Comments on: Has economic growth lifted people out of poverty in the UK?

By: A Post-Growth Economy FAQ « Make Wealth History

A Post-Growth Economy FAQ « Make Wealth History — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:11:29 +0000

[...] Without growth, won’t the poor be abandoned to their poverty? This is one of the first ripostes to anyone who questions growth. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true – the growth model of economics cannot solve poverty. Poverty is relative, and growth is distributed unequally, which means that when the economy grows, the rich get richer much faster than the poor get less poor. Even if distribution was equal, a rise in incomes for everyone means the proportions would stay the same. As I’ve shown elsewhere, Britain’s economy has grown fivefold in the last thirty years without reducing the number of households living in poverty. [...]

By: Economic growth and poverty « Jagadees's English Weblog

Economic growth and poverty « Jagadees's English Weblog — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:24:30 +0000

[...] – from makewealthhistory [...]

By: David Cameron has left the building, with a book recommendation « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:05:06 +0000

[...] of the most important factors in social breakdown is inequality, but the gap between rich and poor doesn’t appear to be on the Conservative’s radar. We live in a country where the wealthiest 10% are 100 times richer than the poorest 10%. The [...]

By: Britain’s unequal society « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY

Britain’s unequal society « MAKE WEALTH HISTORY — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:05:10 +0000

[...] would be “a tide that lifts everyone, equally.” As we’ve shown before, it is impossible to grow your way to equality, so I hope the government will apply some creative thinking to what they have discovered. For today [...]

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:54:28 +0000

Yes Matthew, it is relative: the official government definition of poverty in the UK is 60% or less of the median household income.

And sure, 50% of people will be below the median, but the key question is by how much?

As for growth, if the only people who benefit are the ones who don’t need it, why carry on? The challenge is to find ways of slowing growth without it hurting the poorest.

By: Dave Gardner

Dave Gardner — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:16:39 +0000

Matthew, I’d like to see us step out of the box and think more creatively about this. Your statement could almost be compared to an addict concluding that less crack is definitely bad because it temporarily hurts to cut back.

I think less growth does create problems, but that is only because we have such a screwed-up system. We’ll need to endure a little adjustment pain (like an addict does when s/he gets unhooked), but in the long term the benefits will be substantial.

Think about it, anyway!

Dave Gardner
Producing the documentary
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com

By: Matthew Brehove

Matthew Brehove — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:32:33 +0000

Poverty is not relative. Standard of living is standard of living. 50% of people will always be below the median. And anyways the poorest people definitely seem to be always the worst effected when growth is reversed. So even if more growth isn’t good, less is definitely bad.

By: Dave Gardner

Dave Gardner — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:12:26 +0000

Thanks for making my day! To find these words of sanity truly inspires hope. More and more people are realizing economic growth is not, and cannot be, a necessary component of efforts to meet the needs of people everywhere. Meeting basic needs ought to be our goal. Economic growth is not effective (thanks for the analysis) and not sustainable.

Dave Gardner
Producing the documentary
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
http://www.growthbusters.com