How do the "Have Nots" get on in life?

I heard Corbyn's speech and I really like the idea of the Cooperative party - very keen on the ideas they put forward and he is right, making some of the platform companies 'employees' into a co-operative seems a great idea.

We have also seen a small growth in housing co-operatives - I think that was a BBC radio programme rather than a article so no link unfortunately. Also, I have heard about a company that runs in Holland, I think it was, whose employees (nurse carers) work in co-operative type manner in small groups so a combined co-operative/capitalism setup working, as I understood it, in a very useful and successful way.

I am going to save a tree and not a bookshop it seems Jen - what a choice. I have decided to go with the Kindle copy simply so I have it with my current reading on the machine.

It's all postage free, I've just discovered; no minimum spend.
That's good, although I do usually save up books so they send three together.

£10.85 from Hive, and you give a bit to your local bookshop, too, to keep it going.
It's postage free over £10.

Talking about not having such a party in this country, did you see that at the Co-operative Party centenary at the weekend, Corbyn gave a speech and suggested that Uber become a co-operative, everyone working with and for each other, and organising themselves on co-operative lines. It sounded a good idea to me. Much better than working for Uber.

I think the thing that most impressed me Jen - although I was not surprised and it has been my cry about economics for many a long year is they do not see the word 'economy' to just represent profit. As you say - it is about people.

This is very much where I come from politically but I don't yet think we have such a party in this country although we are beginning to see some green shoots of social democracy.

Amazon has some reasonably priced second hand copies so I think I will have to buy a real book for the first time in ages as the Kindle copy is quite expensive by comparison. Like you, I am really interested to see how they came to such similar economic views while have such different relationships to the EU.

I've just ordered the book through Hive Bookshops. It's in paperback, too.

I read that last night, GracesGran. Extremely interesting, particularly putting the links in historical perspective, Norway having been annexed by both Sweden and Denmark at one time or another. You would think they would want to break away from the Scandinavian ideal, but they do not.
It's the idea of work and education being for the good of society, rather than the individual good.
Now if we could adopt the Norwegian system of going in with the EU, and then see how good their other systems are, we could be transformed as a country.

This may be interesting to those who want to understand why some countries do not see free-market capitalism in the same way it has been seen by a powerful few in this country.

Viking Economics

This is just one paragraph:

The first is conceptual. As a result of these states having largely rejected the core assumptions of classical economics, profit is seen as a consequence of work and not as its goal. Banking is seen as a service and not as the focus of economic growth. Education is viewed as vital to personal growth, which just also happens to be the perfect countercyclical investment that secures long-term prosperity. And underpinning all this is an expectation that each person will work to contribute to the overall well-being of the society of which they are part: this is a perception of work as a participatory activity.

It seems to me well worth looking at countries where there are not so many 'have nots'

It isn't a "fact of life" anyway. It's a result of how we have chosen to run society so even more unacceptable - in my view - to think we can do nothing about it, surely. It's a bit like saying, in the days of serfs and villains, that death by starving is a fact of life. It may have been under that system but we don't have quite the same problem now we have moved to a society that expects more equality than they did then.

Surely saying that disparity is a fact of life is finding it acceptable, is it not?

Is communism the way forward? Where did that come from Day 6? I don't think I have ever seen anyone suggest it.

When Jeremy Corbyn said "There is a new common sense emerging about how the country should be run, and that's what's needed to replace the broken model forged by Margaret Thatcher many years ago." I don't think anyone other than those on the far-right of economics thought he was talking about Communism.

There is free-market capitalism and mixed economy capitalism (or Social Democracy) and the free-marketers have shot themselves in the foot with their greed.

Free-market capitalism is not detached from all that goes on any more than a mixed economy; it sits along side the investments and the institutions that government controls just a mixed economy does. The Tories love to blame state ownership for the problems they had but it is well recognised that it was actually poor economic management that brought in the IMF, etc.

At the beginning of the Thatcher era some of the sales of state owned enterprises were done with a consensus of approval particularly as the state continued to control the NHS and pensions - areas which always seem to have had a majority in favour of state ownership. What did change was the role of the state in housebuilding - which has come back to bite us and the selling off of natural monopolies such as water, electricity, etc., again not popular with the majority it seems. It is clear that you did need state intervention in these at least to regulate them but regulation is a dirty word to the free-market economist.

The global recession and the crisis that went with it had a deep affect on the economy and showed up many of the cracks in free-market economics. It was, after all, just that form of economics which had caused the problems. The problem with the most recent times - all while the Tories and their free-market capitalism were being inflicted on us - is that we have not seen the normal growth that would come after a recession.

We now have household incomes that are barely above the level of 2008 and incomes which are below that of 2008 - something we have not seen before. The Bank of England has said this may have been the worst decade for earnings (comparatively) since the 1750s.

Things did look as if they might be getting better in 2015/16 but over the last year or so we have slightly gone into reverse again. Inflation has been rising and wages haven't been. Younger people have done really very, very badly where wealth, pensions, housing and earnings are concerned,relative to those of older people meaning that, for the very first time in many, many decades we are looking at children being worse of than their parents.

Through the 1950s, 60s and 70s we were the sick man of Europe - through the next 30 years, coinciding with our membership of the EU we did relatively well. Over the last 7 or 8 years we have been doing worse than the 60s and 70s and worse than it has been in most other countries since the recession.

Not unreasonable then, Day 6, to look at the type of capitalism that brought about the 2008 financial crisis and has kept us poor since.

(Ref: most of this thanks to a BBC programme I listened to the other day)

We had no TV but we read lots of books you had books then? Or perhaps you borrowed them from the library something many can't do now because the library has shut down.

Strange point - but does highlight how society has changed.

Do young families even have bookcases in houses any longer? When you see two year old sitting in an Asda trolley oblivious to all around them and having no interaction with the parent because they have been plugged into a screen to watch Pingu, are they poorer or richer than previous generations?

They have a tablet which is much more expensive than a book!

The poor have always been impoverished - it goes without saying. As society evolves and advances, the way in which people suffer will change. It's always about lack of money but it's often about reliance on drugs and emotional neglect too. More and more we see fractured and dysfunctional families.

We are richer in many ways but very much poorer in others.

And there never has been social equality.

* if we live in the UK and consider ourselves poor it could be a whole lot worse elsewhere*
Well let's accept the standards of a country like India then. Why we should have to when we are the 5th richest country in the world I have no idea.
We had no TV but we read lots of books you had books then? Or perhaps you borrowed them from the library something many can't do now because the library has shut down.
My mother and father both worked because they wanted me and my brother to stay on at school.
I've already posted about the benefits my generation enjoyed, but you have raised another one-free libraries.
There is no doubt that times are more difficult now and the support offered to poor families is lacking. I can remember in the 60s sending children to the school clinic just down the road to have minor injuries cleaned and dressed or to be inspected for scabies or impetigo. They lived in back to back terraces with no bathrooms and outside loos. Today children live in better houses but the problems they face, poor diet, family breakdown, drug abuse are much bigger and there is nowhere for them to go.

Strange,and quite disturbing, that people think it's still acceptable.

I cannot imagine anyone finds hardship acceptable DJ.

I think disparity is a fact of life. There is an imbalance and there always has been.

The Communist ideal - is that the way forward? To even everything out? This egalitarian utopia doesn't exist.

If you throw all resources at the bottom end of society in order to even things out, those working their arses off and paying taxes to provide for non-workers soon see that there is no point. Better to do sod all and get the same benefits.

There will always be an inequality between workers and non-workers. Is that wrong?

Job creation and training schemes are important I'd say, as is a willingness to work. Both are crucial to personal and social advancement. (Unless of course a person is disabled, frail or sick or in circumstances which make doing so difficult or impossible.)

Mama Caz I was the shyest of girls with no self-esteem at all. The only reason I succeeded was because I was brow-beaten by authoritarian teachers! I was terrified of them but unwittingly they helped the likes of me.

We had no TV but we read lots of books. Our world was very small really. All those factors helped and of course they are personal to me and my circumstances. I agree not everyone is of the same nature.

Perhaps the world is too big today and we see by screens of cameras and computers over the other side of the fence all the time?

As I got older it was about "Keeping up with the Joneses." They were the family down the road who replaced their lino with a fitted carpet.

Today we have to keep up with the Kardashians who have ridiculous and (undeserved?) wealth. As mentioned the rich seem incredibly wealthy while some of society is at rock bottom.

Perhaps we have a skewed view of what it is to merely tick over and be one of the millions on the hamster wheel of life getting nowhere fast.

I think, as someone mentioned, that we also have to remember that if we live in the UK and consider ourselves poor it could be a whole lot worse elsewhere. That's little consolation, but it's true.

Considering what differnces there are in goods, travel, jobs, holidays, compared to whe nwe were born, shouldn't we expect better for the younger generations?
Why should there be people still sleeping in doorways when we have the finance, equipment and ability to stop that? We have builders in need of jobs. We have a manufacturing industry that is in the doldrums.
What we don't have is a government with the will to see it through, whatever they say. If it won't make money for their rich friends, then they will not fund it.
Strange,and quite disturbing, that people think it's still acceptable.

Very good posts Day6 but they will not suit the agenda of some who enjoy gnashing their teeth, see victimhood in everything and always blame a Tory Government.Nice try to joint out the truth though.

Lots of people don't have the academic mind needed to improve their lot that way. Others don't have the confidence or the personality to do it. These can be genuine but invisible handicaps. We are all different, and it is unhelpful when successful people fail to recognise that, assuming that anyone can do what they have done by simply making an effort.

As long as there are low-paid jobs that do not pay enough to live on (unless topped up by benefits) there will be have-nots. Some will be stuck in that situation permanently

I agree Mama Caz but that's not a new situation. I think it's always been the case.

My father worked in a low paid menial job. He cycled miles to get to work. His wage was not topped up by benefits and as a family we had no disposable income at all. We often hid from the rent man on a Friday.

We wore hand-me-downs and ate meagre rations -like bread and dripping. We got out of the poverty trap back then by having cruel scary teachers who believed in strict discipline and children doing as they were told. Life was tough but education saved us.

No grammar school for me or my friends but a purpose-built comprehensive. We worked hard at school or faced nasty punishment. My very bright sister had to leave school at 16 after O levels to work (in a low paid job) and contribute to the family income. Because she did that I got to stay on to take A levels whilst working every weekend.

Life was very hard but I remember striving. Nothing came easily. Yes we lived in different times with problems unique to those times and without as many of the benefits poorer families can claim today.

Times change and attitudes change, but being born a have-not is never easy and never will be.

dj, this quote to your link quite says it all "The government has the ability – and responsibility – to release money into the economy right now to get our economy moving efficiently again."

I think life is horrible for the "have nots" now, worse than I can remember.

As long as there are low-paid jobs that do not pay enough to live on (unless topped up by benefits) there will be have-nots. Some will be stuck in that situation permanently, perhaps because they lack the skills, the confidence, the opportunity, the general wherewithal or simply the luck needed to change that. Others will fare better and progress, but the vacancies they create will be replaced by others, so the overall situation will not improve.
It seems to me that it has more to do with the economic system than anything else.

I can’t imagine what the numbers of homeless are now. I was out for a meal a couple of nights ago in a very affluent county town. Almost every single shop doorway had folk bedding down.

I agree that it's an awful situation but - given the OP - we are veering off the subject somewhat. Ask any charity worker or hostel worker why people are sleeping rough in doorways and the chances are it's because they have problems of addiction, anti-social behaviour, both or they are from dysfunctional families.
You talk about homelessness. Many rough sleepers cannot function in homes or conventional society unfortunately. They are not necessarily born into poverty or hopelessness.

It is a serious problem without a doubt but it doesn't really forward the discussion as set out in the OP. It's a red herring more suited to it's own thread.

Ha...I have only just read some more of this thread.

Silly me.

I read that is IS the government's fault after all!

What a surprise!!!! sigh

Actually probably the same comments were made about Teddy Boys in the 50s/60s or Mods and Rockers, or beatniks or whatever name the older generation applied to the “yoof” of their day. (While muttering darkly that a spot of National Service would do them good and get a bleddy haircut boy!)

Maw I think you are being far too dismissive of grannysue's OP and concerns.

I am of the opinion that she raises many valid points. I am not one to hark back to the 'good old days' because life was (on reflection) quite tough.

I appreciate that life is tough for many today, but - as GS says - hasn't it always been so? Isn't the attitude of some towards adversity somewhat questionable?

Life has always been unfair. There are always have-nots and I suspect many Gransnetters remember quite well what impoverished lives we had in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Life has changed immeasurable since then but I do believe we may be guilty of wallowing in the problem today and not looking for the solution.

I believe in a world where we help each other but we don't help anyone if we indulge their misfortune without trying with them to find a solution to it.

There was a lot of shame about when I was young. (I am smiling as I write that.) If you didn't try your best or do the right thing, shame was attached. In many ways we were motivated by 'shame'. (I am not saying it was right, but it was a driving force.) There was pressure to try and pressure to get on, to get out of difficult circumstances by dint of education or work, no matter how menial. I appreciate that pressure must have been awful for unmarried Mums, unemployed men

Now, no one has to be ashamed of anything it would seem, except sexual abuse, murder, pillaging pension funds, etc, etc etc...ie: the things that make news.

Social pressure is off and we are more accepting of most lifestyles and the way modern life is lived. I do believe there are few incentives for people to get on because we indulge their predicaments as though they are helpless. To criticise isn't acceptable and to judge is frowned upon. (I dare say I'll be criticised for pointing out that ....I await the inevitable...)

Perhaps the circle needs to turn again and we will be able to say "I sympathise. I feel for you but you do have t help yourself in life, if you possibly can." Kindly encouragement rather than unending knashing of teeth that life is 'so awful' and 'it's the government's fault' is always a better way forward I believe.

Many of us know what it is to suffer (I still do) and have seen our children experience hard times too. No one owes us anything though.

You rise or fall by your own efforts and perseverance (and of course I appreciate there are exceptions to that) so perhaps that's a message we should be spreading. There are still opportunities to be grasped and paths out of difficult existence, especially in the UK, even though progress will be slow and success will not be instantaneous.

I believe hardship will always be a part of life but no one has to be stuck indefinitely.