realisedevelopment.net

Just another WordPress site

Poverty and Income Differentials

by

I have been doing a bit of digging around looking at issues of pay differentials in and around Leeds.

A top professional footballer in the UK can expect to earn in the region of £140 000 every week.  It might take an average Leeds United player about 6 months to earn this much.

The post of Leeds City Development Director is advertised at £140 000 per year (you would think we would attract a decent candidate willing to work for that)

A Teacher on an average salary in Leeds would take 4.5 years to earn £140k.

A Registered Nurse would take nearly 6 years, as would a Police Constable.

A Healthcare Assistant almost 9 years.

A Teaching Assistant just over 10 years.

A Qualified Playworker (L2) would need more than 15 years.

The poor kids dad would take almost 30 years to get this income on current benefits.

A young person on the Job Seekers Allowance would be an old person – at least 72 – before they accrued JSA payments worth £140k, if it were possible.

Health Warning

All of these calculations should be treated with care.

They are based on current wages as researched on the web. In most cases, but not footballers, these are average wages.  I have done my best to check the maths but no guarantees!  I have done nothing sophisticated, just calculated how long at the current salary it would take to accrue 140k.  Having said that I think the numbers are illustrative and enlightening, even if they are not entirely accurate.  Any economists who fancy doing more accurate calculations and sharing them then please do let me know.)

Poor Kids in Leeds

by

Many of us this week will have seen the very powerful and moving BBC documentary Poor Kids directed by Jezza Neumann, telling the stories of some of the 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. This is one of the worst child poverty rates in the industrialised world, and successive governments have struggled to improve it significantly.

From what I have experienced reaction to it in Leeds seems to have fallen into three broad camps.  Firstly there is a group for whom this is ‘the reality’, and Poor Kids was just a powerful re-telling of an everyday story. Members of this group meet these kids and their families on a regular basis because they live or work with them.

Secondly there is a much larger group for whom this programme was a revelation.  People with no idea that our housing stock was often so poor. With no idea that the poor pay more for basic services such as utilities or TV than the rest.  With little understanding that such levels of poverty existed in our society.

And thirdly there was a group who just seem to brush it off with ‘the poor will always be with us’ attitudes and ‘I share no responsibility for other peoples poor parenting or economic incompetence’.

And the bad news is that the smart money says that child poverty is likely to get worse rather than better.

So how does this play out in the economic powerhouse of Yorkshire, the retail and tourist success story, the regenerated and rebuilt city that is Leeds?

Well, here are some figures, collated by the Leeds Initiative and published on their website.

  • In Leeds there are 29,695 children aged under 16 who are living in poverty – 22.9% of all children in this age range
  • There are 33,295 dependent children aged under 20 who are living in poverty (22.1% of the children / young people in this age range)
33000 children, 1 in 5 of our children, living in poverty.

Poverty is not distributed evenly across the City however, and these averages hide some pockets of child poverty that are as high as anywhere in the UK.  In 2008 at the Lower Super Output Area (essentially a small geographical area that we might think of as a neighbourhood – see SOAs Explained) level there were:

  • 19 LSOAs where no children were deemed to be living in poverty
  • 105 LSOAs with rates of 5% or less
  • 55 LSOAs where 44.2% or more of children are living in poverty (double the city average)
  • In the most deprived LSOAs in Leeds there are 17,620 dependant children living in poverty, a rate of approximately 45%.
And if you look for Child Poverty rates at parliamentary ward level here is what you find:
  • Leeds Central  41%
  • Leeds East  35%
  • Leeds North East  17%
  • Leeds North West  14%
  • Leeds West  29%
  • Morley and Rothwell  17%

Essentially child poverty is concentrated in the so-called doughnut of despair, that ring of communities that surround the city centre.

There is little point in re-stating the data from the Leeds Initiative research, you can read it for yourself on the ‘Ending Child Poverty’ Paper.

How does child poverty in Leeds compare to that in other major UK cities?  Well actually we are not doing too badly in relative terms.  Child poverty rates are higher in Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Bradford, Newcastle, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield.

But still the child poverty rates in some Leeds communities are as high as almost anywhere in the UK.  Just look at this breakdown supplied by ‘End Child Poverty‘ that shows just how unevenly it is spread across the city.

  • Adel and Wharfedale 6%
  • Alwoodley 12%
  • Ardsley and Robin Hood 12%
  • Armley 32%
  • Beeston and Holbeck 32%
  • Bramley and Stanningley 28%
  • Burmantofts and Richmond Hill 46%
  • Calverley and Farsley 9%
  • Chapel Allerton 33%
  • City and Hunslet 44%
  • Cross Gates and Whinmoor 19%
  • Farnley and Wortley 25%
  • Garforth and Swillington 9%
  • Gipton and Harehills 47%
  • Guiseley and Rawdon 7%
  • Harewood 5%
  • Headingley 19%
  • Horsforth 9%
  • Hyde Park and Woodhouse 46%
  • Killingbeck and Seacroft 37%
  • Kippax and Methley 12%
  • Kirkstall 33%
  • Middleton Park 41%
  • Moortown 12%
  • Morley North 11%
  • Morley South 14%
  • Otley and Yeadon 12%
  • Pudsey 15%
  • Rothwell 16%
  • Roundhay 13%
  • Temple Newsam 23%
  • Weetwood 18%
  • Wetherby 6%

In the draft Vision for Leeds and associated City Priority Plans the issue of poverty in the city becomes a ‘cross-cutting theme’ for all 5 of the new Partnership Boards, and its importance is clearly expressed.  Whether as a ‘cross cutting theme’ it will have quite the focus it demands we will have to wait and see.

My main concern is that when I look at the proposed, and still draft, Headline Indicators that are associated with the City Priority Plans, indices of poverty and child poverty do not get a look in.  Instead, more tractable ‘proxy’ measures are suggested such as the number of children not in education, employment and training or the number of ‘looked after children’.

But the Vision for Leeds does say that by 2030 ‘people will have the opportunity to get out of poverty‘.  It is just a shame that by 2030 the young stars of Poor Kids and their Leeds peers will be well into adulthood.  And why aren’t we doing more to help build these opportunities now?

When you talk to both sides of the fence on this issue it is clear that there is a disconnect between those who talk of ‘opportunities’, ‘economic growth’, ‘ job creation’ and ‘enterprise zones’ and the people who live in poverty, many of whom talk of having no hope, no power and no future.

Different words from different worlds.

If you are interested in trying to do something about child poverty in Leeds this maybe of interest…

A Provocation….

by

Neoliberalism demands that more and more of the working population tolerate a lack of job security, evince flexibility, and revise customary ways of doing things. Workers must be comfortable living off short-term projects secured through whatever means necessary—ceaseless networking and bootlicking, ruthless leveraging of friends and family contacts, spinning a series of half-truths on a résumé—and they must be more or less self-motivated to produce, to regard themselves as creative forces, to generate economic value in every aspect of how they live, instrumentalizing it all.

http://nplusonemag.com/the-accidental-bricoleurs

I absolutely encourage you to read the full article.  Identity, brand, social networking…

de Tocqueville on Self Interest via Stiglitz…

by

de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being.

This is an excerpt taken from an article published by Vanity Fair and written by Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joe Stiglitz.

What Now Leeds…for the economy?

by

The draft Vision for Leeds is nothing if not ambitious when it comes considering the city’s economy:

By 2030, Leeds’ economy will be prosperous and sustainable. We will create a prosperous and sustainable economy, using our resources effectively. Leeds will be successful and well-connected offering a good standard of living.
Leeds will be a city that has:
  • a strong local economy driving sustainable economic growth;
  • a skilled workforce to meet the needs of the local economy;
  • a world-class cultural offer;
  • built on its strengths in financial and business services, and manufacturing, and continued to grow its strong retail, leisure and tourism sectors;
  • world-class, cultural, digital and creative industries;
  • developed new opportunities for green manufacturing and for growing other new industries;
  • improved levels of enterprise through creativity and innovation;
  • work for everyone with secure, flexible employment and good wages;
  • high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport;
Who are the ‘we’ who will create a prosperous and sustainable economy?  And, what breakthroughs might allow this utopian economy to be achieved by 2030 but that has prevented us achieving it to date?  Or perhaps this is one of those ‘shoot for the stars’ to give yourself a chance to hit a nearby moon type plans?
But, the question of who are the ‘we’ is, I think, an important one.  Is it various collections of the anointed and the appointed, gathered at city and city region level (while the RDA might be going we retain a ‘Leeds city region‘ and have a new Local Enterprise Partnership that covers the whole city region.  The city region representing 11 local authorities across North, South and West Yorkshire, claims to represent the ‘real economy’) to plan economic development?
Or is this a challenge that demands a wider response?
That must engage a much wider group of those with a stake in the future of our economy?
This matters because, depending on the answer, we can either leave the ‘Vision for Leeds’ as little more than a document that steers the work of a small number of civil servants, politicians and strategists or use it as a vehicle for much broader engagement.  Is the vision really for all of us? Or is it just a piece of the political furniture?
The problems of definition seems to me to be immense.  What do we mean by a ‘sustainable economy’? Has this been thought through or is it just another example of what was memorably referred to at a recent Leeds Salon as ‘environmental Tourette’s’.
Perhaps it is OK for us all to have our own working definition of sustainable?  I know from personal experience that for many entrepreneurs ‘sustainable’ means ‘financially viable’, with no environmental implication whatsoever.
What does ‘prosperous’ mean in practice?  Is it OK just for the economy to create more cash, or is there something about how the prosperity is shared that should also matter to us?  Are we sure that ‘prosperity’ should still be the goal of our economy, or should we be considering other metrics such as well-being or happiness?  If part of what matters in our economy is health, then would we really use public funds to subsidise the expansion of the sugar industry?
If a vision is to work in mobilising action, then these issues of definition and meaning, and a robust social process for their negotiation is critical to creating alignments and the possibility of progress.
But let’s set the challenge of definition and meaning to one side.  Let’s look at just some aspects of content.
One of the first things that disappoints me is the way that ‘people and skills’ are once again put to serve the needs of the economy.  Why not try to develop an economy that actually honours and reflects the skills and passions of the people?  Develop an economy that serves people rather than people that serve the economy?  We spend fortunes trying to bend the labour and skills market (people) to meet the unpredictable needs of the economy, perhaps we could instead help people to develop their own economic engine built on the foundation of their passions and skills?  Of course if we have a Strategy Board and a Local Enterprise Partnership dominated by large employers such a shift in thinking towards a DIY/craft/artisan/enterprise based economy is unlikely to get serious consideration.
What does it mean to ‘improve levels of enterprise’.  Is this a euphemism for increasing the start-up rate?  Or is there something more subtle here that might allow us to encourage fewer but better equipped start-ups?  The phrase is dripping with ambiguity….
I love the idea of work for everyone.  Secure, but flexible employment with good wages.  What a difficult challenge. But what a great prize.
And as for ‘high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport’ bring it on I say!
Who shall lead us to this land of milk and honey?
‘Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true? Or is it something worse?’  – B. Springsteen.
So shoot for the stars and hit a nearby moon?
Unlikely.
Once again if we trace the current route from the high level statements of vision through to the 4 Year Priorities and then on to ‘Headline Indicators’ there seems to be whole lot of dilution going on.
Take for example the challenge of work.  Remember the ‘flexible, well paid and secure work for all’ of the vision?  Well, in the 4 Year Priority this has become ‘More jobs are created’ and the Headline Indicator ‘xx jobs are created’.  We go from a Vision of great ambition to a headline indicator that will allow partners to carry on, pretty much as usual pretending that they create jobs in a modern economy.
And ‘high-quality, accessible, affordable and reliable public transport’.  Well as a 4 Year Priority that becomes ‘Improved journey times and reliability of public transport’, and the Headline Indicator at the moment is ‘Reduced Bus journey time variability on the core network’.
Is there a pattern emerging here?
High falutin’ rhetoric for what will be achieved by 2030, undermined by 4 year priorities and headline indicators that appear to be almost devoid of ambition?
The ‘people of Leeds’ may have spoken when it comes to the Vision for 2030.
I wonder what they would have to say about these draft City Priority Plans?
If they were asked….