to only 62.7% in France, as the french
unemployment rate has risen since 2001, it would seem likely that the
actual difference has widened rather than narrowing.

Jim.

 

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:

> nobody760 wrote:
> >
> > I am going to stick my neck out here - but it does occur to me that if
> > Algerians lived in Algeria, Moroccans lived in Morocco, Pakistanis
> > lived in Pakistan and Indians lived in India that some of these
> > problems simply would not exist.
> >
>
> Just wondering about your defintion of an American.
>
> Or for that matter Algerian, Moroccon, and Pakistani. That part of the
> world has lots of tribes and tribal affiliation often trumps national
> affiliation.
>
> It would seem to me that the solution to this is creating fewer rather
> than more definitions of "different."

Anyway in the Peak district where I live we Peacs wish everybody else
would F off as we woz ere first, er about 3000 years ago or more
perhaps, except for them neanderthals but theyre ardly uman. We built
Arbor Low - just show us a plastic window wos lasted alf as long.

pass the mead
cheers

Ug

 

[The Wogster]

Jim Ley wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2005 11:56:49 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>The UK has the most unequal distribution of wealth in Europe and is one
>>of the least equitable countries in the developed world. The UK is the
>>4th richest nation on earth and yet almost 20% of it's population live
>>below the official poverty line
>
>
> The poverty line is defined relative to incomes though, so unless
> everyone has the same income you will always have people below the
> poverty line, large numbers below the poverty don't actually mean all
> that much in itself, the other distributions are important.
>
> As you note later, it's having a few very wealthy people at the top
> which make the difference, and the fact that the UK has very rich
> immigrants choosing to live here says very little about the actual
> opportunities available to people.

Mostly you need to remember that this is the 80/20 rule, 80% of the
money will be held by 20% of the people, the obverse side of that is
that 80% of the people have 20% of the money.

The poverty line, has little to do with actual income, it has a lot more
to do with what portion of income is needed to meet basic expenses. The
standard saying is that rent (or mortgage costs) should be 1/3 of
income, food, clothing, transportation should be another 1/3 leaving 1/3
for other stuff. However if rent is 60% and food, clothing and
transportation take up another 60% then your in trouble.

W

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]>
posted on 8 Nov 2005 05:19:06 -0800, sothach wrote: Begin

>OnTopic: On the plus side, that's abount 1700 less cars on the roads...

They haven't started burning bicycles yet, have they?

--

Bart

 

[Roger Houston]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If they are lucky enough to have good leaders it
> becomes a "peaceful civil rights protest", if not then a riot.

If you have a leader like Saddam Hussein with a butt-boy nicknamed Chemical
Ali, it becomes a Halabja. Fine with most of the world, I guess...