Victorian poverty
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 07 Apr 15 3.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Also Victorian Poverty might be overstating the case, given that meant a realistic chance of death, prostitution, the workhouse etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| EricYoung'sSweatBand 07 Apr 15 3.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.37pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 2.12pm
Quote elgrande at 07 Apr 2015 2.09pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 10.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 9.54am
Quote Pawson Palace at 07 Apr 2015 9.19am
Simple solution. Scrap cash benefits for energy, food and clothing vouchers. No excuses then. To an extent, but then you need to introduce a system by which they are refunded at point of use, and a system to prevent them being sold for cash on a black market that will florish (because invariably a voucher system can't compensate for the fluxtuation in expenditure for example sometimes you need more for clothes). Plus, occassionally there is money required for other things, such as travel, public transport use, books, car maintenance and other products of life (mobile phone, internet etc). As such vouchers represent a problem in that they lack a flexibility of cash. Now I know that other people will disagree about mobile phone and internet etc - but if you want people to find work, these are pretty much essential tools in the modern age. Also things like access to books really make a difference in the prospects of kids in improving their future chances I've always believed that engery supply like water, should be 'free' to the consumer, to an extent and recovered through taxation. Some good points Jaimie but why does the solution to poverty always = more money? As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, a lot is to do with life skills. The ability to cook from scratch, repair clothes and yes learn to read / write and use a computer. I would much rather see money invested in this than just throwing money at people and not solving the problem. so right on those points,kids having kids having kids,nothing is taught to the next generation.
I'm from an OK background and can't sew a button nor can I do pretty much most DIY stuff around the house and that has nothing to do with (a lack of) wealth I can just about, because my dad was good at the DIY stuff and I had to do needlework in school (I'm s**t at sowing, but I can just about thread a needle, stitch on a button etc). My poor DIY knowledge is supplimented by Google and a decent book on DIY my dad gave me. But I also understand that a lot of people don't have access to certain skills, because they've never had an opportunity to learn them or inherit them from their parents or wider family - and without access to those skills their capacity to 'resolve an issue without wealth' is difficult (thanks to Google I can wire a plug with confidence, change fuses etc). But its pot luck. Other people in my family are at a loss for DIY etc, and consequently they'd have to pay other people to do it, which is where the wealth factor kicks in (because the general rule of life is either you do it, or pay someone else to do it). If a poor person could do all the things that people who can't do them pay for, they probably wouldn't be as poor. They would hopefully be getting paid do it all as odd job men/women I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line? We have infinitely more things in the house that can break than say 30 years or even 20 years ago. Knowing how to sew or change a plug won't help them if the car breaks down or the boiler goes. 10 pairs of socks are a about quid in Primark - I really don't think they are the issue Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 3.45pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 07 Apr 15 3.51pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.37pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 2.12pm
Quote elgrande at 07 Apr 2015 2.09pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 10.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 9.54am
Quote Pawson Palace at 07 Apr 2015 9.19am
Simple solution. Scrap cash benefits for energy, food and clothing vouchers. No excuses then. To an extent, but then you need to introduce a system by which they are refunded at point of use, and a system to prevent them being sold for cash on a black market that will florish (because invariably a voucher system can't compensate for the fluxtuation in expenditure for example sometimes you need more for clothes). Plus, occassionally there is money required for other things, such as travel, public transport use, books, car maintenance and other products of life (mobile phone, internet etc). As such vouchers represent a problem in that they lack a flexibility of cash. Now I know that other people will disagree about mobile phone and internet etc - but if you want people to find work, these are pretty much essential tools in the modern age. Also things like access to books really make a difference in the prospects of kids in improving their future chances I've always believed that engery supply like water, should be 'free' to the consumer, to an extent and recovered through taxation. Some good points Jaimie but why does the solution to poverty always = more money? As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, a lot is to do with life skills. The ability to cook from scratch, repair clothes and yes learn to read / write and use a computer. I would much rather see money invested in this than just throwing money at people and not solving the problem. so right on those points,kids having kids having kids,nothing is taught to the next generation.
I'm from an OK background and can't sew a button nor can I do pretty much most DIY stuff around the house and that has nothing to do with (a lack of) wealth I can just about, because my dad was good at the DIY stuff and I had to do needlework in school (I'm s**t at sowing, but I can just about thread a needle, stitch on a button etc). My poor DIY knowledge is supplimented by Google and a decent book on DIY my dad gave me. But I also understand that a lot of people don't have access to certain skills, because they've never had an opportunity to learn them or inherit them from their parents or wider family - and without access to those skills their capacity to 'resolve an issue without wealth' is difficult (thanks to Google I can wire a plug with confidence, change fuses etc). But its pot luck. Other people in my family are at a loss for DIY etc, and consequently they'd have to pay other people to do it, which is where the wealth factor kicks in (because the general rule of life is either you do it, or pay someone else to do it). If a poor person could do all the things that people who can't do them pay for, they probably wouldn't be as poor. They would hopefully be getting paid do it all as odd job men/women I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line? We have infinitely more things in the house that can break than say 30 years or even 20 years ago. Knowing how to sew or change a plug won't help them if the car breaks down or the boiler goes. 10 pairs of socks are a about quid in Primark - I really don't think they are the issue Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 3.45pm) You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse. 1) If they are that poor then actually £1 is a lot and the Primark mentality is part of the problem. 2) We can't keep throwing money at the problem. Whether it is anybody's fault is irrelevant, life skills need to improve, particularly for the poor who in the main tend to be less well educated and will earn less. 3) the more wealthy you are, the more disposable income you have. How you spend it is up to you. Want to get a decorator in, then you do. cant afford it? then you do it yourself. Or do you think that the state should pay for that because as you said, where do you draw the line?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stuk Top half 07 Apr 15 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Also Victorian Poverty might be overstating the case, given that meant a realistic chance of death, prostitution, the workhouse etc.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EricYoung'sSweatBand 07 Apr 15 4.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 3.51pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.37pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 2.12pm
Quote elgrande at 07 Apr 2015 2.09pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 10.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 9.54am
Quote Pawson Palace at 07 Apr 2015 9.19am
Simple solution. Scrap cash benefits for energy, food and clothing vouchers. No excuses then. To an extent, but then you need to introduce a system by which they are refunded at point of use, and a system to prevent them being sold for cash on a black market that will florish (because invariably a voucher system can't compensate for the fluxtuation in expenditure for example sometimes you need more for clothes). Plus, occassionally there is money required for other things, such as travel, public transport use, books, car maintenance and other products of life (mobile phone, internet etc). As such vouchers represent a problem in that they lack a flexibility of cash. Now I know that other people will disagree about mobile phone and internet etc - but if you want people to find work, these are pretty much essential tools in the modern age. Also things like access to books really make a difference in the prospects of kids in improving their future chances I've always believed that engery supply like water, should be 'free' to the consumer, to an extent and recovered through taxation. Some good points Jaimie but why does the solution to poverty always = more money? As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, a lot is to do with life skills. The ability to cook from scratch, repair clothes and yes learn to read / write and use a computer. I would much rather see money invested in this than just throwing money at people and not solving the problem. so right on those points,kids having kids having kids,nothing is taught to the next generation.
I'm from an OK background and can't sew a button nor can I do pretty much most DIY stuff around the house and that has nothing to do with (a lack of) wealth I can just about, because my dad was good at the DIY stuff and I had to do needlework in school (I'm s**t at sowing, but I can just about thread a needle, stitch on a button etc). My poor DIY knowledge is supplimented by Google and a decent book on DIY my dad gave me. But I also understand that a lot of people don't have access to certain skills, because they've never had an opportunity to learn them or inherit them from their parents or wider family - and without access to those skills their capacity to 'resolve an issue without wealth' is difficult (thanks to Google I can wire a plug with confidence, change fuses etc). But its pot luck. Other people in my family are at a loss for DIY etc, and consequently they'd have to pay other people to do it, which is where the wealth factor kicks in (because the general rule of life is either you do it, or pay someone else to do it). If a poor person could do all the things that people who can't do them pay for, they probably wouldn't be as poor. They would hopefully be getting paid do it all as odd job men/women I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line? We have infinitely more things in the house that can break than say 30 years or even 20 years ago. Knowing how to sew or change a plug won't help them if the car breaks down or the boiler goes. 10 pairs of socks are a about quid in Primark - I really don't think they are the issue Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 3.45pm) You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse. 1) If they are that poor then actually £1 is a lot and the Primark mentality is part of the problem. 2) We can't keep throwing money at the problem. Whether it is anybody's fault is irrelevant, life skills need to improve, particularly for the poor who in the main tend to be less well educated and will earn less. 3) the more wealthy you are, the more disposable income you have. How you spend it is up to you. Want to get a decorator in, then you do. cant afford it? then you do it yourself. Or do you think that the state should pay for that because as you said, where do you draw the line?
Yeah I think it's you that is missing the point. Life skills will only get you so far and will only substitute some of the cost of living life. There are a million things that can break or need replacing in ones life and you cannot expect people to know how to fix them all because they are poor. Being poor might mean them working 12 hour days just to put food on the table - when do you suggest they get down the local carpentry college to brush up? Your suggestion gets to only part of the problem. Also, well done on chucking a massive strawman in there though. As if I mentioned anything about them getting free decorating. Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 4.03pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Apr 15 4.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
If a poor person could do all the things that people who can't do them pay for, they probably wouldn't be as poor. They would hopefully be getting paid do it all as odd job men/women I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line? We have infinitely more things in the house that can break than say 30 years or even 20 years ago. Knowing how to sew or change a plug won't help them if the car breaks down or the boiler goes. 10 pairs of socks are a about quid in Primark - I really don't think they are the issue Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 3.45pm) Thing is though, 20-30 years ago, the working class was largely comprised of semi and skilled workers, many of who had the capacity to either work extra shifts or do a bit of 'private work' on the side. The modern era, post industrialism, sees a society where in the working class is typically defined by minimum wage, minimal options for overtime and working in low to no skilled work, and as such closer to the underclass of yester year (who were probably better off given the options for labouring work and farm work). It also has seen a dearth of skill training in the lower and middle working classes. People don't have the kind of skill thats 'transferable' outside of their occupation. Low to no skill work, has become somewhat scarce and the wages uncompetative due to changes in working practices and law. My grandfather and Uncle provided a decent living for a wife and three kids working in the Post Office, because the contracts they were employed on provided a reasonable wage and reasonable capacity to earn more from extra shifts. Neither were 'steller' career people or managers etc. Both owned their own home, and whilst not having extravgent lives, pursed hobbies and interests on disposable income. Now days, if you worked in a similar role, you'd be lucky to earn enough for one person to live reasonably on. Edited by jamiemartin721 (07 Apr 2015 4.14pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 07 Apr 15 4.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 4.03pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 3.51pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.37pm
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 2.12pm
Quote elgrande at 07 Apr 2015 2.09pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 10.41am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 9.54am
Quote Pawson Palace at 07 Apr 2015 9.19am
Simple solution. Scrap cash benefits for energy, food and clothing vouchers. No excuses then. To an extent, but then you need to introduce a system by which they are refunded at point of use, and a system to prevent them being sold for cash on a black market that will florish (because invariably a voucher system can't compensate for the fluxtuation in expenditure for example sometimes you need more for clothes). Plus, occassionally there is money required for other things, such as travel, public transport use, books, car maintenance and other products of life (mobile phone, internet etc). As such vouchers represent a problem in that they lack a flexibility of cash. Now I know that other people will disagree about mobile phone and internet etc - but if you want people to find work, these are pretty much essential tools in the modern age. Also things like access to books really make a difference in the prospects of kids in improving their future chances I've always believed that engery supply like water, should be 'free' to the consumer, to an extent and recovered through taxation. Some good points Jaimie but why does the solution to poverty always = more money? As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, a lot is to do with life skills. The ability to cook from scratch, repair clothes and yes learn to read / write and use a computer. I would much rather see money invested in this than just throwing money at people and not solving the problem. so right on those points,kids having kids having kids,nothing is taught to the next generation.
I'm from an OK background and can't sew a button nor can I do pretty much most DIY stuff around the house and that has nothing to do with (a lack of) wealth I can just about, because my dad was good at the DIY stuff and I had to do needlework in school (I'm s**t at sowing, but I can just about thread a needle, stitch on a button etc). My poor DIY knowledge is supplimented by Google and a decent book on DIY my dad gave me. But I also understand that a lot of people don't have access to certain skills, because they've never had an opportunity to learn them or inherit them from their parents or wider family - and without access to those skills their capacity to 'resolve an issue without wealth' is difficult (thanks to Google I can wire a plug with confidence, change fuses etc). But its pot luck. Other people in my family are at a loss for DIY etc, and consequently they'd have to pay other people to do it, which is where the wealth factor kicks in (because the general rule of life is either you do it, or pay someone else to do it). If a poor person could do all the things that people who can't do them pay for, they probably wouldn't be as poor. They would hopefully be getting paid do it all as odd job men/women I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line? We have infinitely more things in the house that can break than say 30 years or even 20 years ago. Knowing how to sew or change a plug won't help them if the car breaks down or the boiler goes. 10 pairs of socks are a about quid in Primark - I really don't think they are the issue Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 3.45pm) You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse. 1) If they are that poor then actually £1 is a lot and the Primark mentality is part of the problem. 2) We can't keep throwing money at the problem. Whether it is anybody's fault is irrelevant, life skills need to improve, particularly for the poor who in the main tend to be less well educated and will earn less. 3) the more wealthy you are, the more disposable income you have. How you spend it is up to you. Want to get a decorator in, then you do. cant afford it? then you do it yourself. Or do you think that the state should pay for that because as you said, where do you draw the line?
Yeah I think it's you that is missing the point. Life skills will only get you so far and will only substitute some of the cost of living life. There are a million things that can break or need replacing in ones life and you cannot expect people to know how to fix them all because they are poor. Being poor might mean them working 12 hour days just to put food on the table - when do you suggest they get down the local carpentry college to brush up? Your suggestion gets to only part of the problem. Also, well done on chucking a massive strawman in there though. As if I mentioned anything about them getting free decorating. Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 4.03pm) At no time have I said that people should be expected to know how to fix everything. Once again, if you had been bothered to read my original posts, I said basic life skills and how they had disappeared in the space of a generation. As for the strawman, you introduced that with your ridiculous comment regarding people being expected to be capable of doing everything around the house.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Apr 15 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 07 Apr 2015 3.58pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Also Victorian Poverty might be overstating the case, given that meant a realistic chance of death, prostitution, the workhouse etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
hopefully not a sociology or history teacher. If people think violent crime and suicide are a problem in the modern era, they should look a Victorian England.| EricYoung'sSweatBand 07 Apr 15 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 4.14pm
As for the strawman, you introduced that with your ridiculous comment regarding people being expected to be capable of doing everything around the house. I have read your original post Quote I will qualify the "s***ty" bit. Poor would have been better. The reality is that too many families (both poor and wealthy) don't have the skills to raise a family if it doesn't involve spending money. So when the money stops, people cannot/will not adapt. Cooking skills, haberdashery etc have almost vanished in a single generation. By today's measure, I grew up in poverty for a large part of my childhood. having meat with a meal would besides a Sunday chicken usually be offal or pigs trotters until I was 12 and got a job on a farm. Instead of throwing money at the problem improve life skills. Quite clearly you did not write basic once. There is no strawman from me. I'm highlighting over and over my point that having 'life skills' do not get to the route of the problem and can only mask it. A fixed sock or a repaired zip will save pounds but life is more complex and much more expensive than that. What justification can you possibly have for suggesting that I think poor people should have their houses decorated on the state? Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 4.23pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 07 Apr 15 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 4.15pm
Quote Stuk at 07 Apr 2015 3.58pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Apr 2015 3.42pm
Also Victorian Poverty might be overstating the case, given that meant a realistic chance of death, prostitution, the workhouse etc.
Unforgivable stupidity, even for a PE teacher.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 07 Apr 15 4.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote EricYoung'sSweatBand at 07 Apr 2015 4.20pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 4.14pm
As for the strawman, you introduced that with your ridiculous comment regarding people being expected to be capable of doing everything around the house. I have read your original post Quote I will qualify the "s***ty" bit. Poor would have been better. The reality is that too many families (both poor and wealthy) don't have the skills to raise a family if it doesn't involve spending money. So when the money stops, people cannot/will not adapt. Cooking skills, haberdashery etc have almost vanished in a single generation. By today's measure, I grew up in poverty for a large part of my childhood. having meat with a meal would besides a Sunday chicken usually be offal or pigs trotters until I was 12 and got a job on a farm. Instead of throwing money at the problem improve life skills. Quite clearly you did not write basic once. There is no strawman from me. I'm highlighting over and over my point that having 'life skills' do not get to the route of the problem and can only mask it. A fixed sock or a repaired zip will save pounds but life is more complex and much more expensive than that. What justification can you possibly have for suggesting that I think poor people should have their houses decorated on the state? Edited by EricYoung'sSweatBand (07 Apr 2015 4.23pm)
I don't think that you said people should have their houses decorated, you made the comment I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line?
Am i a hypocrite? To an extent yes because at the moment both my wife and I have good jobs and we put a value on our free time. If a job around the house is going to take me a long time then better someone else comes in to do it (and probably make a better job of it) however if circumstances were to change, we would have to change with them.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
)| EricYoung'sSweatBand 07 Apr 15 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 07 Apr 2015 4.43pm
I don't think that you said people should have their houses decorated, you made the comment I think completely unreasonable to say that poor should know how to do every last thing around the house, just because they are poor. Where do we draw the line?
Am i a hypocrite? To an extent yes because at the moment both my wife and I have good jobs and we put a value on our free time. If a job around the house is going to take me a long time then better someone else comes in to do it (and probably make a better job of it) however if circumstances were to change, we would have to change with them.
Being thrifty and being able to repair/make stuff around the house aren't one and the same. Going to Lidl instead of ASDA or a charity shop is being thrifty but this does not take 'life skills' so they shouldn't be conflated. Where could a family save 20-30% from their entire expenditure from life skills? Your original point seems to imply that if people in poverty were able to gain an undetermined set of 'life skills' (listed currently as haberdashery and cooking), they would be able to step out of poverty. I disagree. I don't see how learning life skills could possibly apply to a single mum working 6 days a week and raising 2 kids on her own or how these life skills can help a family plunged into poverty by the main bread winner getting ill and being unable to work. As for my 'where does it end?' quote. I think it's pertinent... If the boiler breaks and needs replacing it costs money, if the fan belt in their car breaks, it needs replacing and costs money. The life skills will only take the person so far and it ends at the point these things need to be paid for and if you're living month to month or week to week, that money needs to be found or the family goes without heating or the breadwinner can't get to work and the cycle continues and the problems get deeper. I think that saying 'poor people need to do x or y and they'll be ok' is completely unfair and paints poor people as feckless layabouts who could sort it out by pulling their socks up Redecorating is not an essential and I've only ever spoke about essentials so I'm still unsure why that was brought up.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.