It seems to me this may be one part of the problem. De-industrialisation means people in developed nations have surged towards cities because that is where most jobs are. But lower paid jobs just don't pay enough to support a reasonable life for a poor family in London. It would be far easier support a family on a minimum wage job in the NW or NE of the UK than in London. But there don't seem to be enough jobs to do that.
Additionally, and I say this admitting I am speaking from a position of relative ignorance, there are a huge number of non UK born immigrants, living in state subsidised housing in one of the most expensive cities in the world. I don't fully understand why this is, but maybe it is because people are placed close to other family, maybe because of jobs.
As an immigrant to the UK myself, I'm aware that I should be very sensitive to criticisms of the system, but it does feel weird to have more than 50% of social housing in the capital allocated to people not born in the country. Please take this comment with as much charity as you can, I fully admit I am not close to the reasons for this.
It's worth adding the context that more than two thirds of that 50% have a British passport [0], and that around 40% of London's population is foreign-born [1]. This is more a natural product of circumstance than it is anything to do with preferring immigrants over British-born individuals.
[0] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/fact-check-foreigne...
> I know families with three kids to a room smaller than the one my youngest fills with books.
Housing is much more of an issue for the very poor, at least in the US. But I don’t agree that it has gotten relatively worse on a large timescale.
Food banks, subsidized school meals, and SNAP/EBT prevent what would otherwise be children starving to death. As it stands though, the relief is insufficient. Many children from food insecure households have stunted growth and lifelong learning impairments from insufficient protein, calcium, etc.
Source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/06/contempt-poo...
I grew up in this area. My parents didn't have electricity until they were teenagers. (I'm 32 for reference.)
It boils down to whether people can afford basic essentials like shelter, heating, lighting, and clothing. They do check their income levels. Maybe some people would lie about this, but I don't know why they would.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-2025-the-essential-guide-t...
If a child is obese, they are not necessarily nourished. They might very well be deficient in multiple vital minerals and vitamins, and could be paying the price in terms of their thinking ability, strength, growth potential, and overall health.
The US is actually a perfect example of this. Our government subsidized food, a lot, but a lot of that is corn. Most ultra-processed corn products are essentially nutritionally worthless.
fair enough
>I don’t know the UK context very well
bro
“One-Third of Americans Making $250,000 Live Paycheck-to-Paycheck, Survey Finds” [0]
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-01/a-third-o...
Yes, depending on their family size.
But that is very different from ‘food insecure’ after receiving federal/state benefits and I do not believe that is a thing that really happens.
You think someone in SF earning six figures should be considered poor?
> Single-person households making under $105,000 a year are classified as “low income” in three Bay Area counties by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...
If we look at $105k in San Francisco, minus federal, state, and local taxes, you're looking at roughly $6,400/month take home pay. If you make a budget out of that, you get $3,000 for rent, $800 for groceries, $250 for transit, $250 for medical, $150 for Internet, $600 for entertainment, $900 to retirement, and then finally $400 towards an emergency fund. If you do not have all those things in your monthly, you are poor. Now, there are certainly people who have less than that, and we could argue the semantics of being destitute, vs simply poor as colloquially defined terms, but the brackets that California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has are: acutely low, extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income.
We can use https://saul.pw/mag/wealth/ and say that even with a $105k/yr salary in SF, you're sitting at ↑3 or ↑4 or so, instead of using the emotionally loaded term poor if it would contribute to having a more thoughtful and substantive discussion.
This one throwaway is basically holding up your entire argument. This is just an assumption, and one you won't be able to substantiate.
if life in a place is expensive, and jobs in the same area do not pay enough to cover those expenses, then a person with that job in that area is poor.
I would love to see a sample of a handful of cases of these 100k earners who we should consider poor and in need of assistance to make ends meet.
- East Bay (El Cerrito, Richmond, Concord, Walnut Creek, Martinez)
- North Bay (Petaluma, Novato, Vallejo, Santa Rosa)
Within 90mins:
- South Bay (Milpitas, South San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy)
That's funny. Because I lived in Peckham for a decade, and it's obvious to me that money is fucking fucking tight for a lot of working families.
It's obvious to me that zero-hour contracts have massively reduced labour power.
It's obvious to me that energy bills are crippling.
It's obvious to me that there has been galloping inflation over the last decade.
It's obvious to me that all food has become more expensive since Brexit, notably including fresh fruit and veg.
It's obvious to me that rent is increasing faster than wages, and that it's well over 50% of income for millions of households.
It's obvious to me that benefits can be speciously cut at any moment, by policy of "climate of hostility", leaving a recipient unable to cover bills for a month while they take time off work and chid care to bang their heads on the bureaucracy.
When I say "obvious", I mean it literally: these things are in plain sight. When you say it, what I understand you to mean is that you have strong preconceptions making your blind. Could you kindly not Marie Antoinette in my country, thanks ever so.
edit: so many downvotes from asking a simple question
The reality is that, compared to other constraints (like housing), food is widely available in the US and even if you are really struggling you can generally get food.
Our surveys classify many families making >$100k as food insecure. [0][1]
0: https://cosm.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Economic-Cha... 1: https://cosm.aei.org/why-the-usda-is-justified-in-ending-the...
> Hospitals are incentivized to diagnose malnutrition by the Inpatient Prospective Payment System, which uses Medicare Severity Diagnosis‐Related Groups to identify a “payment weight.” When severe malnutrition is included on a patient's diagnosis list, a major complication or comorbidity (MCC) classifier is almost always added to the hospitalization claim. 5 Adding an MCC classifier increases reimbursement
If you look at the table, there is almost no relationship between income and likelihood of being marked as a malnutrition case by the hospital receiving reimbursement. (top 25% of income = 20% of cases, bottom 25% of income = 30% of cases).
The median age of these people with severe malnutrition is 70 years old. This is completely consistent with the claim I made around dementia, especially when you consider these people are repeatedly hospitalized oftentimes.
This article is not free to access but focuses on children: https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(22)00315-X/abs...
It found around 6.4% of child hospital admissions were diagnosed with malnutrition in 2019.
This other article says there were around 1.6 million child hospital admissions in 2019, suggesting around 100k cases of malnutrition in hospital admissions: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10616761/
Some of that will be due to newborn feeding difficulties, e.g. babies with tongue-tie or a challenging latch. But most parents will usually find a way to feed their baby before it gets to the hospitalisation stage.
My argument is that you should expect a similar ratio between famine and malnourishment across countries if you are measuring the same thing when you use the word ‘malnourishment.’
Having said that, how do you think about poverty in Britain (or the US)? What, for you, is the poverty line?
So yes, they're not bones-through-the-skin malnourished, it's more complicated than that.