It's a moveable line but thanks to the way it is defined it moves in an illogical way - from the BBC website:
- - - - - - - -
At the moment children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household with an income less than 60% of the national average.
This means that if there is a recession, for example, the average household income figure could fall, so fewer children are judged to be in poverty, even though their circumstances have not changed.
The opposite happens when the economy grows - if average household incomes increase, more children might be deemed to be in poverty even though their parents' circumstances have not changed.
- - - - -
So by this reasoning if there is a higher level of child poverty in the town using this definition then the rest of the town must be more affluent.
Anyone still confused?
