4 ms·

I think there's a fundamental gap in this analysis, which is how hyper-local many of the inequalities are. Manchester has a GDP per capita of £59,000. Tameside

I think there's a fundamental gap in this analysis, which is how hyper-local many of the inequalities are. Manchester has a GDP per capita of £59,000. Tameside, the poorest area in Greater Manchester, has a GDP per capita of £19,000. Leeds has a GDP per capita of £42k; ten miles away, Bradford has a GDP per capita of £23.6k. Those disparities are really difficult to explain in terms of infrastructure or commercial investment. Similar disparities exist within London, although for plausibly different reasons; compare Lewisham with the neighbouring Southwark, Camden with Haringey, or that one bit of Tower Hamlets with the rest of Tower Hamlets. I think we need to be looking much more granularly at the gaps between neighbouring areas, schools and families - the human capital factors that trap people in lives of poverty. Building a university or innovation hub in Knowsley probably won't do much for the huge numbers of kids there who leave school unable to read and write. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/regionaleconomicactivitybygrossdomesticproductuk/latest https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulle...

matt-p 2y ago
To a certain extent, would making the productive parts of manchester, even just 2X more productive not fix this over time in the same way that it has in London? If you look back even say 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney, as you do now about Tameside. Today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate not only in London, and by extension the UK, but in the world.
- Retric 2y ago
  Simply displacing a population can make an area more wealthy but it does little for the overall population. So, I don’t think we care about land here but rather people.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    > but it does little for the overall population. Not sure about that.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      It just makes the poor people move elsewhere, they are still around.
      - scarby2 2y ago
        Specific to London but there were a lot of working class home owners who bought under the right to buy schenlme who have benefited hugely from gentrification (not just from increased home prices but from lower crime, better schools etc). Also a lot of non-market housing being rented, all those people also benefit.
        Retric 2y ago
        Sure a small percentage of displaced people benefit significantly. That’s offset by those who simply see higher rent then get forced to relocate to a less desirable location further from work / family/ etc. Poor areas have few people with the knowledge/ resources to really leverage gentrification which is why they are living in poorer neighborhoods to begin with. So the average outcome may be a slight improvement due to the major winners, but the median outcome is likely a net loss.
      - threatofrain 2y ago
        The people who move in and out aren't just shuffling seats. They may be moving in because of their increased ability to exercise that position in society. The consequence may be a center of regional productivity and true national gain. In other words, you don't get a Bay Area unless a lot of tech and business types mingle together.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney...[and] today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate are you saying that gentrification of Hackney did not simply entail wealthier people moving in and displacing the local population, but rather soaring incomes for the people who lived there?
  - matt-p 2y ago
    Emphasis on 'to a certain extent' :) Educational outcomes need to be improved yesterday, no disagreement on that. There's some displacement, yes. However anyone who isn't in privately rented accommodation would be choosing to leave, perhaps even with some decent money from selling their house. Many people stay, if you'd like proof, take a walk down to hackney.
  - zozbot234 2y ago
    A "gentrified" community will involve higher incomes for those non-tradable services that have to be provided locally and can't simply be outsourced to somewhere else. So it's both. (This is in addition to the high productivity that's driving the gentrification in the first place, which will often result in increased opportunity in that very sector - but that's not always very relevant, especially in the short term.)
  - Neonlicht 2y ago
    I find this a strange reasoning. When a city becomes more economically viable everyone benefits. The poor people in Amsterdam get benefits paid for by the rich.
- kjellsbells 2y ago
  One could argue that the money flowing into Hackney was largely from the London media/finance elite who probably were made 2X more productive by IT and City deregulation. The result was Hackney's gentrification. But gentrification, is not the same as a community leveling up. The former provides an influx of new residents with money to spend in the community. The latter creates new opportunities for the existing residents within the community.
ceuk 2y ago
100% I live down the road from OP in Harrogate and it's an incredibly desirable and affluent place Also while I'm commenting. I know OP isn't saying the North is shit. Just poor(ish). Nevertheless I just want to say I love the north of England and genuinely think it's one of the best places in the world. We've already established that I'm in one of the better areas so my perspective might be a little skewed, but I honestly think it's an incredible place and I hope this doesn't put people off visiting.
- pastureofplenty 2y ago
  You guys certainly have some of the nicest accents in the Anglosphere, imo.
  - schiffern 2y ago
    I expect the accent is part of it, actually. Call it the Henry Higgins effect. Rose: If you ARE an alien, how come you sound like you're from the North? The Doctor: Lots of planets have a North! (the joke lands better for American audiences if you mentally replace "North" with "South"; in many ways the economics/stereotypes are similar) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svi-fBXZzqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svi-fBXZzqI
- incompatible 2y ago
  Poor vs shit is an interesting discussion. If your life, your environment, isn't shit, why would you even care if are poor? Would you rather be rich and unhappy? (I spend very little, yet I don't feel deprived.)
- zipy124 2y ago
  Also from the Harrogate area, but moved to London for uni and haven't made it back yet. Whilst Harrogate is very nice and affluent, I'd say the biggest difference isn't the personal wealth but the council wealth. There's far far far more wealth in the south and I've honestly been amazed at just how big the gap is, especially noticeable in infrastructure and services like roads and schools. Even the schools in poor areas of London are better than the local Harrogate schools. Just look at Yorks council funding (now merged with Harrogate) which has the lowest funding per capita in the UK. Despite this tho I'd much rather live in Harrogate and enjoy the countryside than London tbh, plus people are less miserable there...
thomasforth 2y ago
Thanks for reading. For my precise work on the hyper-local angle you're asking after I did this analysis of Greater Manchester when I lived there in 2018 and it holds up really well. https://www.tomforth.co.uk/inequalityingreatermanchester/ https://www.tomforth.co.uk/inequalityingreatermanchester/ Specifically on the GDP per capita numbers you quote, it's important to know what the "capita" means here. In your numbers, the capita is of residents. So people who commute into Manchester to work are counted in the GDP side of the equation and not in the capita side of the equation giving a largely meaningless number when comparing the strength of an economy. In the case of Leeds and Bradford that you mention it's largely the same effect. When someone commutes from Ilkley or Harrogate to Leeds to work their GDP is counted in Leeds but their capita is counted in Bradford or North Yorkshire. While I agree that looking at smaller geographies is useful, and indeed I do in the link top, we need to consider that overall Greater Manchester, and all of the North's other cities, just have very little prosperity to go around. There are pockets of wealth, but they are pockets against a backdrop of poverty. And of course in London there are pockets of poverty, but they are pockets against a backdrop of wealth. You can convince yourself of this by looking at the ONS small area income estimate dataset and map. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
- jdietrich 2y ago
  Totally fair response, I'm an idiot, please give this guy my upvotes.
  - ninalanyon 2y ago
    I don't think you are an idiot. Being mistaken or providing an incomplete analysis doesn't make you an idiot, it most likely just means you had neither the time nor the tools to do better just now. Your response clarified the article for me. And admitting to the error puts you right at the top of the list of non-idiots in my opinion!
tiew9Vii 2y ago
I was born and bred in Tameside. It's a 15 minute train ride to Manchester. 30-40 min drive/bus trip to Manchester, 1 hour train ride to Leeds and slightly longer drive. Generally Tameside is well serviced, you got all the amenities you would expect and location wise you have very good access for commuting. Manchester, Salford, Leeds university all easily accessible. Tamesides location makes it popular as a commuter location looking for lower costs of living. It's always been a working class place. Despite the wealth of the industrial revolution, the grand factories mostly now demolished and buildings, the majority of people where/are working class low paid workers and didn't see that money although the money built grand markets and highstreets for workers to spend the wages. Tameside is a low socioeconomic area which is generational. I went to an at best, average school. The importance of school wasn't really seen, or taught at home or in school. Myself, I had a mixed schooling history. Troublesome/difficult, likely influenced through parents attitudes, being bullied at times, not academically smart but not dumb, dyslexic and can remember one specific teacher publicly shaming me for not being able to spell my surname instead of trying to teach me. My social worker partner is adamant i'm on the spectrum. I feel there was a nurturing missing generally at these average, low social economic schools and my time could of been better with the right support in school. Eck I got a C GCSE in maths but learnt a bit of category theory, Haskell and functional programming myself. Those who had a reasonable fortunate home life seem to of done just ok in their adult life from the area. Those who were disruptive, high level of truancy, poor parenting, some are dead, some are in prison, some look like they should be dead with addiction. Their kids will likely follow down the same path they did and they've had more kids than the people who turned out alright. Growing up in low social economic environments is hard to break out of. It starts at home with the importance of education and it's hard to start at home when your parents and parents parents never seen the importance and then the schooling isn't prepared to deal with it. I broke out of it leaving as fast as I could, hard work when younger and some luck. The north can be raw, probably not so much these days but "southern pansy" or "posh", "gay" is used disparagingly for people trying to better themself. I grew up not in poverty and not well off, in a area that wasn't the worst but not great. My mum see's anyone who has done well for themselfs as "posh" looking down on her and that can be a common theme with the less fortunate people I know in the area. This is a generational attitude. The story seems common over the world. People growing up less well off struggle to get out of being less well off and it often starts at home and education and it's hard to start at home in the environment you are in and education doesn't happen due to home environment apart from the few outliers who do overcome the odds stacked against them. It's funny reading these articles from people who haven't grew up poor, in the north, never seen a council estate, or the way of life, talking about Universities in 1066 and Northern Conquests as a reason.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Isn't this similar in, say, US cities? I'm not well travelled in the US, but Chicago, New York, LA, are all incredibly wealthy cities with pockets of abject poverty. Same elsewhere in (some parts of) Europe. Paris for example, though perhaps for different reasons. It would appear that just having access to good education (or worse, merely being close to places with good education) doesn't mean you can consume it and advance in life. Probably ditto for other levelling up tools like apprenticeships, jobs etc.

matt-p 2y ago

To a certain extent, would making the productive parts of manchester, even just 2X more productive not fix this over time in the same way that it has in London? If you look back even say 30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney, as you do now about Tameside. Today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate not only in London, and by extension the UK, but in the world.

Retric 2y ago
Simply displacing a population can make an area more wealthy but it does little for the overall population. So, I don’t think we care about land here but rather people.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  > but it does little for the overall population. Not sure about that.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    It just makes the poor people move elsewhere, they are still around.
    - scarby2 2y ago
      Specific to London but there were a lot of working class home owners who bought under the right to buy schenlme who have benefited hugely from gentrification (not just from increased home prices but from lower crime, better schools etc). Also a lot of non-market housing being rented, all those people also benefit.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Sure a small percentage of displaced people benefit significantly. That’s offset by those who simply see higher rent then get forced to relocate to a less desirable location further from work / family/ etc. Poor areas have few people with the knowledge/ resources to really leverage gentrification which is why they are living in poorer neighborhoods to begin with. So the average outcome may be a slight improvement due to the major winners, but the median outcome is likely a net loss.
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      The people who move in and out aren't just shuffling seats. They may be moving in because of their increased ability to exercise that position in society. The consequence may be a center of regional productivity and true national gain. In other words, you don't get a Bay Area unless a lot of tech and business types mingle together.
fsckboy 2y ago
>30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney...[and] today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate are you saying that gentrification of Hackney did not simply entail wealthier people moving in and displacing the local population, but rather soaring incomes for the people who lived there?
- matt-p 2y ago
  Emphasis on 'to a certain extent' :) Educational outcomes need to be improved yesterday, no disagreement on that. There's some displacement, yes. However anyone who isn't in privately rented accommodation would be choosing to leave, perhaps even with some decent money from selling their house. Many people stay, if you'd like proof, take a walk down to hackney.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  A "gentrified" community will involve higher incomes for those non-tradable services that have to be provided locally and can't simply be outsourced to somewhere else. So it's both. (This is in addition to the high productivity that's driving the gentrification in the first place, which will often result in increased opportunity in that very sector - but that's not always very relevant, especially in the short term.)
- Neonlicht 2y ago
  I find this a strange reasoning. When a city becomes more economically viable everyone benefits. The poor people in Amsterdam get benefits paid for by the rich.
kjellsbells 2y ago
One could argue that the money flowing into Hackney was largely from the London media/finance elite who probably were made 2X more productive by IT and City deregulation. The result was Hackney's gentrification. But gentrification, is not the same as a community leveling up. The former provides an influx of new residents with money to spend in the community. The latter creates new opportunities for the existing residents within the community.

ceuk 2y ago

100% I live down the road from OP in Harrogate and it's an incredibly desirable and affluent place Also while I'm commenting. I know OP isn't saying the North is shit. Just poor(ish). Nevertheless I just want to say I love the north of England and genuinely think it's one of the best places in the world. We've already established that I'm in one of the better areas so my perspective might be a little skewed, but I honestly think it's an incredible place and I hope this doesn't put people off visiting.

pastureofplenty 2y ago
You guys certainly have some of the nicest accents in the Anglosphere, imo.
- schiffern 2y ago
  I expect the accent is part of it, actually. Call it the Henry Higgins effect. Rose: If you ARE an alien, how come you sound like you're from the North? The Doctor: Lots of planets have a North! (the joke lands better for American audiences if you mentally replace "North" with "South"; in many ways the economics/stereotypes are similar) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svi-fBXZzqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svi-fBXZzqI
incompatible 2y ago
Poor vs shit is an interesting discussion. If your life, your environment, isn't shit, why would you even care if are poor? Would you rather be rich and unhappy? (I spend very little, yet I don't feel deprived.)
zipy124 2y ago
Also from the Harrogate area, but moved to London for uni and haven't made it back yet. Whilst Harrogate is very nice and affluent, I'd say the biggest difference isn't the personal wealth but the council wealth. There's far far far more wealth in the south and I've honestly been amazed at just how big the gap is, especially noticeable in infrastructure and services like roads and schools. Even the schools in poor areas of London are better than the local Harrogate schools. Just look at Yorks council funding (now merged with Harrogate) which has the lowest funding per capita in the UK. Despite this tho I'd much rather live in Harrogate and enjoy the countryside than London tbh, plus people are less miserable there...

thomasforth 2y ago

Thanks for reading. For my precise work on the hyper-local angle you're asking after I did this analysis of Greater Manchester when I lived there in 2018 and it holds up really well. https://www.tomforth.co.uk/inequalityingreatermanchester/ https://www.tomforth.co.uk/inequalityingreatermanchester/ Specifically on the GDP per capita numbers you quote, it's important to know what the "capita" means here. In your numbers, the capita is of residents. So people who commute into Manchester to work are counted in the GDP side of the equation and not in the capita side of the equation giving a largely meaningless number when comparing the strength of an economy. In the case of Leeds and Bradford that you mention it's largely the same effect. When someone commutes from Ilkley or Harrogate to Leeds to work their GDP is counted in Leeds but their capita is counted in Bradford or North Yorkshire. While I agree that looking at smaller geographies is useful, and indeed I do in the link top, we need to consider that overall Greater Manchester, and all of the North's other cities, just have very little prosperity to go around. There are pockets of wealth, but they are pockets against a backdrop of poverty. And of course in London there are pockets of poverty, but they are pockets against a backdrop of wealth. You can convince yourself of this by looking at the ONS small area income estimate dataset and map. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...

jdietrich 2y ago
Totally fair response, I'm an idiot, please give this guy my upvotes.
- ninalanyon 2y ago
  I don't think you are an idiot. Being mistaken or providing an incomplete analysis doesn't make you an idiot, it most likely just means you had neither the time nor the tools to do better just now. Your response clarified the article for me. And admitting to the error puts you right at the top of the list of non-idiots in my opinion!

tiew9Vii 2y ago

I was born and bred in Tameside. It's a 15 minute train ride to Manchester. 30-40 min drive/bus trip to Manchester, 1 hour train ride to Leeds and slightly longer drive. Generally Tameside is well serviced, you got all the amenities you would expect and location wise you have very good access for commuting. Manchester, Salford, Leeds university all easily accessible. Tamesides location makes it popular as a commuter location looking for lower costs of living. It's always been a working class place. Despite the wealth of the industrial revolution, the grand factories mostly now demolished and buildings, the majority of people where/are working class low paid workers and didn't see that money although the money built grand markets and highstreets for workers to spend the wages. Tameside is a low socioeconomic area which is generational. I went to an at best, average school. The importance of school wasn't really seen, or taught at home or in school. Myself, I had a mixed schooling history. Troublesome/difficult, likely influenced through parents attitudes, being bullied at times, not academically smart but not dumb, dyslexic and can remember one specific teacher publicly shaming me for not being able to spell my surname instead of trying to teach me. My social worker partner is adamant i'm on the spectrum. I feel there was a nurturing missing generally at these average, low social economic schools and my time could of been better with the right support in school. Eck I got a C GCSE in maths but learnt a bit of category theory, Haskell and functional programming myself. Those who had a reasonable fortunate home life seem to of done just ok in their adult life from the area. Those who were disruptive, high level of truancy, poor parenting, some are dead, some are in prison, some look like they should be dead with addiction. Their kids will likely follow down the same path they did and they've had more kids than the people who turned out alright. Growing up in low social economic environments is hard to break out of. It starts at home with the importance of education and it's hard to start at home when your parents and parents parents never seen the importance and then the schooling isn't prepared to deal with it. I broke out of it leaving as fast as I could, hard work when younger and some luck. The north can be raw, probably not so much these days but "southern pansy" or "posh", "gay" is used disparagingly for people trying to better themself. I grew up not in poverty and not well off, in a area that wasn't the worst but not great. My mum see's anyone who has done well for themselfs as "posh" looking down on her and that can be a common theme with the less fortunate people I know in the area. This is a generational attitude. The story seems common over the world. People growing up less well off struggle to get out of being less well off and it often starts at home and education and it's hard to start at home in the environment you are in and education doesn't happen due to home environment apart from the few outliers who do overcome the odds stacked against them. It's funny reading these articles from people who haven't grew up poor, in the north, never seen a council estate, or the way of life, talking about Universities in 1066 and Northern Conquests as a reason.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Isn't this similar in, say, US cities? I'm not well travelled in the US, but Chicago, New York, LA, are all incredibly wealthy cities with pockets of abject poverty. Same elsewhere in (some parts of) Europe. Paris for example, though perhaps for different reasons. It would appear that just having access to good education (or worse, merely being close to places with good education) doesn't mean you can consume it and advance in life. Probably ditto for other levelling up tools like apprenticeships, jobs etc.