Guest-no it doesn't, but it does mean that those that are classed as "poor" have the (generally) lowest standards of living conditions and often nutrition, lowest standards of expectation and chance of achievement or bettering their situation.Most of the working poor work far harder for much less than many others.

Gemma isn't the worst case scenario I know. There are children who live in squallor, who use the floor as the toilet and put paper down to cover it.They have no bed, just second hand settes/sofas, no doors inside their houses,bags full of old stuff that's hoarded and fills the rooms-just as often seen on TV programmes like "life of grime".No possessions that are "nice". Many of the children at my school, do not have a change of clothes, they sleep in them, go to school in them all week, they don't know how to wash, and they feed on what is available if there is something. Their parents are inadequate and lacking in education and skills.Of course not all the "poor" are like that, and many are very hard working, clean, have good skills and only trapped by their situation, that's why it's called the poverty trap. It is very difficult to climb out of it. There is very little true support, money would not be the only answer, but it would help. The social services are stretched, under funded and understaffed, same as education that is curriculum loaded, target driven and really ignoring the real and desparate needs of the children "we" make such fine words about caring for.

As a country, "we" have this act. this law, this much money spent on education/welfare etc and many fine words are said about what "we" do for the poor/needy/young and elderly (do not forget the poor conditions many elderly people live in)But in reality it comes down to a small workforce trying to cope with an overwhelming tide as the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow.