On the contrary, Michael, you succeeded admirably. You seemed though to have missed the wit in my reply:
> Michael, Thank you for your equally magnificent response!
Your new assertion that "the prevalent 60% of median income measure is not hopelessly flawed or absurd" however is not magnificent. I happen to agree with Donald Hirsch who in 2008 wrote in the New Statesman that,
"Most people accept that poverty has a relative element - that a basic living standard acceptable in Dickens' time may be unacceptable today. But the decision to draw the line at 60 per cent is arbitrary. So when a progressive government redistributes income to bring families above this abstract poverty line, there are always those who challenge whether being in relative poverty really constitutes a hardship".
It should be noted also that when the EC came up with their magical 60% figure it wasn't a definition of poverty but of 'at risk of' poverty.
I also agree with Paul Spicker who in the same year wrote:
"Because there is no agreed definition of poverty, there can be no agreed measure. Even if definitions were agreed, though, poverty would be complex and difficult to quantify. Measures of poverty have to be 'indicators', or signposts. The most commonly used measure is based on income."
Paul Ashton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Orton" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, 1 April, 2013 11:44:35 AM
Subject: Re: Recent letter in Guardian
My attempt at wit failed miserably. I was trying to convey that I did not see Toby Young's piece as "marvellous" in any way at all.
So at the risk of further failure I will try and be provocative by asking is this discussion really the best the social policy community can come up with?
To summarise:
(i) Individual agency means two people with the same level of income will behave differently. Is that really news to anyone on this list?
(ii) Income is vital to life chances and the best determinant of life chances is not merit but parental income. This is a point of empirical evidence not 'belief'.
(iii) There are many ways of measuring poverty/minimum income standards. But there is no single perfect measure and is this seemingly endless strand of debate anything other than a distraction in redressing poverty given the prevalent 60% of median income measure is not hopelessly flawed or absurd?
(iv) In the 21st century are we really best spending our time repeating structural v individual causes of poverty debates from Victorian times (or even earlier) or would a more useful purpose be to reframe social policy debate and construct policy development to fit with the socio-economic realities of the contemporary UK and people's lives.
Michael Orton
Warwick
_
|