What are Models and Photographers saying about the economy?

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

Huw said

I think a more accurate but less “click bait” indicator for the UK is counting the number of people eating in your local Indian restaurant at 9.00 p.m. on Friday night. 

Indeed. Though I think perhaps an even stronger indication of what really happening on our doorsteps, right here in the sunlit uplands of Singapore-on-Thames, is the phenomenal rise in the use of food banks. These figures are from The Trussell Trust, just one of the charities involved...

WHAT does it tell you ? That people are doing more to support their others and charity does not need to be nationalized ?  Or that more people know about the existence of food banks and are able to use the help that is there for them?  Some evolution in the way the less well off use cash benefits?  What does greater delivery by food banks actually mean? And if poverty were the same, but government charity took the place of organizations like the Trussell trust would calling that charity a 'credit' or a 'benefit' change anything ?     

I don't know what angle you're coming from but I do get pissed off with people who one moment are handwringing about 'the poor' as they choose to define the category (while offering nothing more than words), and the next are venting toxically about people who help when they themselves do. 

And actually to go back to the topic, some spending can be a leading indicator of sentiment in the economy. Going out and buying a nice new camera is a sign that not only are things OK, but you expect them to remain OK. Postponing that purchase might mean you're OK now, but don't feel sure you will be in a few months. If poundland is seeing more footfall perhaps people are pessimistic, if M&S are maybe there's optimism in the air.  Foodbanks and similar don't tell us how people feel about the future, but who has had a shit time of it in recent weeks/months. They MAY also tell us how far those at the bottom are dropping behind those in the middle - busier food banks could be a sign that most people people have more money to spend and the few at the bottom have the same money as they did but prices have gone up.  

I tells me there's something very wrong here. Top marks to the Trussell Trust for its valiant efforts. But as the Trust itself makes clear: British children being forced to rely on on a charity for over a million food parcels per year cannot be a good thing.

In any event, IMHO, this is a more accurate indicator of the nation's economic health than whether or not a handful of wealthy elderly photographers can afford to purchase expensive new cameras. ;-)

Edited by waist.it

I can afford to buy 5 bananas a week, one for my teabreak each day and have no issues carrying this on for the foreseeable future, i might even branch out into purchasing the straighter varieties as the girth is thicker and makes me smile . That's my technical 5 pence worth...................

waist.it said

 

I tells me there's something very wrong here. Top marks to the Trussell Trust for its valiant efforts. But as the Trust itself makes clear: British children being forced to rely on on a charity for over a million food parcels per year cannot be a good thing.

In any event, IMHO, this is a more accurate indicator of the nation's economic health than whether or not a handful of wealthy elderly photographers can afford to purchase expensive new cameras. ;-)

 

Well no, Children having parents who don't earn enough to feed them isn't good never was, can't ever be.  But forgive me for pointing out the classic handwringing "Think of the children" trope. It's not good that middle aged single people, or pensioners don't have enough money to buy life's essentials either.  But there are 4 entirely different things 
(a) Is the economy doing well or badly? 
(b) If it is doing well, some people will be left behind. Is that number big or small, and what are we doing to help those people. If it is doing badly, it will hit some groups of people worse than others, how many are in the very hard hit group (and what are we doing to help those people)
(c) In a country of 70 million or so some families will need fare badly and need hand outs. How significant is the source of the hand out - i.e. do we give any time to leftists crying that all handouts should be state charity (although squeamishness means we call it credits or benefits) , and we should get rid of private donations to help people. 
(d) Of those receiving hand outs how many are old, working age, and children.   

At a guess there are 15-20 million children, 365 days in a year, 3 meals a day, so 15-20 Billion child means per year. A Million parcels is 1 food parcel per 20,000 child-meals. How many would we expect ? 
or put another way how  big a country would we expect to give out a 3,000 parcels a day?  But what ever number of needy people we have are they needy because the economy is booming, prices are rising and their pay hasn't kept up, or because the economy has tanked and they've lost their jobs? The volume of charity doesn't tell you about the economy, unless you know the reason it is needed.

Nice leftist trope to categorize those making purchases which require confidence about ones income a little way into the future, as "the few", but it could be people going out for a curry, spending money with sex workers, having their kitchen's redone. Some things indicate consumer confidence looking forward. Charity handouts, mortgage arears (and some other kinds of debt) are backward looking.  

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

 

I tells me there's something very wrong here. Top marks to the Trussell Trust for its valiant efforts. But as the Trust itself makes clear: British children being forced to rely on on a charity for over a million food parcels per year cannot be a good thing.

In any event, IMHO, this is a more accurate indicator of the nation's economic health than whether or not a handful of wealthy elderly photographers can afford to purchase expensive new cameras. ;-)

 

Well no, Children having parents who don't earn enough to feed them isn't good never was, can't ever be.  But forgive me for pointing out the classic handwringing "Think of the children" trope. It's not good that middle aged single people, or pensioners don't have enough money to buy life's essentials either.  But there are 4 entirely different things 
(a) Is the economy doing well or badly? 
(b) If it is doing well, some people will be left behind. Is that number big or small, and what are we doing to help those people. If it is doing badly, it will hit some groups of people worse than others, how many are in the very hard hit group (and what are we doing to help those people)
(c) In a country of 70 million or so some families will need fare badly and need hand outs. How significant is the source of the hand out - i.e. do we give any time to leftists crying that all handouts should be state charity (although squeamishness means we call it credits or benefits) , and we should get rid of private donations to help people. 
(d) Of those receiving hand outs how many are old, working age, and children.   

At a guess there are 15-20 million children, 365 days in a year, 3 meals a day, so 15-20 Billion child means per year. A Million parcels is 1 food parcel per 20,000 child-meals. How many would we expect ? 
or put another way how  big a country would we expect to give out a 3,000 parcels a day?  But what ever number of needy people we have are they needy because the economy is booming, prices are rising and their pay hasn't kept up, or because the economy has tanked and they've lost their jobs? The volume of charity doesn't tell you about the economy, unless you know the reason it is needed.

Nice leftist trope to categorize those making purchases which require confidence about ones income a little way into the future, as "the few", but it could be people going out for a curry, spending money with sex workers, having their kitchen's redone. Some things indicate consumer confidence looking forward. Charity handouts, mortgage arears (and some other kinds of debt) are backward looking.  

In what is supposed to be the 5th or 6th richest economy on the planet, it is not good that anyone of any age needs charity food parcels. It becomes all-the more disturbing when one considers the rate at which these numbers are escalating.

They are indicators.

Indian takeaways….     Energy costs, cooking oil, imported food, especially onions, labour costs.

Price up a takeaway, and compare with two years ago.

Even 30 years ago it was important to convert a salary offer into the number of Mars bars to find out what the real offer was. Same indicators….   Imports, energy, labour.

Working in France in March; normal working people eating out….

The economy is fecked.

Huw said

They are indicators.

Indian takeaways….     Energy costs, cooking oil, imported food, especially onions, labour costs.

Price up a takeaway, and compare with two years ago.

Even 30 years ago it was important to convert a salary offer into the number of Mars bars to find out what the real offer was. Same indicators….   Imports, energy, labour.

Working in France in March; normal working people eating out….

The economy is fecked.

Yep.

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

Huw said

I think a more accurate but less “click bait” indicator for the UK is counting the number of people eating in your local Indian restaurant at 9.00 p.m. on Friday night. 

Indeed. Though I think perhaps an even stronger indication of what really happening on our doorsteps, right here in the sunlit uplands of Singapore-on-Thames, is the phenomenal rise in the use of food banks. These figures are from The Trussell Trust, just one of the charities involved...

WHAT does it tell you ? That people are doing more to support their others and charity does not need to be nationalized ?  Or that more people know about the existence of food banks and are able to use the help that is there for them?  Some evolution in the way the less well off use cash benefits?  What does greater delivery by food banks actually mean? And if poverty were the same, but government charity took the place of organizations like the Trussell trust would calling that charity a 'credit' or a 'benefit' change anything ?     

I don't know what angle you're coming from but I do get pissed off with people who one moment are handwringing about 'the poor' as they choose to define the category (while offering nothing more than words), and the next are venting toxically about people who help when they themselves do. 

And actually to go back to the topic, some spending can be a leading indicator of sentiment in the economy. Going out and buying a nice new camera is a sign that not only are things OK, but you expect them to remain OK. Postponing that purchase might mean you're OK now, but don't feel sure you will be in a few months. If poundland is seeing more footfall perhaps people are pessimistic, if M&S are maybe there's optimism in the air.  Foodbanks and similar don't tell us how people feel about the future, but who has had a shit time of it in recent weeks/months. They MAY also tell us how far those at the bottom are dropping behind those in the middle - busier food banks could be a sign that most people people have more money to spend and the few at the bottom have the same money as they did but prices have gone up.  

On the other hand that could be absolute rubbish, most people don't have more money to spend. I live in one of the most affluent area outside of Knightsbridge and the local food banks are crying out for more donations but more to the point (as a marker for "most people" ) our local gastropubs are struggling so badly they are offering half price food pretty much all week.

Allesandro B said

CalmNudes said 

  Foodbanks and similar don't tell us how people feel about the future, but who has had a shit time of it in recent weeks/months. They MAY also tell us how far those at the bottom are dropping behind those in the middle - busier food banks could be a sign that most people people have more money to spend and the few at the bottom have the same money as they did but prices have gone up.  

On the other hand that could be absolute rubbish, most people don't have more money to spend. I live in one of the most affluent area outside of Knightsbridge and the local food banks are crying out for more donations but more to the point (as a marker for "most people" ) our local gastropubs are struggling so badly they are offering half price food pretty much all week.

It could indeed be so.  My point was the left clap trap about foodbanks "We hate charity. All support for the poor must come from the state" is one thing. But you can't extrapolate much from what food banks are delivering. Demand for them can be people left behind in a boom OR people losing their jobs in a slump. 

The number of people in Gastropubs is a far more useful indicator of sentiment about the economy and whether it will go turn upwards or downwards.  

waist.it said

 

In what is supposed to be the 5th or 6th richest economy on the planet, it is not good that anyone of any age needs charity food parcels. It becomes all-the more disturbing when one considers the rate at which these numbers are escalating.

A very daft thing to say. There will always be people who can't work, or for other circumstances temporarily or permanently mean they will be classed as poor.   It makes no differences if you are at the top of the league or the bottom, if you're a prosperous society, you measure your decency by how well the prosperous take care of those people.

It makes ZERO difference whether the charity people receive comes from a food bank or a social security payment. Your logic is on the one had is no-one should be poor so there should be no need for welfare payments, and on the other that when reality spoils that notion and people need charity it should come exclusively from the state. 

CalmNudes said

Allesandro B said

CalmNudes said 

  Foodbanks and similar don't tell us how people feel about the future, but who has had a shit time of it in recent weeks/months. They MAY also tell us how far those at the bottom are dropping behind those in the middle - busier food banks could be a sign that most people people have more money to spend and the few at the bottom have the same money as they did but prices have gone up.  

On the other hand that could be absolute rubbish, most people don't have more money to spend. I live in one of the most affluent area outside of Knightsbridge and the local food banks are crying out for more donations but more to the point (as a marker for "most people" ) our local gastropubs are struggling so badly they are offering half price food pretty much all week.

It could indeed be so.  My point was the left clap trap about foodbanks "We hate charity. All support for the poor must come from the state" is one thing. But you can't extrapolate much from what food banks are delivering. Demand for them can be people left behind in a boom OR people losing their jobs in a slump. 

The number of people in Gastropubs is a far more useful indicator of sentiment about the economy and whether it will go turn upwards or downwards.  

Which do you think it is?

I don't think food banks has anything to do with the economy. I expect in other circles people still have money although from what I've heard the government has pushed alot of wealth abroad by making it unattractive for wealthy people to base themselves in the uk. hard to tell what the future holds. I expect those using the food banks are also the ones propping up the economy so if that's true then were probably doing ok. as for market crashes I think thats just part of the pattern.

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

 

In what is supposed to be the 5th or 6th richest economy on the planet, it is not good that anyone of any age needs charity food parcels. It becomes all-the more disturbing when one considers the rate at which these numbers are escalating.

A very daft thing to say. There will always be people who can't work, or for other circumstances temporarily or permanently mean they will be classed as poor.   It makes no differences if you are at the top of the league or the bottom, if you're a prosperous society, you measure your decency by how well the prosperous take care of those people.

It makes ZERO difference whether the charity people receive comes from a food bank or a social security payment. Your logic is on the one had is no-one should be poor so there should be no need for welfare payments, and on the other that when reality spoils that notion and people need charity it should come exclusively from the state. 

No need to be rude.

I think Trussell Trust CEO Emma Revie explains it better than I can...

"Food banks were set up to provide short-term support to people in an emergency, they are not a lasting solution to hunger and poverty, and more than three quarters of the UK population agree with us that they should not need to exist."

Allesandro B said

CalmNudes said

Allesandro B said

CalmNudes said 

  Foodbanks and similar don't tell us how people feel about the future, but who has had a shit time of it in recent weeks/months. They MAY also tell us how far those at the bottom are dropping behind those in the middle - busier food banks could be a sign that most people people have more money to spend and the few at the bottom have the same money as they did but prices have gone up.  

On the other hand that could be absolute rubbish, most people don't have more money to spend. I live in one of the most affluent area outside of Knightsbridge and the local food banks are crying out for more donations but more to the point (as a marker for "most people" ) our local gastropubs are struggling so badly they are offering half price food pretty much all week.

It could indeed be so.  My point was the left clap trap about foodbanks "We hate charity. All support for the poor must come from the state" is one thing. But you can't extrapolate much from what food banks are delivering. Demand for them can be people left behind in a boom OR people losing their jobs in a slump. 

The number of people in Gastropubs is a far more useful indicator of sentiment about the economy and whether it will go turn upwards or downwards.  

Which do you think it is?

Those are the two extremes and the point I'm trying making is volume of parcels sent out by food banks isn't telling you if the economy is getting better or getting worse.  

If pushed, my explanation would be that we had a burst of inflation caused by energy prices; most people were paid enough to cope with the higher overall prices that led to, but for many people that meant cutting back on something. For those whose heads were just above water and had nothing left to cut food banks were the answer - especially as changes to state charity are slow, but food banks have been able to respond quickly. There hasn't been a spike in unemployment, so I don't think the explanation is lost jobs, we're talking about people who got left behind when the economy was doing well but it only had an impact when the cost of living shot up. I don't know if lasting effects of the mismanagement of covid are also showing at food banks.

waist.it said

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

 

In what is supposed to be the 5th or 6th richest economy on the planet, it is not good that anyone of any age needs charity food parcels. It becomes all-the more disturbing when one considers the rate at which these numbers are escalating.

A very daft thing to say. There will always be people who can't work, or for other circumstances temporarily or permanently mean they will be classed as poor.   It makes no differences if you are at the top of the league or the bottom, if you're a prosperous society, you measure your decency by how well the prosperous take care of those people.

It makes ZERO difference whether the charity people receive comes from a food bank or a social security payment. Your logic is on the one had is no-one should be poor so there should be no need for welfare payments, and on the other that when reality spoils that notion and people need charity it should come exclusively from the state. 

No need to be rude.

I think Trussell Trust CEO Emma Revie explains it better than I can...

"Food banks were set up to provide short-term support to people in an emergency, they are not a lasting solution to hunger and poverty, and more than three quarters of the UK population agree with us that they should not need to exist."

It's not rude to point out that what you say is politically motivated and runs counter to logic. Or in plain language is daft. 

Poverty, in some form has existed in every society in history. It wasn't a new idea when it went in the bible as 'The poor you will always have with you'. Not every person has the capability to earn a living, or earn sufficient to support a family; society long ago thought it was wrong to take away children for poor families. Economic fluctuations mean some people will have short periods of it. It can't be prevented only treated, and the treatment is hand outs from to the better off to the worse off. They might be state administered, church administered, charities whatever. You're free to hate the alleviation of poverty when it isn't state charity, but all you do is handwring about the how terrible we still have the poor by denigrating people who work to relieve it.   

As for the quote, yes food banks should be emergency facilities to tide people over. We don't know is how many people have become dependent on them, and that's part of my frustration at simplistic stats like "1 million parcels";  It would be useful to know "1 Million parcels of which [some number] went to people who used a food bank 20 or more times (i.e. how much 'deep' / 'structural' poverty is there) and [some other number] to those only used a food bank once or twice (how common is 'shallow' poverty)."  Food banks don't stop people being poor (nor do cash handouts; and not everyone who receives cash manages their spending perfectly.)  It's all very well whining about the number of food parcels going out, but 20 years ago when food banks were more-or-less unknown, how many people went hungry - it's simplistic at best to say the increase in the delivery by food banks is entirely down to more people being at risk of going hungry, presumably some must be reducing the number of people who actually go hungry. I don't know the split and I'm pretty sure you don't    

People certainly think it would be nice to live in a world without war, but we still have an army. Or to live in a world with crime, but we still have the police, or in a world where no one is poor, yet food banks still fulfil a useful function.   Based on your numbers one food parcel goes out for every 20,000 meals eaten, but neither of us has any idea how many peoples are paid for by state charity. (And it's difficult because state charity coming as cash, isn't hypothecated for food).  How many people need hand-outs is a better indicator than how many are served by food banks, which a bit like the term "fuel poverty" has lost any meaning and just something for people to bleat meaninglessly about. 

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

CalmNudes said

waist.it said

 

In what is supposed to be the 5th or 6th richest economy on the planet, it is not good that anyone of any age needs charity food parcels. It becomes all-the more disturbing when one considers the rate at which these numbers are escalating.

A very daft thing to say. There will always be people who can't work, or for other circumstances temporarily or permanently mean they will be classed as poor.   It makes no differences if you are at the top of the league or the bottom, if you're a prosperous society, you measure your decency by how well the prosperous take care of those people.

It makes ZERO difference whether the charity people receive comes from a food bank or a social security payment. Your logic is on the one had is no-one should be poor so there should be no need for welfare payments, and on the other that when reality spoils that notion and people need charity it should come exclusively from the state. 

No need to be rude.

I think Trussell Trust CEO Emma Revie explains it better than I can...

"Food banks were set up to provide short-term support to people in an emergency, they are not a lasting solution to hunger and poverty, and more than three quarters of the UK population agree with us that they should not need to exist."

It's not rude to point out that what you say is politically motivated and runs counter to logic. Or in plain language is daft. 

Poverty, in some form has existed in every society in history. It wasn't a new idea when it went in the bible as 'The poor you will always have with you'. Not every person has the capability to earn a living, or earn sufficient to support a family; society long ago thought it was wrong to take away children for poor families. Economic fluctuations mean some people will have short periods of it. It can't be prevented only treated, and the treatment is hand outs from to the better off to the worse off. They might be state administered, church administered, charities whatever. You're free to hate the alleviation of poverty when it isn't state charity, but all you do is handwring about the how terrible we still have the poor by denigrating people who work to relieve it.   

As for the quote, yes food banks should be emergency facilities to tide people over. We don't know is how many people have become dependent on them, and that's part of my frustration at simplistic stats like "1 million parcels";  It would be useful to know "1 Million parcels of which [some number] went to people who used a food bank 20 or more times (i.e. how much 'deep' / 'structural' poverty is there) and [some other number] to those only used a food bank once or twice (how common is 'shallow' poverty)."  Food banks don't stop people being poor (nor do cash handouts; and not everyone who receives cash manages their spending perfectly.)  It's all very well whining about the number of food parcels going out, but 20 years ago when food banks were more-or-less unknown, how many people went hungry - it's simplistic at best to say the increase in the delivery by food banks is entirely down to more people being at risk of going hungry, presumably some must be reducing the number of people who actually go hungry. I don't know the split and I'm pretty sure you don't    

People certainly think it would be nice to live in a world without war, but we still have an army. Or to live in a world with crime, but we still have the police, or in a world where no one is poor, yet food banks still fulfil a useful function.   Based on your numbers one food parcel goes out for every 20,000 meals eaten, but neither of us has any idea how many peoples are paid for by state charity. (And it's difficult because state charity coming as cash, isn't hypothecated for food).  How many people need hand-outs is a better indicator than how many are served by food banks, which a bit like the term "fuel poverty" has lost any meaning and just something for people to bleat meaninglessly about. 

    

I did not mention denigrating anyone. You just made that up. lol Besides, state Benefit is not "charity" it is a legal entitlement defined by Act of Parliament.

And go-easy with the junk-maths. Trussell Trust's food parcels provide food for three days, not just one meal. And it is just one of many organisations running foodbanks here in the UK. Almost all of which are reporting rapidly rising food poverty.

Edited by waist.it