Apparently, one quarter of us live in deprivation, but...

syklops

I read the following in the Metro this morning:

ALMOST one in four people in the country is living in deprivation.
Latest figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) have revealed 23 per cent of the population cannot afford some of the most basic necessities, such as food, heat and clothes. The CSO defines a person as deprived if he cannot afford at least two of 11 criteria, including two pairs of strong shoes; new (not second-hand) clothes; a warm, waterproof coat; re- placement of worn-out furniture; home heating; and a roast dinner once a week or a meal with meat or fish, or vegetarian equivalent, every other day. It also states a person should be able to afford a day out in the last fortnight, have guests over for a drink or meal once a month, and buy presents at least once a year.
The report also shows almost 16 per cent of the population are now at risk of poverty – that is, earning less than 60 per cent of the median national disposable income of €22,168.

Even though Ireland’s median disposable income fell by almost €1,200 in the space of a year, and the ‘at risk of poverty’ threshold fell from €12,064 to €10,831, the number of people falling below that threshold increased by almost two per cent. More than one in 16 people now live in ‘consistent poverty’: earning less than €10,831 in disposable income
and experiencing at least two of the deprivation criteria. St Vincent de Paul said it was not
surprised at the figures as calls for help to the charity have doubled since 2008 and people are ‘extremely worried’ about next week’s Budget. ‘There is a palpable fear around the country,’ a charity spokesman said. ‘There are a lot of people who can just about manage on social welfare, they hit a period of the year where there is something additional like back to school, Christmas, birthday, and that pushes them over the edge.’
He said there were basic physical, psychological and social needs everyone required,
which will be put out of reach for many if there are to be cuts or changes to social welfare criteria. ‘We don’t know what’s coming. If it’s anything like it’s supposed to be
it’s going to be really, really bad,’ he added.

According to that someone is deprived if:

... he cannot afford at least two of 11 criteria, including two pairs of strong shoes; new (not second-hand) clothes; a warm, waterproof coat; replacement of worn-out furniture; home heating; and a roast dinner once a week or a meal with meat or fish, or vegetarian equivalent, every other day. It also states a person should be able to afford a day out in the last fortnight, have guests over for a drink or meal once a month, and buy presents at least once a year.

What does replacement of worn out furniture mean? And what constitutes 'presents'?

Obviously if you weren't getting a decent meal everyday then you are by the very definition deprived, but new clothes? A day out once a month, guests over for dinner once a month, and 2 pairs of strong shoes? I only have one pair of strong shoes.

If you live in deprivation by not being able to afford two of these criteria, do you live in poverty if you cant afford three? If so, then I have been poor for most of my life.

Jumpy

In the ghettooooooo.

theteal

that, my good sir, is a load of pish

moco

syklops wrote: »

I read the following in the Metro this morning:



According to that someone is deprived if:



What does replacement of worn out furniture mean? And what constitutes 'presents'?

Obviously if you weren't getting a decent meal everyday then you are by the very definition deprived, but new clothes? A day out once a month, guests over for dinner once a month, and 2 pairs of strong shoes? I only have one pair of strong shoes.

If you live in deprivation by not being able to afford two of these criteria, do you live in poverty if you cant afford three? If so, then I have been poor for most of my life.

If you can afford at least 2 of the 11 criteria you're not deprived. That's how I read it anyway.

OldGoat

I'm depraved.:cool:

Kevin Duffy

Some unexpected criteria for "deprivation" there. If a friend, relative or neighbour told me they felt deprived 'cos they couldn't buy me a present, change the furniture or have me over for dinner, I'd think they had ****ed up priorities. I'd tell them "Put on your warm, waterproof (not second hand) coat and one of your two pairs pairs of strong shoes and get the fúck outta here".

TheZohanS

moco wrote: »

If you can afford at least 2 of the 11 criteria you're not deprived. That's how I read it anyway.

The CSO defines a person as deprived if he cannot afford at least two of 11 criteria

There are lots of deprived and poverty struck people in Ireland.

Wibbs

I dunno, maybe it's me, but we seem to have redefined "deprived" over the last few decades.

Worn out furniture? Unless the springs are sticking up through the seat of a chair how worn out are we talking about? Just old furniture? Shít I have a chest of drawers that's knocking on 300 years old. Still works(and was cheaper than a new modern knockoff in harvey normans and the like). Actually auctions are good places to pick up solid furniture for fcuk all by comparison to "made in a sweatshop in China and the doors don't close properly, but we've antiqued it up" overpriced tat you find on the high street.

New clothes? I know plenty of people who buy second hand clothes. A few well off ones too. And you have outlet places like tkmaxx if you want new without the daft markup of the labels.

Like you I agree on the home heating and food front and yea if you've a hole in your shoe, literally "down to your uppers" then yes you're deprived alright. Not being able to socialise once a month etc, yea you're not doing well that's for sure, but I find it hard to equate that notion of poverty compared to a guy or gal sleeping rough on the streets of our major cities. Never mind that outside the west half the world will go to bed(if they have one) hungry tonight.

moco

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, maybe it's me, but we seem to have redefined "deprived" over the last few decades.

Worn out furniture? Unless the springs are sticking up through the seat of a chair how worn out are we talking about? Just old furniture? Shít I have a chest of drawers that's knocking on 300 years old. Still works(and was cheaper than a new modern knockoff in harvey normans and the like). Actually auctions are good places to pick up solid furniture for fcuk all by comparison to "made in a sweatshop in China and the doors don't close properly, but we've antiqued it up" overpriced tat you find on the high street.

New clothes? I know plenty of people who buy second hand clothes. A few well off ones too. And you have outlet places like tkmaxx if you want new without the daft markup of the labels.

Like you I agree on the home heating and food front and yea if you've a hole in your shoe, literally "down to your uppers" then yes you're deprived alright. Not being able to socialise once a month etc, yea you're not doing well that's for sure, but I find it hard to equate that notion of poverty compared to a guy or gal sleeping rough on the streets of our major cities. Never mind that outside the west half the world will go to bed(if they have one) hungry tonight.

I think people are reading it wrong! It's saying you only have to be able to afford 2 of those things to not be deprived. Like if you can eat meat once or twice a week or whatever it is and have 2 pairs of good shoes then you're ok, but if you can't afford anything on the list apart from the eating meat x times a week then you're deprived.

sensibleken

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Some unexpected criteria for "deprivation" there. If a friend, relative or neighbour told me they felt deprived 'cos they couldn't buy me a present, change the furniture or have me over for dinner, I'd think they had ****ed up priorities. I'd tell them "Put on your warm, waterproof (not second hand) coat and one of your two pairs pairs of strong shoes and get the fúck outta here".

hear hear.

Is it just me or have people just turned into complete pussies over the last 15 years?

Not to cover over all four yorkshiremen or anything (in-your-endo)but my parents lived on pigs cheek and boiled cabbage. When I was a kid it was yellow and white pack food and for the first ten years of independant living it was complete hand to mouth. being able to buy your own furniture is frankely doing quite well for yourself.

you have needs. food, water, shelter, occasional hand jobs. If youre missing any one of them then yeah youre deprived.

Frank Black

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, maybe it's me, but we seem to have redefined "deprived" over the last few decades.

.

Of course they have - how else would the 'poverty industry' be able to justify its continued existence.

By the standards of a few decades ago, there is a tiny percentage of the population in 'poverty'.

By the standards of some of the developing world - almost nobody here would qualify as poor.

Carter P Fly

If you cant do 2 out of those 11 then things suck but really, that's a First world problems list if I ever saw one.

gurramok

We're all deprived so

Heating is bloody expensive due to the ESB cartel rip-off, throw on some woolly jumpers. Afford new furniture? Lots of us in that position!

"It also states a person should be able to afford a day out in the last fortnight, have guests over for a drink or meal once a month, and buy presents at least once a year."

This defines poverty?? We're all in that boat!

stovelid

WUT ABT PLASSMA TV, FORIN HOLIDAYS AND NEW CARS ON DOLE.

I WUS BROUGH UP ON BRENNANS BREAD N SUGAR SAMBOS AND WE WER ALWAYS HAPPY

ROFL

**STOVE***

syklops

stovelid wrote: »

WUT ABT PLASSMA TV, FORIN HOLIDAYS AND NEW CARS ON DOLE.

I WUS BROUGH UP ON BRENNANS BREAD N SUGAR SAMBOS AND WE WER ALWAYS HAPPY

ROFL

**STOVE***

Anyone else read this in a north sider accent?

cena

stovelid wrote: »

WUT ABT PLASSMA TV, FORIN HOLIDAYS AND NEW CARS ON DOLE.

I WUS BROUGH UP ON BRENNANS BREAD N SUGAR SAMBOS AND WE WER ALWAYS HAPPY

ROFL

**STOVE***

Oh no not thins text speak again. I can just about read it.

Just like a friend that's a nurse was texting last night and instead of using he she just used e

--Kaiser--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

moco

gurramok wrote: »

We're all deprived so

Heating is bloody expensive due to the ESB cartel rip-off, throw on some woolly jumpers. Afford new furniture? Lots of us in that position!

"It also states a person should be able to afford a day out in the last fortnight, have guests over for a drink or meal once a month, and buy presents at least once a year."

This defines poverty?? We're all in that boat!

Nooooooooooooooooo!;)

It’s not saying you should be able to afford all those things, or even most of them! You only need to be able to afford 2. If you can afford 2 or more, you’re not deprived.:)

stovelid

syklops wrote: »

Anyone else read this in a north sider accent?

What's a northside accent?

syklops

stovelid wrote: »

What's a northside accent?

Its the accent spoken by a northsider.

A northsider of town.

CodeMonkey

Ooops, maybe i read that wrong.

hooradiation

moco wrote: »

Nooooooooooooooooo!;)

It’s not saying you should be able to afford all those things, or even most of them! You only need to be able to afford 2. If you can afford 2 or more, you’re not deprived.:)

Why let what's actually written get in the way of people posting how fucking awesome they are and how everyone else is a 'pussy'.

syklops

moco wrote: »

If you can afford at least 2 of the 11 criteria you're not deprived. That's how I read it anyway.

Dictionary.com defines deprived as:

de·prived
   [dih-prahyvd]
adjective
marked by deprivation; lacking the necessities of life, as adequate food and shelter: a deprived childhood.

Doesnt mention having two pairs of strong shoes, or a trip to Bray once a month.

moco

syklops wrote: »

Dictionary.com defines deprived as:



Doesnt mention having two pairs of strong shoes, or a trip to Bray once a month.

de·prived
   [dih-prahyvd]
adjective
marked by deprivation; lacking the necessities of life, as adequate food and shelter: a deprived childhood.

Yea, but the most basic things on the list like having food and being able to heat your house would come under having adequate food and shelter.

syklops

moco wrote: »

Yea, but the most basic things on the list like having food and being able to heat your house would come under having adequate food and shelter.

Then why not have a list of 2 criteria, of which if you are unable to do both of, you are considered deprived. Whats the 11-point list for?

syklops

hooradiation wrote: »

Why let what's actually written get in the way of people posting how fucking awesome they are and how everyone else has a 'pussy'.

Im fuppin awesome. Will need pics before I believe the other.

readyletsgo

If the poor gave up the fags then they wouldnt be poor, think about it....

I myself, am on min wage, had to give up the smokes, not poor anymore... just sayin.

moco

syklops wrote: »

Then why not have a list of 2 criteria, of which if you are unable to do both of, you are considered deprived. Whats the 11-point list for?

I don't know! I agree most of the stuff on the list is a load of crap, I was jsut pointing out you only need to be able to afford 2 to not be deprived. Some people seemed to think if you couldn't afford to do 2 or more of the things things on the list then you're deprived.

Frank Black

moco wrote: »

I don't know! I agree most of the stuff on the list is a load of crap, I was jsut pointing out you only need to be able to afford 2 to not be deprived. Some people seemed to think if you couldn't afford to do 2 or more of the things things on the list then you're deprived.

Whoa Whoa Whoa - explain again why this isn't what the list means?

ICANN

syklops wrote: »

Anyone else read this in a north sider accent?

When people write like that I always get a Waterford accent in my head for some reason.

moco

black francis wrote: »

Whoa Whoa Whoa - explain again why this isn't what the list means?

According to the article if you can afford none of the things you're deprived. If you can only afford one of the things you're deprived. If you can afford 2 or more things on the list, you're not deprived.

conorhal

Well, we've replaced poverty with the rather subjective concept of 'relative poverty'. The question as the OP rightly asks is, "relative to what?"

I've heard a few odd whinges lately.

Whinge 1:
A single mother of 3 on RTE complaining about the proposed cut of 10 euro in children’s allowance claimed that she now couldn't put shoes on her teenage sons feet if this cut is implemented. When pressed regarding how much she spends on his shoes, she informs the reporter that her football loving son goes through a pair of trainers about once a month and they cost about 70 euro to replace...
What? Tell the little fecker to be more careful with his bloody trainers. My money doesn't grow on trees.

Whinge 2:
Paddy O' Gorman was interviewing people outside one of the few pawn brokers still operating in Dublin. He interviewed two people, both pawning mobile phones, both on the dole. One laughs and says that it's for holiday money, the other tells him it's to pay for a birthday party for his six yr old son. Now you can practically see Paddy go 'JACKPOT!' if I can't rip the viewers hearts out with this story then I'll eat my dog. So he presses the guy for details, Paddy asks him, "you need the money to buy him a present?". No the bloke replies, I got him a PSP for a present, I just need the cash to pay for the party until my dole comes in.
Paddy O' Gorman is forced to eat his mangey dog.....

Whinge 3: (OK this was in the UK, but I think the point is applicable) Edwina Curry apparently made some crass statement about 'relative poverty' and was invited by the One show to go and talk to a woman and her family who were getting a parcel of food once a week from a local food-bank charity.
Anyway Edwina arrives at a very nice house, leather sofas, 40'' plasma TV on the wall, kids sat in front of it gaming on a PS3 and as soon as she walks in the door she's leapt upon by two bloody huge dogs that looked a bit like Great Danes.
After tolerating the poor mouthing from this woman who claims that her children would go hungry but for charity, Edwina gives her a withering look and asks her "how much a week do you spend feeding those two giant dogs?". The woman starts spluttering about how they are part of the family etc and all you can think is, “I suppose the PS3 and sky package part of the family too?”. The only conclusion that the viewer and certainly Edwina came to is that the woman must have no shame, she’d rather take food charity then make any minor sacrifice to her clearly comfortable lifestyle. Edwina walks out feeling justified and I shake my head and think to myself that, it seems that the only difference between many peoples situation and relative poverty appears to be the ability to prioritize and budget sensibly, and the poverty industry's mission is no longer to provide a safety net for the needy but instead to plug the gap between the middle classes and the middle class tastes of the working class.

amacachi

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno, maybe it's me, but we seem to have redefined "deprived" over the last few decades.

Worn out furniture? Unless the springs are sticking up through the seat of a chair how worn out are we talking about? Just old furniture? Shít I have a chest of drawers that's knocking on 300 years old. Still works(and was cheaper than a new modern knockoff in harvey normans and the like). Actually auctions are good places to pick up solid furniture for fcuk all by comparison to "made in a sweatshop in China and the doors don't close properly, but we've antiqued it up" overpriced tat you find on the high street.

New clothes? I know plenty of people who buy second hand clothes. A few well off ones too. And you have outlet places like tkmaxx if you want new without the daft markup of the labels.

Like you I agree on the home heating and food front and yea if you've a hole in your shoe, literally "down to your uppers" then yes you're deprived alright. Not being able to socialise once a month etc, yea you're not doing well that's for sure, but I find it hard to equate that notion of poverty compared to a guy or gal sleeping rough on the streets of our major cities. Never mind that outside the west half the world will go to bed(if they have one) hungry tonight.

As I said elsewhere, there's only a small number of people in specific scenarios who are what could be called deprived or properly broke in this country. Reform of bankruptcy laws and less than a fraction of a percent of people would be "deprived" other than by choice.

stovelid

syklops wrote: »

Its the accent spoken by a northsider.

A northsider of town.

I see.

woodoo

Deprivation in ireland = no sky+ with sports package, no sun holiday and anything less than an 08 car in the driveway.

woodoo

conorhal wrote: »

it seems that the only difference between many peoples situation and relative poverty appears to be the ability to prioritize and budget sensibly.

If boards had awards for statement of the month you would deserve it for that one.

It seems to be beyond some people though.

Fbjm

Actually I completely agree with this article. If you honestly can't afford two of these things, them you're pretty bad off. I know no one in this situation.

amacachi

Also anyone who refuses food and will only accept cash from places like SVP are not living in deprivation.

woodoo

amacachi wrote: »

Also anyone who refuses food and will only accept cash from places like SVP are not living in deprivation.

I know a girl who used to go begging to these charity outfits at christmas and then would go on the lash.

number10a

syklops wrote: »

Anyone else read this in a north sider accent?

Yes but in a Cork northside accent. I don't know what people from the northside of Brno sound like strangely enough.

amacachi

woodoo wrote: »

I know a girl who used to go begging to these charity outfits at christmas and then would go on the lash.

I know people who got stuff a few times in the early to mid-nineties. Towards the end they got more each time as so many others wouldn't accept food.

number10a

I understand someone wanting to choose their own food rather than being handed a load of food that they mightn't like. But handing cash out isn't the answer either. I used to work in a supermarket when I was in secondary school and the SVP used to put money behind the counter for certain families, but we were strictly instructed by both the SVP and store management that it was not to be used for drink or fags. This would be the best method to follow IMO.

moco

number10a wrote: »

I understand someone wanting to choose their own food rather than being handed a load of food that they mightn't like. But handing cash out isn't the answer either. I used to work in a supermarket when I was in secondary school and the SVP used to put money behind the counter for certain families, but we were strictly instructed by both the SVP and store management that it was not to be used for drink or fags. This would be the best method to follow IMO.

Yea, or if there were shopping vouchers that could only be spent on food.

starbelgrade

Wibbs wrote: »

And you have outlet places like tkmaxx if you want new without the daft markup of the labels.

I went to TKMaxx once. It was very confusing. It felt like I was shopping in someone else's wardrobe.

amacachi

number10a wrote: »

I understand someone wanting to choose their own food rather than being handed a load of food that they mightn't like. But handing cash out isn't the answer either. I used to work in a supermarket when I was in secondary school and the SVP used to put money behind the counter for certain families, but we were strictly instructed by both the SVP and store management that it was not to be used for drink or fags. This would be the best method to follow IMO.

I can understand it too, but when people are getting ****faced or shooting up then crying about their kids starving then food should be good enough. An important thing to remember is that back then there were less bills. Lot of people had no phone and the only bills were electricity and coal/peat in the winter and minimal rent on a council house.
Most of the usual suspects would sell on a voucher for 50-70% of face value to someone sensible enough to buy them.
What does annoy me is that SVP don't seem to do any checks on people's income and spending. I know a single person living alone who is on incapacity benefit. Lives in a house rent-free, gets some free electricity etc. SVP didn't do a lot of checking before filling his oil tank a coupla winters ago.

baddebt

number10a wrote: »

I understand someone wanting to choose their own food rather than being handed a load of food that they mightn't like. But handing cash out isn't the answer either. I used to work in a supermarket when I was in secondary school and the SVP used to put money behind the counter for certain families, but we were strictly instructed by both the SVP and store management that it was not to be used for drink or fags. This would be the best method to follow IMO.

food vouchers would be the way to go .......with ability to spend them in any supermarket on non-alcoholic items

moco

baddebt wrote: »

food vouchers would be the way to go .......with ability to spend them in any supermarket on non-alcoholic items

Possibly put their name on it and have them produce photo ID to prevent them selling them and keeping the money.

conorhal

number10a wrote: »

I understand someone wanting to choose their own food rather than being handed a load of food that they mightn't like. But handing cash out isn't the answer either. I used to work in a supermarket when I was in secondary school and the SVP used to put money behind the counter for certain families, but we were strictly instructed by both the SVP and store management that it was not to be used for drink or fags. This would be the best method to follow IMO.

I'd agree. I read a very dispiriting article last Christmas from a reporter that went out with the SVP to deliver 'Christmas hampers', of course the hamper is not what you would traditionally associate with your notion of a 'hamper', it's just an envelope of cash. apparently nobody wants a food hamper any longer, they can't give them away, literally.
Anyway, with each delivery the reporter arrived on the doorstep to find a house full of people that hardly seemed deprived to him, being that they were sat there in front of their 60 inch LCD TV's watching Sky Sports (the reporter was told not to judge these people for that as such TV's were a status symbol in the area and they would feel shamed if they couldn't have a TV as large as their neighbors, so a giant TV was not reflective of whether or not they were poor) and not one, not one, actually thanked the person from the SVP for their ‘hamper’ they simply snatched it and closed the door, well actually there was one exception, an elderly lady in a threadbare nightie who seemed equal parts ashamed and grateful to the SVP for the money and invited them in for a cup of tea.

There are people in genuine need, like that elderly lady, but there are just as many that view the SVP as just another scam.

Geuze

Here is a link to the CSO report on income inequality and poverty


http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/silc/2010/prelimsilc_2010.pdf

Geuze

Table A Summary of main results

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Income € € € € €

Equivalised disposable income
(per individual) 21,229 23,610 24,380 23,326 22,168

At risk of poverty threshold
(60% of median income) 10,566 11,890 12,455 12,064 10,831

Poverty & deprivation rates % % % % %

At risk of poverty rate 17.0 16.5 14.4 14.1 15.8
Deprivation rate1 13.8 11.8 13.8 17.1 22.5

Consistent poverty rate 6.5 5.1 4.2 5.5 6.2

Ray Palmer

There is actually a social pressure in the areas of "poverty" where they actually prioritise certain consumer items over sensible items. I have never subscribed to the living up with the Jones concept but I am amazed at the people who do.

Next time you see a junkie look at his runners, the chances are they are some designer shoes. The junkies actually rate how low a junkie you are based on your shoes! A social worker friend told me this and I didn't beleive her untill I started paying attention.

Iremeber kids from poor families would have tons of Star Wars stuff and I barely had any as my Mam said they were too expensive. My family were a lot better off than their families (I know that now) but part of it was my parents would never waste money in the same way these people did. Weird to be called posh when these people were wearing more expensive clothes and had more toys.

There is no way a quarter of the people are in poverty a lot of it is lies told to the CSO because people are claiming the dole and working.