You’re not poor, you’re broke!

As for the dog story... the trip sounds excessive but you dont just dump or downgrade your pets just because it turns out that you overshot on your financial planning!

Life is so very different these days that I don’t think we can compare like for like at all. My children wore jumble sale clothes, nowadays there isn’t such a thing and charity shop prices can be high for clothes and furniture.

Agree Midgey

"Shabby chic" and "vintage clothes" (i.e. old second hand furniture and clothes) are now trendy and more expensive than new.

New stuff is cheap and easily replaced in an age where you cant rent a place for life and may need to move every 6 months!

Besides which, I dont remember these golden ages of universal penny pinching.

In the 70s and 80s even in hard times, people still covetted nice things/a bit of pleasure/a distraction from their problems. Parents went out perhaps more than they do today.

If you disagree, tell me this: when would you rather have been a publican? The 70s/80s? Or today?

All televisions are now flatscreen. Very few poeple have a large PC, most connect to the world via their phones. Vital for information, jobs and school contacts - they don't however need to be expensive iPhones. Lack of these could be considered as being poor. However constant meals out, takeaways and extra curricular activities for children, gym memberships, takeaway coffees are all luxuries. I agree that being broke after paying for all this doesn't make you poor - it makes you broke.

I have a family member who has run up huge debts trying to live a lifestyle they will never be able to afford. It is not fair on the children. If you can't afford a 3 bedroomed detached, 42" TV, three phones, two cars and moving home every six months, then you live according to your means, but that message hasn't hit home and I don't suppose it ever will.

People arent moving every 6 months because they are chosing to B9.... who would chose to do that??

midgey you do not buy the dog in the first place if it is going to put a strain on your finances, or at least you do not complain if that happens.

Because we all know what the future will hold when we buy that pet, or tv etc...

It is a question of values. Until recently DS and family, who are not impoverished had only one tv and that was a small old cathode ray one. They do not watch much tv, it was all they needed. They had Freeview and a DVD player.

DGD was mortified, she is now at secondary school and, she claimed, she couldn't ask friends round because the tv was soooo old fashioned. At secondary school, she is now getting friendly with children who judge other people by what they own, rather than what they are.

Fortunately, a family friend was upgrading their tv and offered them the one being replaced. DGD claims she can now ask friends round, the new tv is not very big, but it does have a flat screen. Mind you they also have a desk top pc and just upgrade bits as necessary, I suppose that is why they never claim to be poor, although the children do go to dancing, drama.

I get what Anja is saying. But I think we need to think more in terms of relative poverty.

I think living beyond one's means is now a norm for many but not all- The availability of credit lines and loans factor in- Cost of living vs earnings- Global wealth inequality- But these issues are as old as the hills, reborn in what appear to be different forms- That and using others as benchmarks to keep up to are nothing new- All the above, I think, contribute to the "new" look of poverty -- a look that someone without clean water, food or shelter would recognize as wealth-

A couple of years ago we were in the situation of going round Lidl with a calculator to see if we could afford a small jar of own brand coffee.

The mortgage went unpaid to the point of nearly being repossesed, and without the kindness of strangers (including some very kind GN members) our Christmas meal would have been not very festive at all!

So yes, we have experienced some pretty hard times.

But I suppose that for some, it is all relative. I remember many years ago, when with ex husband, having a conversation with my cousin. I mentioned that we were having a pretty tight month financially, she replied "I know what you mean, I haven't been able to afford to buy any jewellery this month"!

There's a difference between temporarily skint and living in poverty, that is certainly true.

Skint is anywhere from inconvenient to quite unpleasant, but we generally expect skint to be a short term state of affairs, unlike poverty, which is a godawful thing.

Some folks who are truly impoverished consider the life they've been given a gift, despite how simply they live-

Had a chat with friends about this not long ago.

We agreed that it was better to be poor and without in the UK than most other countries in the world. (Not saying being poor is a good state..) but as poverty has always existed, living in a welfare state where needs and income are assessed, benefits are given and a whole host of agencies and advocates exist to aid those with least is a sign of a compassionate society. That sort of benevolence does not exist in other countries. Here most people are given or offered shelter and their basic needs are met by benefit payment.

We are from a generation that knows hardship. If we were working class we had very little. My parents lived in post war sub-standard accommodation when I was born, without a private loo and no hot water. My brother spent the first year of his life sleeping in an open suitcase. Ask many of us about ice forming on the insides of windows, putting coats on beds for extra warmth and heating up all water if we wanted it hot. Clothes were hand-me downs, darned, and food had to be stodgy and filling. Thank goodness no one was hollering at us about every family member having their five a day fruits and vegetables! Children made their own entertainment outside with few toys. We had no television or machines to make life easier, and certainly there were no holidays on the horizon, ever. Cardboard put into shoes to patch up the holes, anyone? This poverty existed for many. My father always worked and we didn't claim any benefits (there was a stigma attached to taking money you hadn't earned back then) and people tended to work at anything rather than go on the 'dole' - money that was doled out. People were very proud and made do if they possibly could.

Everyone (almost everyone) has a safety net today, and rightly so. However, there are people who cannot live within their means. They think they are poor if they cannot afford things other people have. Some people cannot manage money or prioritise how money should be spent and claim to be poor.

Having a lowly income is hard, but haven't many, many of us Grans been in that situation and have had to go without, budget and tighten the belt because bills were in the offing?

Times change as does society. We expect better and more today, and rightly so, so we donate food to agencies to ensure those struggling can put food on the table. but part of me screams that in living history many people of our generation were living in abject poverty - a miserable, mean, cold existence with no breaks or assistance. We survived.

Perhaps budgeting ought to be part of the school curriculum, No one taught us to budget back in the '50s and '60s but we were a naturally prudent generation because we had so little. We knew the sense of living within our means from an early age. I owe thanks to Mr Dickens and my English teacher. The Mr Micawber principle, the fundamental 'law' of personal finance and the fear of debt made such sense to poor people. It still stands today.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery

I have never been able to spoil my children but they grew up knowing if they couldn't afford to pay for it, they couldn't have it. Same always applied to me.

I couldn't care less what others have got as I've never been one for " keeping up with the Jones's " or technology for that matter, not having a mobile phone, which is by choice rather than affordability. Landline is fine by me.

Couples fare better than those who are widowed ( I'm talking about retired ) It can be pretty tough at times especially if there are no savings involved------now that is poor !

That's very true rosecarmel, visiting the slums in Nairobi to meet the children we were sponsoring, they were all so happy, welcoming us into their homes, grabbing our hands to get us to dance with them. And they really did have nothing. Then we went out to visit a Masai village. No water, no sanitation, no electricity, cooking on just a fire in the middle of a mud walled hut. We got the same ecstatic welcome, and then I felt something being put round my neck. The matriach of the village, a bit younger than me, had taken off her own beaded collar, which must have taken hours to make, and put it on me, with a beaming smile, she was so happy to be able to give me something. I wanted to weep, in fact I went back to the hotel and did so!

Very moving B9exchange.
Compared with that , in front of me at the till in Tesco yesterday were a mother and adult daughter, who was very overweight. Their shopping consisted of about £40's worth of packaged chocolate cakes biscuits bars drinks etc.
Paid in cash.
They must have seen my expression.

Notanan - Besides which, I dont remember these golden ages of universal penny pinching

Aren't you the lucky one then???

A golden age...you sneer because people CAN recall REAL hardship. That is downright nasty notanan

Left wing sneering is the pits! Defend youngsters with IPhones by all means - whilst condemning the prudent older generation as not understanding!

We all appreciate times have changed, but perhaps a bit of blessing counting wouldn't go amiss every now and then for today's generation, and a sense of proportion..

"welcoming us into their homes, grabbing our hands to get us to dance with them. And they really did have nothing. Then we went out to visit a Masai village. No water, no sanitation, no electricity, cooking on just a fire in the middle of a mud walled hut. We got the same ecstatic welcome,"

Son backpacked through India a few years ago, and he takes himself off to far flung corners of the world every year now, and he has said exactly the same thing B9exchange. If all they have known is poverty, they live with it but also manage to remain cheerful and genuinely welcoming. It is such an eye opener when we consider the levels of misery and mental health problems which exist in western society. My son said he was truly humbled and touched by their generosity of spirit and willingness to share whatever they had.

I am not sure how we put the cork back in the bottle of consumerism but having stuff and competing with others does not necessarily bring happiness.

B9exchange / Day6 both sobering, humbling posts ..

What I think is downright nasty is people implying that many of the people who are poor are not really poor but unable to prioritise.

There may well be people like that but I'm pretty sure they're not the majority. People on low wages who may have to do two or three jobs to survive, who don't have enough money to treat their children now and again, who are afraid to turn on their heating because the cost of rent is so high that they don't have enough money to pay for what most people would deem to be "essential" - there are many people like this.

Just because things were difficult for some of us when we were younger - and I include myself in that - doesn't, I believe, give us the right to pass judgment on everyone else who is having a hard time.

What was so "downright nasty" about notanan's comments? Times could be very hard years ago but most people could at least manage to pay their rent, and more people were able to afford to save for a deposit/pay a mortgage.

To illustrate, this link:

www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/mortgages/baby-boomer-vs-gen-y-homebuying-in-1982-compared-to-2016/

In the Telegraph - hardly a newspaper full of nasty left wingers.

I would think that poor means a fairly permanent state of affairs unless something happens to improve your general lot.
Being poor means you cannot afford to run two cars (or even perhaps one), meals out and all the expensive activities for their children.

Being broke is more of a temporary situation from which you will recover unless your situation changes drastically.

Besides which, I dont remember these golden ages of universal penny pinching.
Well, they were not golden ages notanan - perhaps you are younger than most of us and were the child who did not realise how parents had to scrimp or go without themselves to provide for their children - my parents did that and so did we for our children.

There is poverty these days, we all know that, but on the whole people do seem more affluent than a couple or more generations ago.

Left wing sneering is the pits! Defend youngsters with IPhones by all means - whilst condemning the prudent older generation as not understanding!

Total rubbish to brand a whole generation as "prudent". Gold tinted glasses or what? There have always been people who were good with money and those who "kept up appearances".

In rough times gone by there were people spending money they didnt have. There were people for whom pride or shame or just poor will power stopped them living within their means. And there were, and are, others who were careful to make ends meet.

It is not a generational thing!