The Gap
 

There's been a lot of talk recently in the UK about 'Narrowing the gap': reducing the inequalities which exist in our country.

The town I live in is not a big place, yet within this little northern town the disparity between haves and have-nots is staggering. When I say town, I refer to the larger unit, incorporating a number of villages outlying the central town. The life expectancy of a child born in the part of town where I live is ten years greater than the life expectancy of a child born in the part of town I represent in council. Ten years.

Here's where I live.....and then where I represent.

Is the trash and graffiti brought in by tourists? :rolleyes: The government can only do so much without totally controlling peoples lives.

I just wonder how people intend to narrow the gap? Any news on that?

About the Only way that could happen is to do away with money ,
Every body in the same color jump suit , every body in the same style house , every body works for every body elses good ,
Oh wait , they have tryed that , it was called comunisum

Narrow the gap, not eradicate it. Total and absolute equality in all measures is improbable if not impossible.

There are things that can be done. I would say our council has a very poor approach to regeneration. It's led to a rather piecemeal picture. The neighbourhood management schemes are starting to make a difference but often in conflict with rather than in conjunction with the council. Not taking seriously the need for affordable housing and allowing ghettoisation of social housing. There are councils that do this stuff a lot better than us :P

Narrowing the gap is possible. But it takes a little more focus and will than we seem to be giving it.

No it isn't. Those with ambition and motivation and a bit of luck will always find a way to raise the bar a bit more whenever the challenge is there.

Bringing the lower levels up to a higher standard is possible and a worthy goal, but don't fool yourself into believing that the gap will narrow by doing that. Those on top don't stand still.

I disagree. I think the gap can be narrowed in many important ways. In terms of finances, yes the gap will probably always be the same. In terms of life expectancy and teen-conception rates, smoking and heart disease, economic opportunity (note, opportunity, not success). The gap can be narrowed.

Not the worst neighborhood you could represent. The gaps are huge in America and in 3rd world countries where there are virtual slums. The neigborhood you represent looks rich by comparison.
I think a little litter and graffiti patrol and it would look OK. No worse than the apartment complex I live in. It is as if it fell from the sky smack dab in between the tree lined streets and brick middle income houses. This used to be the rich neighborhood. The rich do get richer and the middle income people are the new poor.

I guess it doesn't really translate in a couple of pictures. It's a deprived area in terms of the levels of unemployment and disaffection, some of the highest levels of teen-conceptions in the country and very high crime rates. Those houses are primarily ex-council houses now owned by a third party non-profit social housing company. Most of the work in the area has dried up and culturally, it has some of the least mobility in the borough. In fact there are significant chunks of the ward so deprived that as a whole it sits within the worst 20% of the country in the multiple deprivation index.

ahh! Housing! I see. There's no way to commute out of the area for work? Probably no work incentives?

But why should the goal be narrowing the gap at all? The goal should be improving the lower strata, period--who cares what level the upper strata is at? You could just as easily 'narrow the gap' by bringing down the successful, if fairness were your goal. And yes, I do understand that complete evenness is not your goal, but I honestly think the semantics affect the attitude, which will determine both the methods and the outcome of your efforts.

It probably helps to know the type of areas and spot the signs that way.
Dana to me those photos spoke volumes.

I was so lucky to grow up on a reasonably affluent council estate, where people were upwardly mobile and the houses in good repair. And luckier yet to live on the edge where it butted up against open countryside.

Things can change. Don't lose your vision.

What do you think I mean when I say 'Narrow the Gap'? It means focusing attention on improving the lower strata, bringing them up nearer to the standards enjoyed by the better off. Narrowing the gap in health terms means improving the health of deprived communities and striving to bring the life expectancy of those communities into parity with the better off communities.

I totally applaud your efforts, believe me. What I'm nitpicking over is the mental approach to the problem, if that makes sense. As long as the standard is in any way viewed in light of what the better off communities have, the focus is always going to subconsciously be on entitlement. Should I have an abundance of food because my neighbor has an abundance of food, or because it's a good thing for me to eat well? One is an external justification, the other internal. Internal justifications are always going to be more effective. Raising life expectancy is good--period. Lowering teen conception is good--period. These should be the goals. When the goals are couched in terms only of matching what someone else has, the motivations become tainted. On some level, you stop being able to objectively determine what is good or bad, only what is more or less than that other guy. I know it's semantics, but like I said, I think attitude is the biggest factor in helping people help themselves, and the attitude of examining what other people have first is a destructive one.

It may be destructive for me as an individual to focus on what other individuals have. But at a policy level, it is useful for politicians to look at those areas of prosperity and those areas of deprivation and ask questions about why those disparities exist to their current extent. Individuals are responsible for themselves. Government (local and national) is responsible for looking at the wider picture

[eta] an individual is not responsible for the culture and economic circumstances in which they grow up. Many of the inequalities which most trouble us as a nation begin at a very young age and often at birth. It is right, in my opinion, for a country as relatively wealthy as Britain to ask the question, why do some of our communities have a decade less of life expectancy than others? It is also right to ask the question, why do some of our communities have higher levels of teen conceptions than others? It is not simply 'individual failure' when it affects such large numbers of people clustered together and is found so little amongst other large groups of people. These are societal problems and societal problems require a little more than individual effort to overcome.

I honestly think it's a cultural thing.
I have never considered that "Narrowing the Gap" could mean anything other than raising the standards of those at the bottom of the heap. And I honestly don't think anyone I know would think that either.

If you raise living conditions (in any way) for the poor and disadvantaged, the gap is narrowed. Perhaps it's a uniquely American perspective that assumes and then rejects the prospect of narrowing it by lowering living standards elsewhere.

What??? Who? What government would bring it's citizens up to believe such a thing? Isn't it good for all citizens everywhere to work for the benefit of it's society as a whole?

Isn't American policy to give billions of dollars in aid relief to poor nations right along side other countries doing the same? I think the goal of any good society is to lift the standard up.

I am sure I must have misunderstood your comment SG. My appologies in advance if so.

I really didn't mean it as a criticism!
Just that I have never read or heard of anyone questioning the term "closing the gap" to mean anything but raising standards for the poor.

Then within a short space of time here the query was raised - does this mean lowering standards anywhere along the line?

When I say a cultural difference I guess I mean semantically cultural. I definitely don't mean that Americans aren't committed to raising standards in the US.

I guess I'm still not explaining it well enough. No one would ever literally suggest lowering standards as a meaningful definition of narrowing the gap. I was trying to illustrate the logical fallacy of including a comparison with the upper classes at all. To me, even semantically considering the level of the upper classes when trying to raise standards for the poor is the wrong attitude. I think you're right, it is semantically cultural, but I think the mental perception of the issue does affect the policies put in place, and thus the outcomes of those policies.

I always thought of narrowing the gap as, "narrowing the gap".

Like what happens when I'm zipping my pants. Instant gap narrowing there!! Narrowing the gap so much, that the said, "gap" no longer exists. Extreme metaphor. I know. But it's a simple concept that somehow, is being made more complex than it is.
:)
Carry on.

There seems to be a contradiction in terms which I bet is superficial. There is no American I am aware of that dosn't want societies standard of living to increase. Nobody WANTS public housing so that some people are kept down. There is public housing so people are not on the street. Society wants to bring the poorest people up to a standard of living that most people aspire to. I know in inner citys there are ghettos and slums. There isn't anyone that dosn't wish for the standard of living in those areas to increase.

I think we all want the same things as responsible citizens. I think there is just a confusion of terms or supposed ideology here on this thread. :)

It's just one person's question who dosn't represent society as a whole here.

I knew what she meant by closing the gap. It's the same semantics. Same language :)

Maybe it was just Dana's bleeding heart way of saying it. She probably dosn't represent a whole ideology.

to dana : bleeding heart = good= passion= go get'em ;)

Ten Years After

*chuckles*

'Narrowing the Gap' is a term used in government (local and national) it's a policy goal. It isn't my personal description of what I want to happen.

I guess I have alot to learn.

Being a democrat I do want the poor to find government assistance when needed but have the opportunity to learn new skills in self suficiency. To some republicans this means lowering their standard of living?

To some 'narrowing the gap' means 'anti capitalism' as in this article I'll leave a link to. I forget there is that nasty extreme right of the republican party. Oh maybe there are people who have a 'sink or swim' philosophy regarding the poor who are not extreme republicans but there I go mixing things up again.

So I went looking for references to 'narrowing' the gap in our literature on the web. I found this article. It seems SG was right after all. Some people actually do think that to narrow the gap means they will lose something personally instead of gaining something as a society which I prize more.

It's too much for my tired head to puzzle out but I'll leave you with the link to be amazed over. I'm going to bed.
nite!
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3524

You don't live in the same political subdivision you represent?

Can you work on narrowing the gap by concentrating on services to the poor--and getting the rich to pay for it?

Nope. Though my first home up here (bout 13 years ago)was in the ward I now represent. You have to be a resident of the borough, but you don't have to be a resident of the ward. Bear in mind wards are quite small subdivisions, around 6000 households. Living in the ward is an advantage and desirable, but not a necessity. As long as you spend a reasonable mount of time there and make yourself available to the constituents who live there it seems to work.

We already target services and help to those most in need and those services are usually funded by general taxation, so in effect yes. But...the causes of deprivation are complex, they require a range of solutions including ways of empowering people to help themselves. Much of the emphasis of the Narrow the Gap initiatives are to do with education and outreach. Schemes to engage the unengaged, help retrain those who need it, specific assistance to parents coping with financial strain or family breakdown, schemes to encourage better diet and exercise etc etc etc.

More needs to be done. It is not important that every child have access to branded trainers and a wii, it is important that they have the same opportunities for success and happiness and aren't stunted by a series of invisible walls and traps.

From here.

How do you think the current state of "The Poor" in most developed countries compares to 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Is their life expectancy increasing or decreasing? Is infant mortality rising or lowering? Are their educational options increasing or decreasing?

That's the only meaningful measure of a society that cares for it's poor. Measurements between the top and the bottom are pure political fodder - they are emotional appeals, based on an arbitrary and unjust sense of "fairness" that resonates with those who think they deserve what the few have.

That's several times now it's been referred to as comparisons between the top and the bottom.

Narrowing the gap is not about narrowing the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest. It's about narrowing the gap between the living standards/expectancy/opportunities of the most deprived and what we consider to be an acceptable minimum standard of living.

Deserve what the 'few' have, like an extra decade of life and drastically reduced likelihood of heart disease? Deserve what the few have, like a childhood spent developing healthy teeth instead of severe dental caries by the age of 8? Deserve what the few have like a school which fosters ambition and success in its pupils? Deserve what the few have, like decent, clean and affordable housing?

It isn't even about deseving what the few have. Its about having a right to what the majority enjoy.

This isn't about a society 'caring for its poor'. This is about a society accepting wider responsiblity for the social conditions in which its people live, grow and die. This about a society saying this is the line we draw and beneath that we will not conscience our people to fall. They aren't 'The Poor', they are simply citizens of the same country.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to just kill the poor, thus eliminating any gap?:bolt:

Okay, but that's not really what you said:

I know that the first quote is what you meant. This is why I've been saying that word choice matters.

Better off, not wealthiest. Better off than them. Basically, the rest of us:P

..or the rest of YOU - many people in prison have a better standard of living than the poorest outside the constraints of incarceration. They have 3 meals provided for them, access to health & dental care at no cost, fitness equipment, tv with cable... and much more.

I can't comment on the poor in the US but in the UK it is not true that those in prison have access to a better standard of living than those outside. The problem in the UK is mostly one of encouraging people to take up the opportunities available. Education being the prime example.

I hear the prison argument again and again - people in prisons get three square meals a day, they have it good, don't have to worry where the next meal is coming from, I should get myself in prison, easy life etc etc.

Thanks to the Welfare State, no-one in this country should ever have to worry about where the next meal in coming from. No-one starves to death (unless parents deliberately starve their children, sadly). The homeless are a moot point - I'm not claiming they have as high a standard of living as prisoners, but they are not generally considered in conversations about "decent hard working people" who are worse off. Three meals a day is not a luxury and prisoners should not be considered pampered for receiving it. The main difference is that those outside have to shop for and prepare their food and make decisions about their own budget/ nutrition. Big chore.

If it were a discussion about a child in foster care who was locked in a room for 20+ hours a day you would not think the carers indulged the child because it had been fed. You would think the child had been punished.

TV with cable? I can't say. But prisoners don't have unlimited access to books.

Most prisoners don't have unlimited access to tv either. The prisons which allow tvs in cells tend to be the ones with the life/long sentence prisoners. Given that they have had their freedom removed, possibly for several decades, it's considered that that is sufficient punishment without making it deliberately harsh. It also helps discipline in prisons if prisoners can gain such perks through good behaviour and have them removed for bad behaviour. Without such a system of perks and incentives all that is open to prisons is to impose ever harsher penalties on prisoners for misbehaviour. Eventually prisoners riot, or require such intensive and violent guarding as to render the system inhumane.

Yea. I have one of those. (TV's) They are usually cool, because you can see the insides of the tv. I got one at a pawn shop and they didn't tell me where it came from until after the purchase.

In the US I think it's that if you can afford one in prison you can buy one, but I'm not certain. (I'm sure good behavior factors in a little as well)
So I have my prison tv already and I'm ready to go?;(

Ohh inhumane??? - the poor things - eff that. They are prisoners - they are supposed to be getting punished. Thought we were concerned for the poor - how bout taking a meal or two a week away from the prisoners and feeding it to some of the poor? There are many options. Our system of deterrence is relatively worthless anyway. Hey, maybe we could let half the people incarcerated for BS drug crimes or traffic tickets out and really put some cash to use in a more positive & constructive way?

Dammit Classicman, how many times do we have to explain that they wouldn't have landed in prison if they weren't poor first? They are in prison not because they made shitty awful choices of their own freewill, but because society forced them to break the law. Get with it man.

*shrug*
I don't know what to say.

Three meals a day isn't luxury.
People do not lack food here.
It's not worth repeating again and again.

The matter of whether prison is a deterrant, to protect the public or a punishment is debatable. Starving prisoners is unlikely to make any of those reasons more effective.

For the record, neither Dana nor I were making excuses for the people in prison. I merely stated that they were not better off than the general population and Dana concurred.

Also. I believe, really believe, that the loss of freedom with all that that encompasses is punishment enough. No longer having the right to dictate when your light will go out at night, when you are able to tak exercise, what you can read or watch, when you can go to the toilet (or in cases where slopping out still occurs, when you get to empty your bucket), overcrowding in cells and in some prisons spending 23 hours a day in said over-crowded cell....these are al unpleasant. Losing your identity and becoming a faceless prison at the mercy of a system that is designed to be cold and unforgiving is hard.

My point is not that prison should be a doddle. But...it is not a holiday camp and prisoners are not living in luxury. It's a hard, often violent life with few bright points and a lot of deep and grinding tedium.

They are prisoners yes. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated humanely. They are after all still human.

*blinks* ok. That's it. I can't argue any of this any more tonight. I should be constructing arguments for the bases of queenly power in medieval Europe.....not trying to articulate political points on here! :P

for the record - i was just chain yanking, ladies.

Ohhh, yanker! I thought they were calling you "wanker." :lol:

*smiles at Lookout* capitalist pig. Don't worry, I'll put in a good word for you with the collective come the great day.

In the same post, even.

Perhaps we need to concentrate on closing the American/Rest Of The World Gap before we even start on poverty .......:bolt:

:lol:

lol

I really don't give a crap about the serious criminals that get incarcerated time after time - They are simply a drain our society and should be tossed of the planet. Send them on a one way trip to Mars or something - I care more about the monkeys than them. I would much rather help the poor than those scumbags.

Oh, and yes I think that there are way too many people in prison or jail that don't belong there - your point HM?

There will always be people in prison who don't belong there. Even if you don't care about being humane to real criminals, that should be enough reason to be humane to prisoners.

I recognize that HM - please! My point was that there are options available to us as a society where we can better utilize the monies sent on those incarcerated or reducing that number.

Either one affords us the opportunity to take care of, what I feel is, a more deserving segment of society.

I'm not sure you do.
Any monies spent that result in inhumane treatment of prisoners is disgraceful, not better utilized.

Winston Churchill believed that a society's attitude to its "criminals", is the measure of

HM - I questioned what was "inhumane" the fact that they got three meals a day, gym equipment, tv with cable, libraries...and so on. You've missed my point.

Any time I think about wealth redistribution I think about how the liberals really just want to become dictators in a socialist society.

They always want to make poor peoples lives conform to their standards, when they should be working on providing employment opportunities and then let the people live the way they choose.

Or just give them bread & circuses and keep them in their place? ;)