The U.K. in 2019 -

The problem is this issue emanates from the payrises of the 80s and 90s. I used to challenge the salaries offered to recruit (often) junior level management only to be told that these salaries had to be offered to attract the best talent and so the cycle started and the differential between worker and manager widened. Add to that %age payrises, an increase of 5% for someone on £15,000pa bears no resemblence to the same 5% for someone on £50,000pa. This again widens the deficit. Rather than graduate payrises the % still prevails and rather than curb executive pay many companies started creating jobs which were often similar to previous ones but offered at lower wages. Instead of tackling this problem the then Labour Government brought in the income support benefit which effectively meant that the taxpayer was supporting executive pay by supplementing the low paid operatives in their firms. And, as a result of this the Government has had to borrow to pay for these benefits whilst still not tackling the root cause. Whether it is fear of 'talent' drain or relocation of companies that has prevented salaries being addressed is a puzzle. Another outrageous puzzle for me is the salaries paid to University Chancellors.

It was never going to work. It doesn’t take much intelligence to work out that cutting government spending will lower demand and slow the economy. When the Tories came into power the U.K. economic growth has jumped from -4% in 2009 to 1.7% in 2010.

Growth has not risen much since then because of the brake Osborne put onto the economy. The biggest losers are the lower end of the salary spectrum, as we have already established.

No - just ideology and a willingness to do anything to others in order to get richer, Whitewave. If it was what we needed we should be doing better than others by now - not worse.

In my opinion the Tories and austerity were never about eliminating the deficit.
It is all about as small a state as they can get away with.

From the Economist (in italics) April 20th 2019.

"Perhaps no other factor better explains why so many Britons want radical changed, from voting for Brexit to backing Jeremy Corbyn's far-left Labour Party. Since the financial crisis o 2008-09 Britain's wage growth has been dreadful. Adjusting or inflation, wages fell from 2007 to 2017, a worse performance than in any other OECD country except Mexico or Greece. At last, however, the tables are turning. Data released on April 16th show that nominal pay if growing about 3.5% a year or 1/5% a year in real terms. Can this growth continue to accelerate?"

The article goes on to attribute the growth to a change in the job mix and some small rise in productivity. It then goes on to ask if it will accelerate further, saying:

"Yet few economists believe Britain will soon resume the healthy productivity of the post-war period, which was consistent with real-terms pay rises of some 3% a year. Most economic forecasts have productivity growing at an annual rate of about 1% this year and next."

It talks about firms struggling to afford modest pay settlements and some having to accept lower profits to absorb costs while other are passing them on to the customer.

"Yet the difficult truth is that Britain's current rate of wage growth, modest by historical standards, is about as high as it can go without pushing inflation about target. It will be some time before Britons' pay squeeze is truly over."

For all those who see us as so much stronger than other nations - so strong we should go it alone - this evidence seems to dispute that. Under the Conservative government and its ideology led "austerity" we seem to have done far, far worse than others, coming in just behind Mexico and Greece. Not something to be proud of. The cuts, cuts and more cuts have stifled our economy with the only people doing well out of it are the disaster capitalists, who come out ahead while the rest of us bear the shock the economy has taken under them. These are the same people who drove Brexit forward and will do just the same again; no thought for the country only for their off shore bank accounts.

"… very interesting reading the stats on this subject....far, far more to it than poverty."

Now that would be a comforting thought wouldn't it.? Because we can do something about poverty but if we tell ourselves it is more complex - and it is - we can sit back a do nothing in all good conscience can't we?

The problem is that the "far, far more to it than poverty" is really saying that we are talking about complex poverties - all stemming at some point from the poverty of money. Sufficient income is always the key to unlocking these poverties. So we go back to having to take on board the poverty of those around us and what we are doing about it - not shrugging it off and putting it in the "too difficult" box.

It's fine Iam - very easy to do.

I always remember a quote from a book (I just can't remember which one but it may have been "Scarcity" ) that "poverty is not caused by bad decisions, bad decisions are caused by poverty"

Good posts Joelsnan very interesting reading the stats on this subject....far, far more to it than poverty.

Graces gran- sorry I misappropriated a comment to you, apologies
Poverty is not largely about mismanagement of money as one poster believes

Whitewavemark2
Yes, however the ethnicity mentioned has a high consanguineous marriage rate which other ethnicities in deprived areas do not, protecting blood lines is important to them however this often compounds disabilities some being life shortening or incompatible with life. Poor diet often leads to low birthweight babies who sometimes struggle to survive. When Romanians first started to arrive in the early 00’s this was an issue, however, this may have been resolved if they are eating a more nutritious diet.

Your data seems to confirm the data recently produced. Deprivation = higher infant mortality

Whitewavemark2
Stillbirth rates are highest for mothers giving birth over 40 this probably relates to the trend to have babies later in life.
Infant mortality is highest in the most deprived areas and particularly in the Pakistani ethnic group.
You can check out the statistics here:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/childhoodinfantandperinatalmortalityinenglandandwales/2016
This data is for 2016 though.

joelsgran I would be interested to know what the significant denominator is.

gb54 correct, but probably not in the way you mean

Poverty creeps into practically every thread.
It's predominantly mismanagement of money.

whitewavemark2
I used to be a midwife,infant mortality is on the rise, poverty does have some impact but there is a more significant denominator for the current rise.

GracesGran
You too seem to want to take sentences out of context. If it gives you some satisfaction to do so and try and decry someone by doing so carry on. It maybe would help if you had read the whole thread rather than just jumping on one sentence (as another has also done) to do a bit of criticising along the lines of I am more pious than you.
Good for you if you consider yourself to be so.

MaizieD
You seem determined to provoke...sorry not biting.

There are a few other reasons for lack of housing apart from lack of building new homes:

1. Many people want to stay in their family home rather than downsizing

2. Children having separate bedrooms rather than sharing as we did in the fifties and sixties.

3. Smaller houses being taken out of the housing market because it was often cheaper to extend than to move. This meant that there were/are fewer homes for first time buyers.

About 12 years ago I had a letter published in the Express concerning downsizing - benefits of having a smaller house to maintain and freeing up capital so that money could be provided to help children and grandchildren with housing, university etc.

I actually find your comments about me offensive. You know nothing of me or my circumstances, you have obviously not read all of my postings within this thread.

I actually find many of the comments about those in difficulty both offensive and showing an ignorance of reality Joelsnan and the people making them have no idea if they are actually insulting members on here or not nor do they appear to care. So now we are both feeling offended but I am not sure that takes us any further forward.

It comes from the U.K. statistics authority.

Frank Field is pushing for further information.

Prof. Marmot of UCL Health equity, points out that inequality is increasing and infant mortality amongst the poorest groups appear to be increasing particularly since the cuts really started to hit from 2015.

I got this information from the Guardian this morning, but I’m sure there will be more data to back this up on line.

Do you have a link to that Whitewave? I cannot think how we will persuade those who have benefited from the benefits of the post 1945 changes that they should not pull the rug from under those coming after us.

I appreciate that we are generally "conservative" socially as a nation but surely even the conservativeness should change over time. Is it just that we are a forum which almost exclusively attracts older people? The different life experiences of the young do seem to be producing a different view of the status quo.

That's a terrible reflection of the society we have become. I simply wonder how it is that those born before the welfare state were so prepared to support and fight for its creation, whereas some of those who benefitted from it are watching it steadily eroded, and quibbling about who deserves to benefit from it.

INFANT MORTALITY

since the inception of the Welfare state and NHS infant mortality has dropped consistently decade on decade.

It is still the case for all EXCEPT THE POOREST. The cuts to benefits, in particular housing is beginning to bite hard and babies, the most vulnerable and innocent in our society are paying the cost with their lives.

Since 2015 Infant mortality is now beginning to rise for the poorest in our society.

For the bottom 20% the risk of infant mortality has risen to 5.1 in every 1000, and for the second 20% it is now 4.8%.

“Suffer the little children”

As others have already said, spending money on these sorts of resources and support for people who need help with parenting probably saves money in the long run.

The small example of children's diets changing as a result of supplying parents with a basic menu for the week enabled children to not only benefit from healthier food but to maintain that healthier diet long term. Since most medical experts now claim that a poor diet is as dangerous to health as smoking, this will presumably save money in the future.

Forgetting the cost benefit though, isn't it just the right thing to do to try and ensure that children, who in most respects are at the mercy of grown-ups, be supported by the society in which they live, irrespective of the worthiness or otherwise of their parents?

My comment of free love and food for all lets shake the money tree is in reference to those who are not prepared to accept that within our society there are a few who want something for nothing and are prepared to ignore these to the detriment if those who really need societies help.

And who might they be, Joelsnan?

Also;

who said anything at all about ignoring those who really need society's help?

Do name names and quote actual words...