I understand that the Conservatives have done nothing substantial in lieu of providing a benefit for each child, including number three and upward. Similarly, it appears Labour has no plan for real, permanent relief. If one is living in poverty it is not relative. The pain, the stress, the stigma are all there. We can argue semantics and statistics but people who have been denied their rightful share of the earth’s resources still suffer. Eliminating the two child cap would help. A guaranteed annual income would be better.
The ruling class don't care for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as irrational as it may seem given the perfectly reasonable case set out above, they do not consider the long-term. They are addicted to the accumulation of wealth; their bounded self control drives them ever onwards to pursue immediate gratification whatever the long-term cost. Their constant protestations of working class fecklessness (eg benefit cheats, something for nothing etc) is simple psychological projection. Daniel Kahnneman describes two levels of thinking: fast and slow. Slow thinking requires a conscious effort on our part to force our brain to engage in deliberative, reasoned thinking. Fast thinking on the other hand, is the instinctive, heuristic-based thinking our brain has been hard-wired for from the hundreds of millenia we existed as hunter-gatherer societies. The ruling class are trapped in a 'have it all now' heuristic. To create the equality and fairness described above would require a conscious act of a different way of thinking. They are not willing to do this for reasons of ego; to think of the needs of those they consider to be lesser humans than them would be to admit their design of economic and social relations has failed. A second reason is that by maintaining a permanent underclass in society, the ruling class have a surplus supply of labour. They use this to threaten and intimidate workers to discipline wage demands. In turn, this shifts the balance of wage-bargaining power to the owners of capital and ensures a disproportionate share of GDP is accumulated by the minority of citizens.
I get you argument but disagree with some of the points you make in support.
1. Child poverty is adult poverty is poverty - period.
2. People are not poor because of choices they make (or that their parents make). They are poor because having a large poor class is integral to capitalism - it can’t survive without it.
3. Economic arguments will not convince the ruling class. They know these arguments but poverty is integral to them keeping power so they will maintain it whatever the cost.
4. We have to stop pretending capitalists can be compassionate and that we can convince them to be good. Capitalism never has worked for the masses, isn’t working now, never will work for the masses, and was designed not to work for the masses. Ignore the capitalists, teach people about alternatives.
Not spending money on lifting children out of poverty is not only morally bankrupt, but as you write it's financially stupid. The longterm return on investment in childhood poverty reduction is one of the most compelling uses of money for a government.
I'm an American and I wrote about this in post over a year ago when I was dismayed that tour enhanced Child Tax Credit was not made permanent. Here's a link to my post below, which in turn has a reference to the best academic research I could find from a US POV, but I imagine there are similarities to the UK.
I understand that the Conservatives have done nothing substantial in lieu of providing a benefit for each child, including number three and upward. Similarly, it appears Labour has no plan for real, permanent relief. If one is living in poverty it is not relative. The pain, the stress, the stigma are all there. We can argue semantics and statistics but people who have been denied their rightful share of the earth’s resources still suffer. Eliminating the two child cap would help. A guaranteed annual income would be better.
The ruling class don't care for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as irrational as it may seem given the perfectly reasonable case set out above, they do not consider the long-term. They are addicted to the accumulation of wealth; their bounded self control drives them ever onwards to pursue immediate gratification whatever the long-term cost. Their constant protestations of working class fecklessness (eg benefit cheats, something for nothing etc) is simple psychological projection. Daniel Kahnneman describes two levels of thinking: fast and slow. Slow thinking requires a conscious effort on our part to force our brain to engage in deliberative, reasoned thinking. Fast thinking on the other hand, is the instinctive, heuristic-based thinking our brain has been hard-wired for from the hundreds of millenia we existed as hunter-gatherer societies. The ruling class are trapped in a 'have it all now' heuristic. To create the equality and fairness described above would require a conscious act of a different way of thinking. They are not willing to do this for reasons of ego; to think of the needs of those they consider to be lesser humans than them would be to admit their design of economic and social relations has failed. A second reason is that by maintaining a permanent underclass in society, the ruling class have a surplus supply of labour. They use this to threaten and intimidate workers to discipline wage demands. In turn, this shifts the balance of wage-bargaining power to the owners of capital and ensures a disproportionate share of GDP is accumulated by the minority of citizens.
I get you argument but disagree with some of the points you make in support.
1. Child poverty is adult poverty is poverty - period.
2. People are not poor because of choices they make (or that their parents make). They are poor because having a large poor class is integral to capitalism - it can’t survive without it.
3. Economic arguments will not convince the ruling class. They know these arguments but poverty is integral to them keeping power so they will maintain it whatever the cost.
4. We have to stop pretending capitalists can be compassionate and that we can convince them to be good. Capitalism never has worked for the masses, isn’t working now, never will work for the masses, and was designed not to work for the masses. Ignore the capitalists, teach people about alternatives.
A thousand likes
100% accurate
Absolutely spot on! And across the pond, same thing.
Not spending money on lifting children out of poverty is not only morally bankrupt, but as you write it's financially stupid. The longterm return on investment in childhood poverty reduction is one of the most compelling uses of money for a government.
I'm an American and I wrote about this in post over a year ago when I was dismayed that tour enhanced Child Tax Credit was not made permanent. Here's a link to my post below, which in turn has a reference to the best academic research I could find from a US POV, but I imagine there are similarities to the UK.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/the-cruel-untimely-and-much-too-quiet
Trying to convince AAV that the 2 child policy is definitely not eugenics is as “futile as trying to explain quantum physics to a pigeon”.
Eugenics is about creating perfect human beings and trying to eliminate so-called social ills through genetics and heredity.