Posted on 08/27/2002 7:46:43 PM PDT by ijcr
The existence of an underclass of the permanently poor is a myth, a Left-wing think tank claimed yesterday in findings that present a direct challenge to assumptions at the heart of Labour policies on welfare reform.
According to a pamphlet published by Catalyst, poverty is normally temporary and most people who are poor will not stay poor for life.
This is at odds with Tony Blair's strategy designed to offer "a hand up not a hand out" to those in danger of being permanently confined to the bottom of the social scale.
It is the second time in a week that one of the basic tenets of government welfare policy has come under fire from academics concerned about addressing poverty in Britain.
Yesterday, ministers were forced to defend the method they use to define "poverty", which had been criticised by the Social Market Foundation, a think tank with cross-party links.
Malcolm Wicks, a junior work and pensions minister, conceded that there were other ways of measuring poverty, other than the one used by the Government, which might give a clearer picture.
The Catalyst pamphlet, Poverty and the Welfare State: Dispelling the Myths, written by Paul Spicker, is unusual because Catalyst is an "old Labour" organisation chaired by Lord Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party.
The existence of a permanent economic underclass is more often challenged by thinkers on the Right who believe that market forces can be trusted to lift individuals out of poverty.
The pamphlet quoted figures showing that 39 per cent of children were in the lowest part of the income distribution for at least one year from 1996 to 1999, but that fewer than half of those stayed in that poverty bracket for the whole four years.
This contradicts the claim made by Alistair Darling, the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is one of the principal architects of the Government's welfare reforms.
He said that a third of Britain's children were born into poverty and that "if we do nothing, these children will not only be born poor, but they will live poor and die poor".
Catalyst said: "The Government believes there is a large hard core of persistently poor people, that poverty is long term and that it is passed from generation to generation.
"This is not consistent with the evidence."
Mr Spicker pointed out that 60 per cent of the population spent at least one year in the bottom 30 per cent of the income distribution between 1991 and 1999.
"People move through dependency, and most poverty is temporary. Poverty is generally an experience for part of people's lives, not for all of it.
"Few people under retirement age who have low incomes now have been poor throughout the last five years.
"Relatively few people who are unemployed stay unemployed continuously. Most young people who are currently poor will either obtain work, or settle down with someone else who is not poor."
In a swipe at government policy, he added that it was a mistake to base policy on the assumption that a large underclass of people living in long-term poverty existed.
"Systems that focus on 'the poor' are usually poor systems.
"The obsession with targeting the dependent poor has added to the complexity and the administrative problems of the benefits system.
"The best way to help the poor within the welfare state is not to target programmes more carefully on the poor, but the converse: to ensure that there is a general framework of resources, services and opportunities which are adequate for people's needs, and can be used by everyone."
How on earth is this news? Seems like the way it has been since the beginning of time.
a.cricket
Unless, of course, they choose to.
This is Left-Wing Blasphemy! To admit such is to...to...well, tell the truth.
Poverty laws work against the poor.The most important legislation should be for the benefit of all.
The left loves to bloviate over how people in the lowest quintile of the income distribution. Sowell points out that the lowest quintile is so loaded with young people whose prospects are so good that it's more typical for a person to move from the bottom quintile to the top quintile within a decade, than it is for a person to remain in the bottom quintile for a decade.Reduction or elimination of the "minimum" wage (the actual minimum is zero, applicable to everyone who is unemployed)presumably would reduce the average wage of employed entry-level workers, though not necessarily that of any existing human being.
The primary reason for the reduction in the statistical average would be the hiring of people who otherwise would be unemployed. In other words, it would be a blessing. A blessing disguised, by abuse of statistics, to appear as a bane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.