> To me - poverty isn't relative but absolute: if you live on less than $X amount a day, you're poor. I agree that the poverty that we should be fighting again

> To me - poverty isn't relative but absolute: if you live on less than $X amount a day, you're poor. I agree that the poverty that we should be fighting against is the absolute one. The complaints about "income inequality", however, are by definition dealing with the relative type of poverty. Indeed, if the topic was "increasing the wealth/well-being/opportunities of the poorest", the discussion would be completely different. Alas, inequality, implying rich people robbing poor ones is so much juicer of an idea. The second part, about "live on less than $X amount a day" I find badly defined. It's not about money, but about having access to basic wealth (food, clothes, shelter, etc). The money (in any currency) that can buy that wealth changes not only by region, but with time as well. Money is far too fast moving of a target, and it doesn't bear an intrinsic value. I'd wager that what a poor man has nowadays is way ahead than what a poor man got 50 years back. As somebody above pointed out, the vast majority of households below poverty level in the US have TV set, DVR, cell phone, air conditioning, etc. I don't think that a poor guy in the middle of the last century would think twice about changing places with a poor guy today.