Poverty

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....iving-life-grime.html

Our politicians constantly state that their government are going to take an increasing number of children out of poverty during their term of office.

Taking a look at these photographs taken 100 years ago, make one realise what poverty was all about.

If our own life styles have improved so much in over 100 years, then why haven't those in other countries such Africa and India also improved likewise?

[kinell]

a greater sense of social responsibility (in general) i guess......

most of us no longer knock out numbers of children that we neither have the resource or inclination to provide for....

[DrFilth]

if you went round taking pictures of kids these days you would be arrested

[Old_Geezer]

There may be cultural, or other reasons, such as lack of resource, or peace, that could take improving the lot of the poor off track. Maybe even a lack of will on the part of those who aren't poor. But have to say that countries that can afford status symbols in the form of nuclear weaponry, probably have little excuse. Not that, that explanation helps those who are poor, any.

[DrFilth]

aog the rich get richer and the poor get poorer

what happened to all the oil money in Venezuela

http://www.guardian.c...uat-caracas-venezuela

[anotheoldgit]

DrFilth

/// aog the rich get richer and the poor get poorer ///

It would appear to be so in Venezuela at least judging by your link.

But according to those kids 100 years ago, not in Britain.

Which makes one ask, is it the politicians that can bring about changes, or is it the ordinary people who demand these changes?

[Ankou]

"Taking a look at these photographs taken 100 years ago, make one realise what poverty was all about."

actually to me, they look like models posing. it looks a bit 'staged'.

except the first one, i have a photo at home just like it of my two eldest sisters. spooky.

[Zeuhl]

You seem to be using <poverty> as a subjective term.

Cameron and other officials are referring to a specific definition:

<<A family is considered to be officially poor if they are living on less than 60% of Britain's median (average) level of household income.

This means a single person is currently judged to be living in poverty if they have an income of less than £100 per week, said Peter Kenway from the New Policy Institute think tank.

He said a household of two adults with two children was living in poverty if it had a weekly income of less than £260. >>

Poverty is always relative to those around us.
Living conditions improved in UK as a direct result of economic growth based on our technical leadership in the Industrial Age and our ability to exploit our own natural resources and cheap resources from overseas territories we had control over.

Africa has experienced neither of those situations and is still largely a rural economy as UK was pre industrial revolution when impoverished Brits with large families died in their thousands in squalour in cottages and tenements; India arguably is experiencing industrial growth and wider education and social mobility is increasing there.
.
.

[vulcan]

perhaps not staged but certainly posed, the camera of a 100 years ago was not particularly fast.

[Kromovaracun]

"If our own life styles have improved so much in over 100 years, then why haven't those in other countries such Africa and India also improved likewise? "

They have - just on a very different scale due to stability issues etc. The work of Hans Rosling demonstrates this quite graphically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

[Ankou]

i can't open that kromo but is that an excerpt from the joy of stats ?
great programme, and what a presenter!

[tigerlelly]

aog - This could get us all into another disagreement about birth control as per your African Drought post. It is so much easier to feed and clothe the 2.4 children than the 12 or 13 of 100 years ago.

[emmie]

i saw that in the paper, thank heavens we have come a long way since those dark days.

[Kromovaracun]

@Ankou: Hans Rosling is sincerely one of my heroes. The first link is his famous '200 countries, 200 years' from the Joy of Stats and the second is a short talk he gave when he first went to TED a few years ago. There's another one on youtube somewhere where he specifically addresses the 'west and the rest' development myth but I can't seem to find it.

[Zeuhl]

<<It is so much easier to feed and clothe the 2.4 children than the 12 or 13 of 100 years ago. >>

True. But 100 years ago there was also no peer-group or marketing pressure to have the latest designer trainers etc

[Ankou]

and what with the poverty, the 12 or 13 children rapidly died off to make 2.4 before the age of 5. children were expected to contribute to the family budget and worked long hours. the idea: more children, more income.

[emmie]

The main reason surely for the amount of children they had was little or no birth control, or for religious reasons, not being allowed to use contraception,
And in Victorian times, 1 in 5 children died from diseases, whooping cough, measles, TB, just some of the childhood illnesses, and if those pictures are staged, doubt the poverty was.

[Ankou]

probably not. i would recommend the london jewish museum for a true vision of child poverty, or at least, this book.

http://london.sonoma....TheAbyss/preface.html

[Quassia]

We still have poverty albeit to a lesser degree ... This from 2010 .. http://www.independen...-britain-2158111.html

[daisya]

Poverty to me in this country is down to each individual case. I mean you can be "poor" with little money coming in but manage to meet your needs without luxuries. You can say someone is poor on the same money but they have got computers, mobile phones, smoke and drink etc etc but tell you they cannot afford food! I feel that poor should be judged on how they manage money without things they don't need or are considered luxuries and if they still cannot afford food and necessities then they should be deemed poor IMO.