Statistics are always throwing up anomalies, especially when precise definitions have been attempted. Such an anomaly was pointed out by a report into child poverty on this morning’s Today programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9661000/9661128.stm
Let me explain.
90 86 81 72 63 54 45 36 35 30 20
Now the middle number is 54. 60% of that is 32.4. This usually means that fewer children are counted as being in poverty, as the amount which counts has reduced. Previously, the bottom three families would have counted. Now only the bottom two count. This is the anomaly. Due to our way of counting it, the number of children in poverty reduces when times are bad.
With me so far? Good. Because something strange has happened. The number of children defined as living in poverty has risen. These are difficult economic times. As I have pointed out, the number should have reduced. How has this happened? How could this happen?
Easy. Our second example reduces the wages of the highest earners. Let’s try reducing the earnings of the lower income families:
Is this the explanation for the rise in the numbers of children living in poverty? There is no other logical reason. In good times, the numbers rise but these are not good times. Unemployment is sky rocketing, inflation is high and public sector pay is frozen. These are bad times, by anyone’s calculations.
We’re left with the reality that the poorest in our society are paying for the country's dire economic situation. The cuts are hitting the poorest harder, part time workers are losing their jobs at a disproportionate rate and now we have proof of this. We’re not all in this together. David Cameron is willing to put our European future in jeopardy to protect City millionaires. Poor people are left to carry the can.
If the Government is serious about reducing child poverty, this situation would be reversed. The results suggest that they are not. Iain Duncan Smith’s warm words have as much chance of succeeding as anything he did when leading the Conservative Party. Things are still tough. And the poor are continuing to pay most.
Let me explain.
The definition of a child living in poverty is someone under the age of 16 who lives in a household where the income is under 60% of the median wage. Not the average, but the median. This means that if all the wages in the country were set out in a line, we would find out which one is in the middle and measure 60% of it. Anything under that would count. For instance, take the following eleven families earnings as a snapshot:
100 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 2060 would be the median. 60% of 60 is 36. Any child living below that line would be in poverty.
All relatively simple. However, in a recession, we expect the figure to alter. If the top earning families lose 10% of their income, the line suddenly looks like this:90 86 81 72 63 54 45 36 35 30 20
Now the middle number is 54. 60% of that is 32.4. This usually means that fewer children are counted as being in poverty, as the amount which counts has reduced. Previously, the bottom three families would have counted. Now only the bottom two count. This is the anomaly. Due to our way of counting it, the number of children in poverty reduces when times are bad.
With me so far? Good. Because something strange has happened. The number of children defined as living in poverty has risen. These are difficult economic times. As I have pointed out, the number should have reduced. How has this happened? How could this happen?
Easy. Our second example reduces the wages of the highest earners. Let’s try reducing the earnings of the lower income families:
100 95 90 80 70 60 10 10 10 10 10
The median wage is still 60. The 60% line still kicks in at 36. How many families in our new line are under that level? Five. The top and middle earners are still as well off as they were. The lowest half of earners has been decimated. So the median wage remains the same, but everyone, yes EVERYONE under that has seen their income fall below the official poverty line.Is this the explanation for the rise in the numbers of children living in poverty? There is no other logical reason. In good times, the numbers rise but these are not good times. Unemployment is sky rocketing, inflation is high and public sector pay is frozen. These are bad times, by anyone’s calculations.
We’re left with the reality that the poorest in our society are paying for the country's dire economic situation. The cuts are hitting the poorest harder, part time workers are losing their jobs at a disproportionate rate and now we have proof of this. We’re not all in this together. David Cameron is willing to put our European future in jeopardy to protect City millionaires. Poor people are left to carry the can.
If the Government is serious about reducing child poverty, this situation would be reversed. The results suggest that they are not. Iain Duncan Smith’s warm words have as much chance of succeeding as anything he did when leading the Conservative Party. Things are still tough. And the poor are continuing to pay most.
