back to article Deprivation Britain: 1930s all over again? Codswallop!

When cruising The Guardian for a fix of poverty porn, as I tend to do from time to time, I'm frequently amused by what some people will believe about the subject. This time I have to admit to having been amazed. For we've the flat-out assertion that we're about to be back in the 1930s. In some ways this might even be true: …

Page:

  1. Nathan 13

    Spot on

    No one is poor in the UK, We are all the so called 1%, compared to the world's population.

    We dont know how good we have it, really we dont!!

    1. Streaker

      Re: Spot on

      In Total Agreement.

      However why flip between Dollars and Pounds? Does it make the statistics better when £1.00 = $4.90 as in 1935 or £1.00=$1.60 in 2014.

      And we all wonder why we don't trust statistics.

      S

      1. Ossi

        Re: Spot on

        Well if there was any sleight of hand there (and there wasn't) it would mean that the increase in income was understated as it would make the dollar number look larger in 1935. That wouldn't really serve the purposes of the writer.

      2. Tim Worstal

        Re: Spot on

        The different sets of numbers come from different sources but I stuck with what the one source used. So when looking at GDP figures stick with $ so that they are internally consistent, Same with UK earnings numbers, start in £ and stick with £. So we're in the same currency with each separate set of numbers but not over all of them.

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: Spot on

      Just about. Top 1% is really around UK median wage (say, £24k a year). UK minimum wage or, including all benefits like housing benefit etc the general level of benefits still gets you, just, into world top 10%.

    3. Syntax Error

      Re: Spot on

      Poor quality of life in the UK. Destroying the welfare state is not going to make it any better and probably a lot worse.

      This article is rubbish.

      1. Gordon 10

        Re: Spot on

        Oh no Mr Syntax in a delicious case of irony the error is yours

      2. fruitoftheloon
        FAIL

        Re: Spot on

        Mr syntax,

        so you presumably don't have a problem with some families historically having received more in benefits than Mr Average would receive in salary for working full time?

        Disclosure: I am currently in receipt of ESA benefit and my mum is disabled, so my father gets carers allowance etc, I am quite familiar with the price of a single tomato and can tell you down to the nearest penny what my sons school lunch costs.

        We eat modestly and COOK our own dinners, hence our family food budget is a fraction of many people we know.

        I do not believe the world owes me a living or that the state should be responsible for looking after my family, I do however appreciate the [significant to us] help that we do get at the moment, I look forward to when my health fully returns and I will be paying tax again rather than drawing upon it...

        But I believe the bedroom tax is flawed in every way possible.

        J

    4. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Nathan 13 Re: Spot on

      ".....We dont know how good we have it....." Those of us who have travelled to less fortunate lands certainly do. The problem is there is a large number of people in the West that make a very good living off feeding others the idea that "it's so unfair", etc. Just like Al Gores did with 'global warming' (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/02/nyt-admits-gore-making-fortune-global-warming, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/al-gores-net-worth-green-energy_n_1961299.html), they hypocritically use the fears of "the poor" to feather their own nests.

  2. Jim 59

    1930s

    My father was a kid in the 30s, and he said the poor children came to school with no shoes on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 1930s

      My mother was a poor kid born in the 1930's. She did go to school with no shoes on. But not before she was 14. Before then she rarely went to school because she had to look after her brothers and sisters (all 10 of them - she was the eleventh and the eldest). Mind you, after she ran away from home, she met my father, they set-up their own business, worked very hard and didn't remain poor.

      She was taken into care after she ran away from home; very different to care today - it was the Salvation Army, and she doesn't have much good to say about them, yes they housed her but doing so came with the condition of absolute abeyance. There was however one army sister who helped her greatly and who mum speaks of warmly, that sister helped her with her reading and writing and wrote a reference for her so she could became a nurse. That helped her get into nursing college which was an incredible achievement for her in itself.

      To hear her speak, you would never guess she couldn't read and write for so much of her youth or that she had to any extent a deprived background. She is fiercely intelligent and could easily have been a top scientist or academic had she had different family circumstances. Her one luxury when she was young was a transistor radio she managed to get hold of and she would listen to it in her bedroom at night, copying the voices of the posh people. That might sound funny to most people and to today's ears might even sound false, but it was actually the complete opposite. She knew there had to be a better world out there than the loveless brutal and abusive family life she was surrounded by and she clung on to the radio where she could hear people talking who didn't seem to be living with violence and abuse, thinking if she could just learn from it, it might save her.

      She had a pain in her back and it was fairly recently diagnosed being from an old injury; a cracked spine. That reminded her of one time when her father kicked her down the stairs; as that was probably when the injury occurred. Really her childhood story, untold and private, is sad but quite incredible.

      And her radio listening worked. It was how she educated herself and by doing what she did, didn't come across to others as a useless vagabond. She was able to get out of the gutter.

      I once read a book about poverty in childhood. It was called Tuppence to Cross the Mersey. It wasn't nice. My mother read it and knowing she had not had a good childhood (but not at the time knowing quite how bad it was), I asked her (probably distastefully) how her's compared. She looked sad and distant. "Worse" she replied. "...much worse."

      Every now an again, she comes across the political activist type that says something like "it's alright for you" and "you can't understand poverty."

      Understandably she has some strong views, but she doesn't really talk about her background in front of such people. Firstly because it's private, secondly because I think she finds the disparity in experience she has with the people who say stuff like that too difficult to handle. There is such a thing as being able to win an argument too comprehensively, and it's bad taste to voice up about how deprived your childhood was, so she just sits there and says nothing. But when people measure other people's circumstances and use phrases like "It's alright for you" its worth reflecting how little they may know.

      She's an incredible woman and now, when she's surrounded by family and grandchildren, she has a look of deep contentment and satisfaction on her face that is really quite lovely to see. Those that do know about her childhood are always surprised because she is so articulate, knowledgeable about the world and is so, well,... normal.

      She would wholeheartedly agree with this article.

      1. LucreLout

        Re: 1930s

        Every now an again, she comes across the political activist type that says something like "it's alright for you" and "you can't understand poverty."

        I get this, from time to time, by some soap dodging dog stringer, on my way to work in the City. To say it's annoying would be an understatement.

        I never knew the sort of poverty you describe, and I came from a loving family. A loving blue collar family in a council house, going to the local failing comp, while dad came home with one redundancy slip after the next. My folks eventually managed to buy their own place, then lived hand to mouth to keep it due to rate rises and recession, while working up to 16 hours a day when work or overtime was available. My parents were poor, never earning todays "living wage", and often a lot less. They saw education as a route to a better life for their kids, and pushed us all into it.

        Fast forward a couple of degrees then 20 years hard bloody work, and yes, I now have it easy. It's nothing anyone of my school class mates couldn't do. Some of them did. I had no opportunities the dog on a string brigade didn't have, and I had no particular academic aptitude. Anyone can choose to work hard.

        I understand being poor better than literally every single person that's ever told me I didn't understand it, and I work harder than those that now tell me I have it easy. The only poverty we have in Britain is poverty of aspiration. It has been such since at least the late seventies / early eighties. Taxing the successfull harder to gift "the poor" shinnier toys won't change that one bit.

        1. BenR

          @LucreLout Re: 1930s

          I'm mostly there with you.

          I too never knew that sort of poverty - I came from a single-parent family, and although my father was not one of the type the CSA would have had us believe all absentee fathers are and always paid his child support to my mother without fail, my mother still worked TWO jobs in local education (as a nursery nurse and a part-time youth worker), as well as a weekend job with one of our neighbours on a sandwich fan at football matches, in order to support us and to put me through university. I never went hungry in the manner described by some of the older generation, but I am *FULLY* aware of just how much my mother sacrificed for me to have a better life. The only reason she could even contemplate affording her own home was through Right To Buy.

          But even then, while attending university, to make ends meet I lived at home, and was fortunate that my hometown university (Sheffield) was ranked third in the country for my course at the time, so i didn't class that as a disbenefit. I also took a part-time job myself, where I worked stacking shelves at a local supermarket for 20 hours a week after lectures. I graduated, got myself a good job with good prospects, got myself my professional qualifications, and am now fortunate to be living in the sort of financial comfort that my mother could have only dreamed of at my age.

          I too had no more opportunity - due to either my background, home life, upbringing or through my failing (and since closed and reopened at least twice) local comp than anyone else in my peer group. I worked hard to get where I am, and to be in a position where when I have kids they will have some of the advantages that i did not.

          This is how the world *SHOULD* work - each generation building on that which came before them.

          Quite why I should be expected to feel guilty that some feckless imbeciles have been unable to take a system that worked perfectly well for me I shall never know. Even more so when I see parents walking round during the day, drinking cheap lager and smoking endless fags while failing to maintain control of the three or four children running round only to hear the refrains of "It's not fair the government cut our benefits! How can we feed our kids now?"

          Work hard. Have aspirations. And most of all, if you truly believe the situation to be so bad that you consider hope for your own self-betterment to be lost forever, be willing to sacrifice and forgo things for yourself in order to provide better for your children.

      2. Angol

        Re: 1930s

        Something wrong here. We're told she was born in the 1930s and when young had a transistor radio. But the first British transistor radio was produced in 1956.

        1. Bob Wheeler

          Re: 1930s

          I believe that they were known then as crystal radio's or cat's whisker radio's.

          1. Uffish

            Re: crystal radios in the 1930's

            ... and cost quite a lot at the time.

        2. Nigel 11

          Re: 1930s

          Feast your eyes on some vacuum-tube portable radios here: http://www.antiqueradio.org/tubeportables.htm

          They're a bit larger than a modern DAB radio, and when loaded with LT and HT batteries, considerably heavier. But in essence ... pre-transistor "transistor" radios.

        3. David Roberts

          Re: 1930s

          So if she was born in 1936 the radio would have been available in 1956 when she was 20.

        4. fruitoftheloon

          Re: 1930s

          It could have been a crystal set

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 1930s @AC

        Have an upvote, very commendable story of determination and self reliance. Too bad half the population would rather laze about on the dole and bemoan the fact instead of showing the same persevereance your grandparents did. The funny thing is she seems to be embarrassed to mention it.

        We need educators that can instill that kind of gumption in the present millenial generation. Their parents sure didn't.

        Both my parents were from that long gone generation, both born in the late 1920's. Both have passed on but they worked very hard to make something of themselves instead of finding excuses to stay in the breadline or soupkitchen. At the time, I was not appreciative of being told to get a part time job when I was 14 but I sure understand the importance now at 59. Funny how you change as you get older.

    2. Snorlax Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: 1930s

      My father was a kid in the 30s, and he said the poor children came to school with no shoes on.

      And eighty-something years later, kids are going to school hungry. Teachers are buying cereal for them with their own money.

      Fuck yeah, we've come a long way baby.

      1. Jim 59

        Re: 1930s

        F*** yeah, we've come a long way baby.

        Well, here's how far 6 year old children have come in Britain, anyway:

        1830's - 6 year olds down mines, operating trap doors etc.

        1930's - 6 years olds in school, poor ones without shoes.

        2030s - ?

      2. SysDBA

        Re: 1930s

        Yes, but is that poverty or child neglect. Too many so-called parents are more concerned with alcohol, tobacco and their own lifestyle and pay too little attention to the needs of their children. The problems just ain't that simple!

      3. Nigel 11

        Re: 1930s

        And eighty-something years later, kids are going to school hungry.

        Unless you're going to successfully argue that the statistics in the article are wrong, that is because their parents have a poor set of priorities, and are spending their income on something other than properly feeding their children.

        Throwing more money at such parents is not the answer. Indeed, it may be part of the problem (for example, if a parent has an addiction). No, I do not know what the answer is.

        1. Uffish

          Re: ' what the answer is'

          No, I don't know what the answer is either, but I think that the teachers that feed them are onto something.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 1930s @snorlax

        Mostly because their parents (if there are two) are lazy goodfornothing drug addicts and alcoholics Snorlax. Ones that can't even keep it together for their kids sake.

        Too many people that make excuses for how or why they are poor and not enough that have the guts to fix their own problems. If you tell me otherwise you are just lying.

    3. JP19

      Re: 1930s

      In the late 50's I, my parents, 3 brothers and sister lived in a rented two bedroom cottage with no running water and an outside elsan toilet my father had to dig a hole for in the garden and bury once a week. I don't really remember but my mother tells me we were often hungry. My father was a travelling salesman (on a motorbike with sidecar) my mother worked part time as a cleaner and used to keep the contents of the ash trays for my father to make roll-ups from the dog-ends. A woman living across the street had running water - a sink with a tap was a novelty for me and I remember playing washing and ironing (with flat irons heated on a stove) her dish cloths.

      My parents worked hard and slowly prospered. Nowadays deprivation seems to be not having a 50" flat screen and SKY.

    4. fruitoftheloon
      Thumb Up

      Re: 1930s

      Jim,

      likewise my grandfather was one of nine (most of them died very young), they lived in one of two rooms in a slum in East London with no heating, running water, toilet or electricity, he was born almost exactly a hundred years ago.

      I think things have moved on a bit since then for the working class...

  3. Tim Worstal

    Slight edit error

    "(ie, taking inflation into account although it's actually $1,992)."

    Should read "(ie, taking inflation into account although it's actually 1992 $)."

    As in, inflation adjusted to the dollars of 1992, not to 1,992 dollars.

    My bad.

    1. Mark 65

      Re: Slight edit error

      Although I have to ask, how reliable is the inflation series? Is it one of those typical Government constructions where it's actually total bollocks and doesn't reflect changes in costs whatsoever but suits them nicely for their index linked stuff?

      1. Tim Worstal

        Re: Slight edit error

        Fair to say that it's not very good. But also that it's the best we've got. The Maddison figures should be thought of as being accurate in the first digit and the number of digits but probably not much more than that.

      2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Slight edit error

        Mark 65,

        Any long-term measure of inflation is by definition bollocks. it's not their fault, it's just the job is impossible. If you've ever studied any kind of economic or social history, these kind of calculations are a nightmare.

        The things you're comparing are just too hard. As an example, craftsmanship matters so much less, due to mass production. A hand-made pair of boots is now a luxury, even though it might actually cost a similar amount in inflation terms to the 1930s or the 1830s. Say it costs around a week's wages for a skilled worker then and now (which is probably reasonable for many periods). The difference is I don't need to spend £500 on handmade shoes, I can get cheap ones for £30 or pay £100 for something that'll last years. Those last two options weren't available, except that you could get second-hand stuff. Obviously no-one in the 1930s had iPads, or the option to pop to the supermarket for strawberries in December, or Australian wine.

        So you're actually dealing with too many moving targets. Wage inflation is different to price inflation is different to the amount of new things appearing on the market. And they all move at different speeds. My parents bought a fridge when they got married in the 60s. It cost £80. They replaced it when it died in the late 80s for about the same price. The difference was that £80 had gone from being several months salary to only a few days pay.

        My personal take is to compare things that are as obvious as possible, like the price of a loaf of bread, or the wage of a skilled worker. Or to look at contemporary documents. Sherlock Holmes is a great guide for example. Conan Doyle talks about incomes a lot in those books. So someone with an income of £1,000 a year in the late 19th C could probably have a home in London plus maybe a place in the country, with a couple of servants in each. Where £50 would get you a decent life. You wouldn't be able to buy an iPad with it - but then neither would the rich bugger with two houses.

        When you look at ancient history, it gets even harder. And the income disparities become unimaginable. The Romans had this brief fashion in the late republic / early principate period for going slave-tastic. So to prove just how stinkingly rich you were, you'd have a slave just to hold the towels for your guests. Another just to open the door, several to fan your guests, more to take coats. Just so you could brag to your mates about how loaded you were. This was partly because the price of slaves went down due to all the military victories (hence the captives), but also because they were just getting so immensely rich.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: Slight edit error

          I have to agree with your rough take, though personally I have a personal, almost utterly unscientific yet disturbingly accurate way of looking at wage costs for the "middle classes". The cost of transport.

          If you look at the cost of a low end car, a middle range car and a high end car then they tend to hold prices relatively well with the range of what the range of salaries were actually out there as opposed to how the average is being calculated or fiddled that year.

          Going further back? Look at the relative cost of horses. It tends to hold true and be acceptably accurate.

  4. Zog_but_not_the_first

    Statistics and all that

    An interesting read, as always. Yes, I think the real issue is inequality and the fact that a significant number of people are getting poorer. If you've ever had your fortunes fluctuate in life, you notice things like that.

    Economic growth data show that we've become wealthier as a nation, and everyone benefits from that to some degree, but an average GDP per capita clouds the deeper truth on how the cake is divided up. There are plenty of graphs around that show the profound divergence of the income of "most folk" and a tiny elite since the late 1970s. Some people contribute to growth more than others, of course , but the exclusion of the majority of workers from this growth in recent times is in my view a bad thing. Dammit, it's just not fair.

    Couple this with a feeling of our democracy being dismantled and it's easier to understand people's growing unease with the situation.

    Of course, a quick trip through history will show that this is nothing new (plus ça change and all that). and I hope things stabilise without the dislocations that have occurred in previous times (e.g. the 1930s).

    Keep 'em coming Tim, I always enjoy your stuff even if I don't agree with all of it.

    Plus, if you still harbour any concerns over "black footie bags" keep clear of all things Cable (Vince, Street etc.). CAT5 should be OK though.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Statistics and all that

      inequality and the fact that a significant number of people are getting poorer.

      Well, more accurately, not getting wealthier as fast...

      I have to wonder, though, if that isn't a consequence of more opportunity, rather than less?

      With no opportunity to improve oneself, things won't change, but the more opportunities there are, the more people will be able to take advantage of them. Since people aren't equal in abiliity it is inevitable that some will be better at that than others. It seems likely, therefore, that the more opportunities there are, it is inevitable that the bigger the inequality will get. Provided that all levels of society are going up, as is demonstrably the case, the fact that some levels are going up faster than others must be a good thing.

      An increasing wealth gap isn't necessarily a problem, it's a sign of more opportunities being available in general. It would only be a problem if it were being fuelled by a feudal-style aristocracy trampling on the backs of peasants, and despite the claims of some on the left that is not the case nowadays.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Statistics and all that

        No, they are getting poorer. Even the government says wages for many are down - not static (which would still be done unless deflation or zero inflation occurs) - down. Meanwhile prices for energy (as paid by households), transport and most foods are up. So, people are getting poorer, even not considering fees for tertiary education that I did not have to pay, along with my peers, nor the real cuts in benefits and the use of sanctions to meet targets and pay for government and banking failures.

        Of course, if you belong to senior management of some financial firm or outsourced hospital service, yes, you are probably richer. I am well enough paid. But my rate is a little less than in 1996. I know many who are relatively less well paid.

  5. Duffy Moon

    Difficult calculation

    These sorts of calculations are complicated and frought with difficulties. I think what needs to be taken into consideration such necessary expenses as food, clothing, heating and housing costs. I would guess that the first two are much cheaper compared to the 1930's and the second two higher.

    To take one example, my father was a child then and he paid the entire rent of the family house out of his paper round (!) with money to spare. Being in south Wales, heating wasn't a problem as they could just collect coal from spoil tips. Food was in short supply, but they also grew some and no doubt knew how to make the most of what they had. The same with clothing - make do and mend.

    It could be argued that there were fewer consumer goods to spend (waste?) money on on those days. No huge TVs (although his family had a rented wireless) and not many people had cars.

    Perception of poverty has a lot to do with people's expectations. People expect a better standard these days and rightly so. There's a greater awareness of inequality, although given the fact that the Conservative Party is in government, presumably most people are not upset enough about it to actually do anything.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Re: Difficult calculation

      Don't forget even in the seemingly easy comparisons it's all different. I can feed 10 people (or one person for a week) for a couple of quid with veggie curry. It'll taste nice, and be nutritious. Up that a tenner, and it'll have identifiable bits of meat in it too. Somewhere in between determines whether it's mystery meat, and how much there is. Make that £30 and there'll be several glasses of beer/wine and pudding. Even the expensive option is well under 1 day of the minimum wage.

      I suspect the cheap option hasn't changed in price massively over the years. Although there was a period of the industrial revolution when lots of people were now livinig in towns, so didn't have the option to just grow stuff themselves, if there was no work. But the variety available has, and the posh grub at the top end has plummeted in price. For £50 a week (1 day at the minimum wage), I can eat meat twice a day, have wine with every meal, pudding, biscuits, crisps - and basically gorge myself silly. On produce from all over the world, ignoring the seasons.

      I believe the rule-of-thumb in the Victorian era was you could have 1 pineapple per month per horse you owned. At least if you were prepared to collect all the horse poo, and use it to keep a mini-greenhouse toasty and fertilised. And that doesn't take into account the salary of the gardener. But if you could afford horses and greenhouses, gardeners were cheap. Hence serving pineapple with Christmas dinner was apparently a huge late 19th C status symbol.

  6. TheOtherHobbes

    From Barnardos:

    There are currently 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty .

    In the UK 63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works.

    Families living in poverty can have as little as £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport.

    1.6 million children are growing up in homes which are too cold.

    Infant mortality is 10% higher for infants in the lower social group than the average.

    See also interesting numbers about food banks from the Trussel Trust.

    So keep up the good fight. The children and working adults of the UK thank you for it.

    1. Tim Worstal

      quite true

      "There are currently 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. That’s almost a third of all children. 1.6 million of these children live in severe poverty ."

      That is though, relative poverty. By the definitions Barnardos is using "poverty" is less than 60% of median equivalised household income after housing costs (the equivalised is to take care of different sized families).

      Severe poverty, in the same sense that they use it, sorry, can never remember whether it's less than 50% of median ehiahc or less than 40%.

      But it is absolutely a measure of relative poverty, not of living standards over time.

      "Families living in poverty can have as little as £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport."

      Indeed. And if you do the maths on that 1930s public assistance level you'll see that back then they had £1.50 per day per person. And that's after the inflation adjustment. That's £1.50 a day of today's money at today's prices per person per day.

      All of which rather makes the point of the piece. Poverty just ain't like it were when Gramps were a lad.

      1. JP19

        Re: quite true

        "That is though, relative poverty"

        Yes we can completely eradicate such poverty in this county by taking lots of money from the rich and burning it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: quite true

        Amazing that so many upvoters can be so wrong. Poverty is not absolute. It has a material, a spiritual and a social dimension. So, those poor children (and adults) today are still less well fed, in poorer health, occupying worse heated, more expensive to heat and keep dry housing, dong worse in education and not able to contemplate educatiion loans for tertiary education. Every statistic demonstrates the consequences and they are not good.

        Contrary the confident assertions in other comments, the widening wealth gap is bad all round: it is now recognised that it is a drag on the economy and it fuels social discontent and disaffection of your fellow voters and citizens. We have got no reason to believe that 21st century Europe is any more immune to the violent results in the end. Indeed, Great Britain, France and Germany have all experienced social breakdown to a greater or lesser extent in recent years, localised but still nasty. It will get worse.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re:TheOtherHobbes

      "From Barnardos....." No disrespect to Barnardos' staff and supporters (I have worked with them on charity projects), but there are a core number of people in the charity business that make sure they paint things in as bad a light as possible. They do so for the simple reason that it is a business and, just like all other businesses, it must continue to generate more money than it spends or it will cease to exist. Now, some of that core are happy to 'massage the stats' because they are caring people that are deeply committed to their cause and even volunteer their time and services for free, but some make a very handsome living as employees of such charities, and for that latter group to declare "yup, we won that war on being poor" would not be good for business. In some cases the level of renumeration may make you question their motives:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/212345/rolling-greenpeace/iain-murray

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10232004/72-per-cent-increase-in-executives-paid-over-100k-a-year-at-best-known-charities.html

      http://www.theguardian.com/society/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International#Excessive_payouts_to_senior_staff

      In FY2012, Amnesty International USA's Exec Director, Suzanne Nossel, had a declared salary of $249,189 (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3294#.VI3HZxuCOrU), which IMHO probably goes a long way to explaining why AI are so hot on 'exposing injustices'.

      1. Jim 59

        Re: Re:TheOtherHobbes

        @Matt Bryant - when giving to charity now, I am influenced by how much the chief executive is paid. Cafod had the lowest paid boss among overseas charities when I checked a few months back (about 55k IIRC).

        Just checked again now, charities that operate in the UK:

        Head of Save the Children - 247,000

        Head of Salvation Army - 10,500

        People might take the p*** out if the S.A., but good on 'em.

        1. Marcus Aurelius
          Boffin

          Re: Re:TheOtherHobbes

          This raises the question of whether a charity is an activity to gather money to fully pay professionals to do the job, or whether the professionals being paid to do the work by the charity should also work for a charitable wage?

          I do think the salary level of Save the Children is taking the p**s though.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Go

          Re: Jim 59 Re: Re:TheOtherHobbes

          ".....I am influenced by how much the chief executive is paid...." Good idea, but you have to be careful as the charities are getting very good at hiding their employees and execs as "non-employees". The classic case is the rights group Liberty and The Civil Liberties Trust. The latter is the charity and as such makes a big noise about how little it spends directly on staff compared to how much it spends on "activities". But, they "outsource" their actual activities and campaigns to Liberty, which are an unincorporated "non-profit" association. Indeed, Liberty's sole means of income is the money paid to them by The Civil Liberties Trust (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_(advocacy_group)#Organisation). This means The Civil Liberties Trust do not have to declare Shami Chakrabarti's wages as Liberty's director as an employee, nor do they have to list her income from her tours, paid-for TV appearances (taxpayers' money in the case of "Have I Got News For You"), etc. In essence, Chakrabarti's wages (and those of Liberty's marketing people, lawyers, lobbyists, etc.) are declared by The CLT as "charitable operations activities" rather than employee costs.

          Liberty and The CLT is (IMHO) the most blatant example I've seen of this dodge, but I'm told it also happens with other charities in a "you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-outsource-my-activities-to-you" manner.

          1. JustNiz

            Re: Jim 59 Re:TheOtherHobbes

            @Matt Bryant:

            I totally agree with the eseence of what you are saying, however what rich people like Chakrabarti do, even though immoral, is technically not illegal.

            Until we fix that, it gets called a "Tax Mitigation strategy" rather than Tax Evasion, and there are expensive tax advisors that other rich people like Chakrabarti pay a lot of money to just to come up with them, all quite legally. Apparently when you have a lot of money you gain access to a completely different world and set of rules, which also makes it easier to make and keep even more money. THAT double-standard is the actual root of the problem that most needs eliminating, however all the people that have the power to do anything about it are exactly all the ones that are (ab)using it themselves.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Families living in poverty can have as little as £12 per day per person to buy everything they need such as food, heating, toys, clothes, electricity and transport."

      FX: <sound of violin playing sad, sad music>

      Taking that at face value, it would seem that after sixty years or so the welfare state has failed most miserably, wouldn't you agree? Which seems rather odd when they have had to introduce new rules to limit the maximum "benefits" to something around £35k untaxed cash a year.

      It also seems odd that so many people are "living in poverty" when half of eastern Europe, a goodly chunk of southern Europe, and hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East and Africa are busting a bollock to get here for the opportunities.

      Perhaps, OtherHobbes, you could give us a diagnosis of this problem?

      1. Charles Manning

        Indeed. We get the same crap about "poverty" here in NZ too.

        Having grown up in rural Africa, this notion of Western poverty riles me no end.

        I'd love to load a bunch of beneficiaries on a plane and send them to live in Africa for a week. Or, perhaps, to give them the full experience, send them by small ship in steerage.

        The worst off 10% of people in UK, NZ etc still live easier lives - with more material wealth ans social support - than 90% of the people in the rest of the world.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Charles Manning

          ".....Having grown up in rural Africa, this notion of Western poverty riles me no end......" When I was a spoilt kid and grumbled about my lot, my old man used to take me into the kitchen and point at the tap - "That alone makes your lot better than most of the kids on the World", he'd say. Took me a few trips abroad to actually realise it was a lot, lot more than 'most'.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like