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

No Durham although I suppose some are. I was just drawing attention to the fact that 'benefits' whether in work or not, are not necessarily what a lot of us perceive as 'benefits'. Simply put, it you removed child benefit from the statistics it would hugely reduce the number of people claiming in work benefits.

But I was specifically talking about in-work benefits.

Durhamjen, in most cases it doesn't, or a person is better off by only s couple of pounds. My personal yhoughts are that by claiming people are in work, it allows the unemployed figures to be massaged. It would be interesting to have a breakdown of how many hours people are working. People can be worse boffin work and there are many diverse reasons that hey accept these short hours and low pay. The system needs a complete overhaul. In this day and age nobody should be homeless or hungry or made to feel like a second class citizen. It's just plain wrong.

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.

That's appalling, whitewave.
I suppose you know about streetlink, where you can tell Shelter about rough sleepers in your area?

Not just that, MesMopTop, employers who pay less than a living wage are encouraged because of in-work benefits.
Those are benefits that change according to how many hours you work, such as working tax credits, and ESA, etc, nothing to do with child benefit, or pensions.

I wonder about this idea that there were no benefits in the 50s. I grew up in a council house- affordable rent for working people, when I passed the scholarship and went to grammar school we got a uniform allowance because dad was low paid. I seem to think there were also awards for very poor children to help with books etc, although we didn't have to buy many they were supplied by the school. When I went to college I got a full grant, when I lived in a hall of residence this covered all the costs and I had a small amount for clothes/books/ entertainment.Add to that no charges for prescription medication, school clinics which treated minor injuries providing dressings for free. Free orange juice and vitamins, not to mention free milk and we have a very different picture and a much more caring community than we have now. Perhaps that's the real answer to how the "Have nots" get on in life with a lot of support!

I think people have a harder time now for a variety of reasons, most related to housing cost.

That's right trisher, the children of the late 40's and 50's were given totally free medical care which was expected to be from cradle to grave. There were uniform allowances and very poor children were helped with books and most books were provided free by the school, on the basis you handed it back in at the end of your year. All the other things you mention in your post were 'benefits' most of us benefitted from. There was a lot of support and wages were just that, wages. I know that Gordon Brown did many good things but I was concerned about tax credits when they were introduced. I recognise the positive view that no one should be worse off financially when working than when on the dole. It's true that many people worked 16 hours then topped up with tax credits. I also recognise that this allowed many single parents to work with all the mental health and social benefits that go with that, at the same time as surviving with their mental health intact.
It's a conundrum but I find it hard to believe the large multi nationals can't afford to lower their profits and pay the living wage plus, as well as provide more job security for their employees. A phone call to say we need you now just raises the stress levels in someone who has to arrange care for their children or dependent loved ones.
I agree with Norah that (most) people have a harder time now for a variety of reasons, many related to housing cost.

Iam, although I would not want to go to the extremes of the current government I have to agree that the were foreseeable 'unforeseen consequences' if you know what I mean with the tax credits. I just think what they are trying to do at the moment with Universal Credit is cruel because they really don't understand what it is like to be in the position that some people are in.

Yes, it's impossible not to conclude that the MP's who represent Tory seats have scant personal and little professional knowledge of how tough life is for the Have Nots. I agree it's cruel and not only do they not truly understand it begins to feel that they don't care either.

think-left.org/2017/10/15/we-cant-afford-not-to-invest-in-a-better-society/

This is a very interesting read.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

* 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.

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.