It’s strange what you start thinking about when you are awake and unable to sleep in the small hours of the morning.

One thing that has been fascinating me (for all the wrong reasons) is just how committed our politicians and public figures are to the idea that the National Minimum Wage is enough for someone on a basic full time wage to live on, with the unspoken suggestion that anyone who can’t manage on that must be some kind of financial delinquent.

The journey to discovering truths can be a rocky one. Especially when you uncover the data that makes the argument for whoever you disagree with. That is, until you then take the series of steps and start looking beyond what they believe, based on what they have said.

Today, the National Minimum Wage is £10.42 per hour, for an adult of 23 years of age or older.

The question I really wanted to answer was ‘How is it our legislators are so confident that they are right about this rate – which in turn becomes the benchmark upon which the UKs basic standard of living is calculated?

The Average Living Rate

There’s a lot of data available through the Internet (Although I would strongly suggest doing the research for yourself rather than using AI if you want to try this).

But then I thought a little more.

As I said, my sums for these figures is based on the accepted average costs for travel, utilities, phones, food, clothes, rent and all you need, adds up to the grand total of £9.41 per hour, for a 40 hour week.

So, the reality that this calculation indicates a single person on a Minimum Basic Wage has £40.40 SPARE per week, certainly made me understand where our public representatives find the confidence to talk down at the poor and vulnerable with conviction that really can only come from believing they are right.

But are averages real? Do average expense costs really reflect what it costs a single person on a low income to live in the UK today?

I’m afraid, I certainly don’t think so. And I’m not going with the idea that because a politician or a public figure says so, it must naturally follow that they are automatically right!

The Real Living Rate

Averages are all well and good. But in my experience, they don’t redirect real life.

So I started all over again and this time, applied the figures that I believe to be accurate as a minimum expense so that I could see just where the real world experience of what it costs an everyday ‘normal’ person lies.

Here is how I did my working:

You’ve probably heard the phrase ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’. (Mark Twain or Disraeli?) And whilst there will always be a need for reliable data, the rather obvious truth is that average data can be completely skewed by just one figure that is disproportionately different to all the others.

However, that difference can very easily be big enough to suggest that the average is very different to what it actually is.

Having studied Statistics at A-Level many moons ago, the wide portfolio of statistical methods available to present data is mind boggling.

But within that spectrum of options also comes the option to use methods which serve the interests of biases of the researcher or whoever is paying for the research, by manipulating the data so that it looks very different to what it really is.

From this standpoint alone, real world experience is likely to be a much better guide. One that demonstrates for factors such as transport costs for a single person, commuting across a city using buses shows the costs of travel are likely to be significantly different to the many others who live in rural areas or even market towns where it cannot be assumed as practical to use a bus as there is limited public transport and normal life requires the use of a car.

Just as important is the reality that costs like broadband and phones aren’t just as simple as a connection and a basic handset.

Today’s culture revolves around smart technology. The reality is that for anyone of working age, limited access to tech means limited access to work – as it does increasingly in every other sense. The argument that nobody needs the latest iPhone simply doesn’t fly – especially when very few people buy them outright and pay an overinflated purchase cost over a period of perhaps 24-36 months.

More troubling is that in relation to current living standards or rather what is culturally deemed acceptable or even expected, these figures may still be some way lower than what it would take for a single person to support themselves fully, without the need to go into debt or call upon the charity or support of a third party or the benefits system.

And if these figures don’t make you gasp, they probably should.

One of the most challenging phenomena about the current cost of living crisis is the suggestion that people on the average wage – currently just under £28k, cannot afford to buy food.

If you consider that a 40 hour week at £14 per hour, adds up to an annual salary of just over £29k, you will understand that this leaves even the average wage earner over £1000 a year underpaid or £20 a week short.

So, never mind being only £20 a week short. What does it look like if you are expected to be happy that you are being paid the National Minimum Wage at £10.42 per hour for that 40 hour week?

In basic terms, on National Minimum Wage today, set against the figures suggested here, you would be underpaid by £3.58 per hour, £143.20 per week, or by £7,446.40 per year.

Go figure.

This Blog has been borrowed from The Growing UK Food Problem, which will be available to read very soon.

In recent days, a study has been published by the Journal ‘Sustainability’ on MDPI, called Scoping Potential Routes to UK Civil Unrest via the Food System: Results of a Structured Expert Elicitation , which as the name suggests, focuses on the most hard hitting impacts or consequences of food shortages.

The upshot, which has found itself in at least one newspaper, suggests that there could be civil unrest related to food shortages within the next 10-15 years.

Whilst I have found the work helpful in view of the questions that I am hoping to answer through the research I have been doing, it concerns me greatly that what was clearly a well thought out piece of work doesn’t go further than building a warning for the future, based upon the opinions of stakeholders.

To be fair, if anyone were to say ‘there will be a food crisis this time next week’, they might get a moments attention at the time, but are just as likely (if not more so) to face ridicule if the crisis suggested doesn’t materialise on time. With the inherent risk that in this day and age, there will be the risk of getting sued.

But does this mean we are not getting the messages – and warnings, that we really need?

My reason for being here is the concern that I have about the coming food crisis and what it will  mean if none of the people who should be taking proactive steps now, have done so at the point in time that crisis then begins.

I am as sure as I can be that a lot more of us see the direction of travel than we might be led to believe, especially when so many of us fall into the trap of focusing on our own perspective or what the parts of the wider issue are, that have an affect on us.

However, the content and benefit of that thought means nothing, if we haven’t brought it all together, made sense of it and found the common ground to walk on, as one.

There’s a lot of difficult news out there today, but one thing that seems to have passes everything else by are the comments made by the International Monetary Fund about the Bank of England’s forecasts for Inflation over the next few years.

A BBC Business Report today revealed that The IMF ‘warned Bank of England rates would peak at 6% and stay around 5% until 2028’.

‘Accepted’ Interest Rates are currently 5.25% and with a General Election perhaps only months away, it sadly comes as little surprise that the mainstream Political Parties are playing down the issues surrounding inflation and making claims that they have the strategy to get a grip on the problem.

The trouble for anyone struggling to make ends meet – and specifically to keep buying the food that they may still be able to now – is that even if the real rate of Inflation were to fall to around 3% per year, that would mean that the cost of food, goods and everything else would still be rising by at least £3 for every £100 that we spend.

Contrary to the way that Politicians talk about this very serious issue on the news, Prices are not falling and are not going to fall anytime soon, whilst thinking remains the same.

That’s a worry for us all.

Hands up; I love Jaffa Cakes. And I’m betting there’s a very good chance that you love Jaffa Cakes too.

In fact, instead of making me have second thoughts about this McVities Product, the recent BBC ‘Inside the Factory’ Episode from Series 7, that took us through the whole production process only made me feel like I’d grown to enjoy these must eat the whole packet now they are open treats even more.

And yes. Jaffa Cakes are very much a treat and to be fair, they do fall well outside of the Basic and Essential foods that The Growing UK Food Problem and this Blog are all about. However, they can illustrate one of the big issues about pre-packaged foods and related products that we buy from supermarkets and what food inflation – and dare I say it, manipulation looks like, without many of us even noticing that there are some very questionable practices within the food/retail industry at work.

Whilst I’ve mentioned Tesco in Cheltenham a couple of times already, I’m not anti-Tesco. I shop there at least once a week and I have made a conscious and considered decision to do so, based on accessibility to all the items that I will need in the smallest number of shops necessary, and at a price that is (hopefully) the best it can then be.

Yes, I like Tesco – because it makes sense for me to shop there. But in terms of the retailers’ ethics, morality – and most importantly to me, their pricing policy, it certainly doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that they do!

Right. Let’s get back to Jaffa Cakes.

Earlier this week, I bought a small (single) pack of Jaffa Cakes from the Tesco Express, which is located right next to the new John Lewis flagship store on Cheltenham High Street.

This morning, I picked up another small (single) pack of Jaffa Cakes from a Coop Partnership store on Cheltenham’s Hewlett Road – which is about a 5-minute walk between the two.

Although these are both ‘convenience’ stores, rather than ‘proper’ supermarkets, and its generally accepted that these types of stores have a premium attached, the reality is that Tesco and the stores that come under their umbrella such as One Stop, tend to be at least a little cheaper than the smaller retailers and independents – because of the economics of scale – if nothing more.

From this point of view alone, there’s not really a lot of juice that can be squeezed out of an argument about pack price – even when there isn’t a Clubcard Offer or the equivalent, on.

However, what does raise a red flag, and perhaps not in the way that you might think, is the question of how many ‘Cakes’ come from these different stores, when you go in and buy a ‘single’ pack?

What I learned this week, is there isn’t just one size of ‘single’ box of Jaffa Cakes. There are in fact at least two!

From the Tesco Store, I purchased a ‘Single’ box that contained ten (10) Jaffa Cakes, whereas my trip earlier today yielded me a ‘Single’ Box that contained twelve (12) Jaffa Cakes – albeit with every other aspect about the product contained within the boxes being exactly the same.

Put in this context, the price we pay for what we believe to be the same thing with the BIG retailer suddenly doesn’t feel quite as keen in comparison to buying from the smaller company, and it has certainly made me wonder just how many other items on supermarkets should be falling into the category of ‘buyer beware’ – because even when we believe we are paying the same, there is actually less in terms of content, and so we are actually paying a lot more?

In the Book ‘Levelling Level’ I discussed the food issues relating to what we need vs what we want, and how the future is primed to require that we return to a very simple relationship with the food that we eat – because much of what we ‘live on’ today, may soon become unavailable, unaffordable or in all likelihood both.

The foods that we eat are making us ill. In some cases, they are actually killing us. And the only real reason that we have been and continue to fall over ourselves to eat foods that are fashionable and apparently taste good, is someone somewhere makes a lot of money when we buy into a narrative that’s based on nothing that is easy to see.

Regrettably, it’s no longer as simple as parents and self-sufficient adults choosing between healthy eating and eating ultra processed foods or living on takeaways.

Food that’s good for us is expensive to buy. Healthy food can be expensive to prepare. And life is conditioned to make us believe that fast everything is good for us and is the very best way to live – no matter the damage it does in ways that many would find hard to believe.

The stories and marketing campaigns that make the system work this way are convincing. Because they always contain a small element of truth. No matter how irrelevant to the key subject it might be.

Bad food certainly tastes good. But how do you feel after you’ve eaten it?

Ultra processed food certainly appears to be the quicker and easier option and it seems to always be available here and now. But have you ever considered the real cost – that’s the cost beyond what we pay for food that has no identifiable resemblance to whatever it contains?

Basic, or rather essential foods, are the vegetables, meats, fish, dairy products and breads that require no processing or very simple and straightforward processing to prepare for eating that we might call traditional and would be carried out by hand or simple mechanical processes such as milling through a water powered or wind powered windmill.

Basic or Essential Foods are those that we can prepare ourselves or can access them with only one or perhaps only two steps of handling or preparation between our front door and the farm gate, orchard or quayside from where the raw ingredients were harvested or unloaded from the catch.

Good, healthy and nutritious basic foods that come from the  UK or around our shoreline only seem to be expensive now, because the whole food production system has been engineered in such a way that UPFs and foods that come via very large supply chains are considered to now be normal. However, they are only normal because they are the most cost effective ie profitable way for the big companies retailers and commercial interests that make ridiculous profits from a system that otherwise defies all logic.

If you are ready to eat healthy and embrace sourcing and preparing food that is nutritious – and delicious in its unadulterated forms, you could be helping to increase U.K. food security by making this very positive switch.

The more we buy local vegetables, dairy products, breads, pies, cakes, fish, hams, bacon, sausages, other meats and foods like these that local farmers, growers and fishers offer us, the better the offering will become and the better the prices will be for us all.

Demand will help producers to switch their business models and the operational processes within them to working in ways that are not only sustainable, but with every step will help make the U.K. food supply more and more secure.

If you have access to a farm shop, farmers market or fresh fish delivery round that connects with one of the UKs amazing fishing ports, please use them – even if only as a special treat. Tell everyone you can where they are and what they do.

You’ll be helping our producers to change their businesses in a very positive way.

But above all, you’ll be helping U.K. farmers, producers and growers to help you!