Cost of living, accommodation in big cities in particular. ZIRP had a lot to do with this - rents rose in line with values.
Working hours and conditions that are not family friendly.
Pressure on couples with kids to both work full time, which then means a lot of money goes on childcare so they are not that much better off (but landlords and banks are happier with the lower earnings multiple anyway) - but it boosts GDP and profits so that is fine.
A benefits system that reduces payments too rapidly when people earn. It means people keep very little of what they earn. Personally I think there is a good case for UBI as the solution.
> Around 70% of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work.
That should not be happening given there is a reasonable minimum wage.
Its not a UK only problem. The article says.
> De Schutter noted that the country conformed to a pattern of increasing inequality seen in other wealthy countries.
I think a lot of it results from a shift in attitude. The people in power increasingly think poor deserve to be poor, and that they are all "gammon" (to use the British term) and untrustworthy anyway.
Nitpick: "gammon" as a constituency refers to boomers and older Gen X, typically financially comfortable, who are declining in intellectual openness and increasing in strength of opinion. They are called "gammon" because their faces go bright pink as they rail against the EU, immigrants, woke nonsense, and the laziness of today's youth. They can come from any strata of society, but they are made by being insulated from economic reality during their intellectual decline. Their defining characteristic is that they are choleric about topics of which they know nothing, and this makes them easily led by jingoistic tubthumping.
It's awfully condescending to insinuate that these people are in mental decline just for having the opinions you don't like. You don't have the answers to these problems you speak of, any more than the older and wiser plebs. You might like woke nonsense, infinite immigrants, loss of national sovereignty, etc. but frankly you ought to know better or at least be open to the idea that you don't know it all.
Tosh. The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers. You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
>You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
I don't use Facebook, lol. You just defined yourself by checking off all the usual liberal talking points and practically claiming that conservatives are old and brain-addled simpletons. There was no nuance afforded to conservative views anywhere in it.
>The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers.
There are simple wrong answers and nuanced wrong answers, and the left employs both kinds of narrative to achieve their ends. I do have nuanced views but I refuse to take part in further fence-sitting and waffling when it comes to issues that affect me.
It's unclear which meaning of "betrays" you intend. If you think it's counterproductive to be so direct and emphatic, let me rephrase it: I am against all but a small amount of immigration of very high-quality people, whereas liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration. If you think I "betrayed" my intent by expressing this clearly, it was no secret or mystery to begin with.
Your misrepresentation of opposing views betrays a lack of intellectual openness. For example:
> liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration
Do you think "liberals" (are you from the UK btw?) are in favour of 5 billion people immigrating to the UK? Of course not. They just disagree that the current levels of immigration are as big a problem as right-wing media makes out.
Cost of living, accommodation in big cities in particular. ZIRP had a lot to do with this - rents rose in line with values.
Working hours and conditions that are not family friendly.
Pressure on couples with kids to both work full time, which then means a lot of money goes on childcare so they are not that much better off (but landlords and banks are happier with the lower earnings multiple anyway) - but it boosts GDP and profits so that is fine.
A benefits system that reduces payments too rapidly when people earn. It means people keep very little of what they earn. Personally I think there is a good case for UBI as the solution.
> Around 70% of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work.
That should not be happening given there is a reasonable minimum wage.
Its not a UK only problem. The article says.
> De Schutter noted that the country conformed to a pattern of increasing inequality seen in other wealthy countries.
I think a lot of it results from a shift in attitude. The people in power increasingly think poor deserve to be poor, and that they are all "gammon" (to use the British term) and untrustworthy anyway.