Webbo Posted 15 October 2014 Posted 15 October 2014 I don't know where you've got that £40k figure from, Moose. According to the Office for National Statistics, as of 2011-12 UK median household income was £23,200 and mean household income was £28,200. Those figures won't have changed much in 2 years. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/household-income/middle-income-households/1977---2011-12/sty-middle-income-households.html According to that graph it seems that disposable income is about the same as it was in 2003/04 when living standards were considered pretty good.
Alf Bentley Posted 15 October 2014 Posted 15 October 2014 According to that graph it seems that disposable income is about the same as it was in 2003/04 when living standards were considered pretty good. True enough. Our expectations change - except that, aside from brief blips, we expect output and living standards to steadily improve, which they mainly have for decades, apart from the last 6 years since the crash. Living standards in the 60s and 70s would seem crap to young people now (No computers or other gadgets? Black & white TV? Lots of people with no car, phone or foreign holiday?). Yet that would have seemed like great progress to our parents' and grandparents' generation. I suppose Richard III's subjects thought they lived a life of luxury compared to the Black Death! Sort of bears out the point about "relative poverty", I suppose. We don't compare our living standards to Bangladesh or to 1970, we compare them to other people in our country and to the standards we've got used to (or expected to achieve). We might have to adjust that expectation at some point, which will be quite hard for many people. Personally, I'd gladly swap a higher quality of life for a lower standard of living (within reason). Remember when new technology was supposed to lead to shorter working hours, more leisure time and a better quality of life?!
leicsmac Posted 16 October 2014 Posted 16 October 2014 True enough. Our expectations change - except that, aside from brief blips, we expect output and living standards to steadily improve, which they mainly have for decades, apart from the last 6 years since the crash. Living standards in the 60s and 70s would seem crap to young people now (No computers or other gadgets? Black & white TV? Lots of people with no car, phone or foreign holiday?). Yet that would have seemed like great progress to our parents' and grandparents' generation. I suppose Richard III's subjects thought they lived a life of luxury compared to the Black Death! Sort of bears out the point about "relative poverty", I suppose. We don't compare our living standards to Bangladesh or to 1970, we compare them to other people in our country and to the standards we've got used to (or expected to achieve). We might have to adjust that expectation at some point, which will be quite hard for many people. Personally, I'd gladly swap a higher quality of life for a lower standard of living (within reason). Remember when new technology was supposed to lead to shorter working hours, more leisure time and a better quality of life?! It still can given the right application (working from home, more allowances for automation etc), especially given recent advances in communication tech. But people are so slavishly devoted to the idea of the Protestant Work Ethic that the very idea is anathema to them. Can't have people getting money without doing 'work', oh no. Not even if that work is utterly pointless for a human to be doing with the level of tech we have.
Raj Posted 16 October 2014 Posted 16 October 2014 poor kids in the lodge with their new city tops and iphones...imagine how the kids in Ethiophia feel walking around wearing 10 year old man.u tops!!! thats poverty!
MooseBreath Posted 16 October 2014 Posted 16 October 2014 It still can given the right application (working from home, more allowances for automation etc), especially given recent advances in communication tech. But people are so slavishly devoted to the idea of the Protestant Work Ethic that the very idea is anathema to them. Can't have people getting money without doing 'work', oh no. Not even if that work is utterly pointless for a human to be doing with the level of tech we have. I think it's more about increased expectations. You probably could work a lot less now to obtain the same standard of living that was available in the 70s. As long as our expectations keep increasing, we'll still need to keep working in order to reach them. It's a good thing, really, keeps society progressing, and if it's what people want then you can't really tell them otherwise.
Guest MattP Posted 16 October 2014 Posted 16 October 2014 We might have to adjust that expectation at some point, which will be quite hard for many people. Personally, I'd gladly swap a higher quality of life for a lower standard of living (within reason). Remember when new technology was supposed to lead to shorter working hours, more leisure time and a better quality of life?! Certainly appears to have done on James Turner Street.
lavrentis Posted 16 October 2014 Posted 16 October 2014 Just makes me wonder tbh I know quite a few people who have a trade They tell me that you get people who dont work - who would be officially classed as poverty with better boilers, appliances, tv's etc then they have. The people who have been hit the most are the lower middle classes, upper working classes. These people are the most hard done to
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.