I’m not sure you can really describe Tom Harris as a grassroots Tory as you do in your second paragraph and still hope to maintain any sort of credibility.

The Tories do themselves no favours, but I am still yet to be convinced that you can legislate away child poverty, or why we should be especially concerned about relative income inequality when it has comparatively little to do with lifestyle equality: http://blog.iea.org.uk/?p=482

We could probably do more to address actual consumption inequality by helping to lower the prices of consumer goods.

The Tories do themselves no favours, but I am still yet to be convinced that you can legislate away child poverty, or why we should be especially concerned about relative income inequality when it has comparatively little to do with lifestyle equality: http://blog.iea.org.uk/?p=482

We could probably do more to address actual consumption inequality by helping to lower the prices of consumer goods.

The maths fail is just embarrassing. Hahaha!

This is a rather bare article. How does the government’s bill define relative poverty? If it used one measure, of a household income 60% below the national median, then I would have to agree that we will never end such ‘poverty’.

1 – the grassroots Tory is in the comments to Tom’s piece (hence the link). So it is not that I think Tom is a grassroots Tory (he is neither), but a technical hitch.

2 – as I understand the article that you’ve linked to, the argument is that we should worry about “consumption inequality”, which has not risen as fast as income inequality. In the short term, people are able to consume beyond their means, but I’d have thought we’ve seen the problems with that in the last year or so , no?

5 – more info about the child poverty bill at http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/Page2654.asp

We might never completely end child poverty, but in the UK more than 1 in 4 children grow up in poverty, and in Sweden about 1 in 20 do so – so with different policies there could be a lot less poverty. This Unicef report has some good stats on different rates of child poverty http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard1e.pdf

Kentron @5,

What makes you say that if we use that definition of poverty, we will never end poverty?

2 – as I understand the article that you’ve linked to, the argument is that we should worry about “consumption inequality”, which has not risen as fast as income inequality. In the short term, people are able to consume beyond their means, but I’d have thought we’ve seen the problems with that in the last year or so , no?

Not quite. Consumption is not equivalent to spending either. In essence, people have more means than they used to, because spending power is higher. A lower proportion of people’s income can buy more stuff with better quality than it used to. Partly because of greater efficiencies in markets in things like food, clothes and transport, partly because of new technology becoming available to all (mobile phones, computing etc) that wasn’t available before.

It is hard to illustrate. But imagine one situation where Group A earns £10,000 per annum and Group B earns £15,000 per annum. An ordinary TV costs £1000 and only Group B can afford a TV at all.

Then take another situation where Group A earns £10,000 per annum, Group B £35,000, but a TV only costs £25. Everyone can afford a TV. Group B can afford some fancy Plasma affair but substantially, it is still the same thing. If you witness that kind of price drop in enough goods of enough importance then I would contend you have greater income inequality, but greater consumption equality.

Put it this way. Most people can afford a full wardrobe these day. Ok, for many of us, the clothes will be from Primark but they keep you warm and it takes a keen eye to spot any significant difference between what they sell and what Gap has to offer. There hasn’t been a significant change in income distribution, but thanks to cheaper clothes we have a more similar access to a large number of goods.

@7: Because it would require a degree of income equality that I don’t believe this country will see this century.

Wait – so let me get this straight: if the entire stock of material wealth in the UK was destroyed overnight, so that not a single person had food, water, clothing, shelter, etc, you’re saying that child poverty would have vanished?

I don’t think it’s an idle criticism either: it’s very likely that the recent recession has, among other things, lessened inequality – the incomes of the rich have been hit disproportionately. If we care about relative poverty, as we should according to a lot of the left, should we not be celebrating the crash rather than bemoaning it.

(And yeah, it was a pretty embarrassing maths fail)

Nick @8,

But we don’t all (rich and poor alike) have similar access to a large number of goods. The rich have far more consumption bundles within their income constraint.

Kentron @7,

Fair enough, I probably agree with you then. But it’s due to a lack of political will etc, not because it’s impossible in a stricter sense. Like I say, I think we agree.

can I ask what is the definition of poverty I’ve two grandkids, who we are looking after my wife is retired and I’m on benefits for the loss of my legs.

In total we get £500 a week in benefits, I’ve been classed as being in poverty. Yet if I was working I’d get £170 a week and guess what, because I’m working I’d not be in poverty mad is it not

@11 “But we don’t all (rich and poor alike) have similar access to a large number of goods. The rich have far more consumption bundles within their income constraint.”

True. But the question is whether our consumption bundles are more similar than before. Those that fetishise nominal income are missing out on the possibility that our lifestyles might still be converging. The main point that Wilkinson makes is simply that income inequality has no necessary connection to relative real standards of living.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t many areas where inequality are not still very pressing. Housing might would be one example, but of course, housing has hardly the most innovative or open market at the moment.

‘Kentron @5,

What makes you say that if we use that definition of poverty, we will never end poverty?’

If you tried to lift everyone out of poverty defined this way, wouldn’t the median just move? Yes, they’d be better off but you’d simply have wealthier people 60% below the new median. Or have I had a bad maths day?

@15: Indeed. Which is why, if you’re using “x% below the median” as the definition, you’re primarily concerned with income equality rather than what most people would describe as ‘poverty’.

Why isn’t anyone talking about reducing child poverty by asking poeple that cannot afford to have children not to have them?

Shatterface @15,

There’s nothing (mathematically) impossible about there being nobody who has <60% of median income. Suppose the median was £10k. All that we’d need to do is make sure nobody had less than £6k. But yes, it’s possible for the median to move, so the target (in terms of nominal income) changes.

Not quite. Consumption is not equivalent to spending either. In essence, people have more means than they used to, because spending power is higher. A lower proportion of people’s income can buy more stuff with better quality than it used to. Partly because of greater efficiencies in markets in things like food, clothes and transport, partly because of new technology becoming available to all (mobile phones, computing etc) that wasn’t available before.

Another thing which has led to some basic items being cheaper is the massive exploitation of workers in China, Thailand, India, Indonesia and other such places.

If you only Look at national consumption inequality you will miss a major chunk of all the other inequality in the world.

Why isn’t anyone talking about reducing child poverty by asking poeple (sic) that cannot afford to have children not to have them?

Good idea, I’ll just go and have a word with my girlfriend’s womb…

In all seriousness a lot of people that can’t afford to have children don’t. A small minority do, and that’s why I’m in favour of further, better and less squeamish sex education; as I’m sure most people here are too.

Left Outside – if its 1 in 4 children as quoted – its not a minority.

and don’t talk to your girlfriends womb – stop your swimmers with a rubber barrier!

“Another thing which has led to some basic items being cheaper is the massive exploitation of workers in China, Thailand, India, Indonesia and other such places.

If you only Look at national consumption inequality you will miss a major chunk of all the other inequality in the world.”

True too, but not strictly relevant, unless our greater equality was due to straight forward expropriation from China etc.. But it isn’t because the absolute welfare worldwide is rising as well, especially in nations that trade successfully with the West.

Two points:

1) This wheeze (and the climate target bill before it) subvert democracy. I can imagine the howls from posters here, if a third term Tory government, behind in the polls tried to make a future labour goverment do what it wanted. The point of democracy is that when government changes, some of the policies do.

2) on the basis of this relative poverty nonsense, north Korea is the model we should be copying and this recession is something to celebrate. Neither of these idiocies can be forced on a future democratically elected Government by legislation.

#14 – of course, that only works with inequality within a limited geographical area, because at the end of the day some people are going to have to be producers and consumption equality rests on the exploitation of people in far-away lands who can produce goods cheaply.

But even disregarding that, I’d say your idea that the difference between a portable and plasma tv is small enough that income equality doesn’t matter is slightly naive. Having a shitty tv might mean you can still discuss the latest programmes at work and not face social exclusion in your tea-break, but it might make you less likely to invite people around and face some level of exclusion through reciprocal exchange. Then there’s the question of disposable income. The cost of going out has risen even while the cost of electrical goods etc have plataued. Right now it might be easier to maintain the impression of keeping up with the Joneses, but hanging out with the Joneses is another question.

Aside from all that, it’s not clear that some other consumptive good yet to be produced might be used as a yardstick of social respectability – you can’t say for sure what good is yet to be invented, so even without the caveats I’ve identified, you can’t be sure your trend will continue.

Tim f – this is all true and any fact of greater convergence is dependent on the current level of innovation. Imagine for example that helicopters somehow got safe and cheap enough for a large number of high income people to buy but no one else. Then you would obviously see a new difference in consumption inequality with an obvious helicopter/car/bus division.

I am just saying that as it happens, it seems to me that consumption inequality has been on the decrease for some time. And the reason is precisely because we can talk about going out drinking and the size of your TV as being a measure of some sort of inequality. It shows that things like food, clothing, shelter, transport have for now disappeared off the radar, but these were exactly what used to mark people out as uequal. I remember Adam Smith used the example of a lack of leather shoes as a sign of somene poor in his day. That we have moved on from talking about essentials like that demonstrates how we comparatively more equal, in consumption terms, we are now.

And I still find the third world complaint unconvincing, considering they are taking strides in increasing equality to in the more basic of removing more and more people from poverty.

@26: As Marx pointed out, capitalism evolves “luxuries” into “decencies” and then “necessities”. Was Adam Smith’s view of someone without leather shoes any different from our view today of someone wearing £5 trainers? As we become more equal in some things (i.e. everyone has shoes), we set the bar higher, and so are not “more equal” in any meaningful way.

As we become more equal in some things (i.e. everyone has shoes), we set the bar higher, and so are not “more equal” in any meaningful way.

But we are all better off, are we not?

Or would you rather return to the middle ageas?

Yes, most people are better off under capitalism than feudalism. But then again, modern capitalism combined with representative democracy is a more equal system than feudalism. Still very unequal, though.

It’s not just a question of how well-off we are, though. Inequality produces higher crime, worse health etc.

Far from proven. You seen Sweden’s crime rate recently?

And I am still not really feeling these new forms of inequality guys. I buy the cheapest trainers around, I don’t find it socially stigmatising. More importantly, they are almost as comfortable as any pair of shoes could possibly be. I doubt even Warren Buffet can find significantly more comfortable shoes. It just isn’t much of an equality issue anymore.

It isn’t just that capitalism is better than feudalism, it is that as captalism has advanced, it seems to make people more equal in terms of what sort of items they have an opportunity to consume..

Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion.

Just an additional point on consumption vs income, the recent research on minimum income suggested that inflation for people on low incomes to be able to live a decent life is about 6% – compared to other measures of inflation – so prices are rising faster for some of the poorest people.

On councilhousetory’s points that governments shouldn’t try to bind their successors and that relative poverty is a load of nonsense, there is an interesting question about policies which do require a longer term commitment from government (such as reducing carbon emissions or poverty). But if the Tories decide that they think relative poverty doesn’t matter and child poverty is not a priority, then they can repeal the legislation and have the argument.

I think that would make for a much better public debate then claiming that reducing relative poverty is mathematically impossible.

“Just an additional point on consumption vs income, the recent research on minimum income suggested that inflation for people on low incomes to be able to live a decent life is about 6% – compared to other measures of inflation – so prices are rising faster for some of the poorest people.”

That is certainly a worrying trend, and I imagine it is to be found in the relatively high costs of things like fuel, housing and fresh food. But the role of governments in keeping up costs should be acknowledged, and trying to trim those sort of costs would be perhaps the most effective way of reducing inequality.

In general though, I must agree. From news of an elementary maths fail, we have managed to develop a fascinating and quite open discussion of relative poverty more generally.