Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

The left admits Underclass is a myth

p0ink

New member
Underclass is a myth, Left admits
By Andy McSmith and Andrew Sparrow
(Filed: 28/08/2002)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/28/npoor28.xml

The existence of an underclass of the permanently poor is a myth, a Left-wing think tank claimed yesterday in findings that present a direct challenge to assumptions at the heart of Labour policies on welfare reform.

According to a pamphlet published by Catalyst, poverty is normally temporary and most people who are poor will not stay poor for life.

This is at odds with Tony Blair's strategy designed to offer "a hand up not a hand out" to those in danger of being permanently confined to the bottom of the social scale.

It is the second time in a week that one of the basic tenets of government welfare policy has come under fire from academics concerned about addressing poverty in Britain.

Yesterday, ministers were forced to defend the method they use to define "poverty", which had been criticised by the Social Market Foundation, a think tank with cross-party links.

Malcolm Wicks, a junior work and pensions minister, conceded that there were other ways of measuring poverty, other than the one used by the Government, which might give a clearer picture.

The Catalyst pamphlet, Poverty and the Welfare State: Dispelling the Myths, written by Paul Spicker, is unusual because Catalyst is an "old Labour" organisation chaired by Lord Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party.

The existence of a permanent economic underclass is more often challenged by thinkers on the Right who believe that market forces can be trusted to lift individuals out of poverty.

The pamphlet quoted figures showing that 39 per cent of children were in the lowest part of the income distribution for at least one year from 1996 to 1999, but that fewer than half of those stayed in that poverty bracket for the whole four years.

This contradicts the claim made by Alistair Darling, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is one of the principal architects of the Government's welfare reforms.

He said that a third of Britain's children were born into poverty and that "if we do nothing, these children will not only be born poor, but they will live poor and die poor".

Catalyst said: "The Government believes there is a large hard core of persistently poor people, that poverty is long term and that it is passed from generation to generation.

"This is not consistent with the evidence."

Mr Spicker pointed out that 60 per cent of the population spent at least one year in the bottom 30 per cent of the income distribution between 1991 and 1999.

"People move through dependency, and most poverty is temporary. Poverty is generally an experience for part of people's lives, not for all of it.

"Few people under retirement age who have low incomes now have been poor throughout the last five years.

"Relatively few people who are unemployed stay unemployed continuously. Most young people who are currently poor will either obtain work, or settle down with someone else who is not poor."

In a swipe at government policy, he added that it was a mistake to base policy on the assumption that a large underclass of people living in long-term poverty existed.

"Systems that focus on 'the poor' are usually poor systems.

"The obsession with targeting the dependent poor has added to the complexity and the administrative problems of the benefits system.

"The best way to help the poor within the welfare state is not to target programmes more carefully on the poor, but the converse: to ensure that there is a general framework of resources, services and opportunities which are adequate for people's needs, and can be used by everyone."
 
underclass is a myth, but the poor are not. though i'm not a welfare fan, i think we should abolish it and turn such programs over to the community, churches and private organizations, i see it's the only thing we got going as of right now. instead of giving away checks, make people earn them. they can work several days a week at a shelter, library, school, puplic facility, cleaning up parks, tutoring, mentoring, there are endless possibilities. an idea i came up with is to use the welfare money to teach recipients a trade of some sort, to give employers a tax insintive or even like i said make them earn it doing various jobs for the government at the local or federal levels. those who cannot work i can understand but there are far too many who can but won't. if a person won't work he should'nt eat. the best thing to do is take the money away from the welfare workers who get a majority of the cash anyway. make them do some hard labor along with the other folks.
 
What is the definition of "poor" in Western society? The people who have been defined as "poor" in the areas that I have lived in, have fallen far from what I conceive of as poor.

Crazy bums who live in Kenmore Fridge boxes, under bridges, are poor. Living in subsidized houses, driving cars, and receiving social benefits is not poor, that just means you lack a job.
 
Top Bottom