4 ms·

"Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form" It's not obvious to me why that should be true. What is your logic?

by dqpb 9y ago

Xylakant 9y ago
It sort of depends on the definition of poverty. Poverty is currently often defined as percentage of the median income and that would make it "exist" unless all income would be close to the median. It's possible to conceive a society that distributes wealth in such a manner, but I'd currently regard that as implausible.
- nr23 9y ago
  What you describe is "relative poverty". Statistics indeed says this will always exist. This is about inequality. That's not very relevant here. When talking about homelessness, you're talking about "absolute poverty": the lack of means necessary to meet your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). In this case, by definition, you can't meet at least the need for shelter. There's no reason that homelessness (or even absolute poverty) should always exist.
  - Xylakant 9y ago
    Homelessness is a problem related to poverty, but it's cause is not always poverty alone. Homelessness exists in Berlin, where most of the homeless are covered by basic social security and have a right that the state provides a home. It's still there. It's often related to a mental health problem, though the initial cause and effect are muddied. I'd advocate for treating homelessness as a (public) health issue (with associated funding, ...) Absolute poverty should not exist in germany at all, but relative poverty is still a major issue: no access to a lot of the public life, less access to education, these are still problematic, even if the basic survival is ensured.
  - Swizec 9y ago
    I doubt many homeless people in the US live in absolute poverty as it's officially defined: > In 2008, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.25/day (in 2005 prices), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day."[3] The vast majority of those in extreme poverty – 96% – reside in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, The West Indies, East Asia and the Pacific; nearly half live in India and China alone. Surely most homeless scrounge together at least $1 per day? I bet just begging gets you more than that on average. Sure that $1 won't get you very far in the US, but it brings you out of absolute poverty and into relative poverty.
Banthum 9y ago
There are some people who, if they are free (as in not institutionalized), will waste, misuse, or destroy any amount or kind of help given to them. Mostly such people have mental illnesses. (No, I'm not saying it's their fault or that they deserve to suffer. Just making a positive, not normative statement.)
- andirk 9y ago
  I agree that there is a portion of our society who are mentally ill and expected to achieve a level of success in our society by themselves somehow. We seem to understand that children should not have to fend for themselves because they are not mentally equipped, but many mentally ill people have the mind of a child yet still expected to act above their ability.
  - Banthum 9y ago
    True. It's also notable that the gradient between fully functional people and the mentally ill people you describe is entirely smooth. The clear medical distinction between "mentally ill" and "not mentally ill" is an artificial construction that makes the situation easier to describe by throwing away most of the information. In truth, there is no clear line where one goes from "needs institutionalization" to "self-managing adult". It's all a matter of degree, which makes the whole discussion really difficult. What happens to the people who aren't medically diagnosible as mentally ill, but do have personalities, habits, or traits that make them take decisions that always destroy any opportunities or resources available to them? This group gets ignored a lot, often (I think) because it's uncomfortable to think about how such people exist, because in some moral systems there is no solution that doesn't hurt somehow.

"Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form" It's not obvious to me why that should be true. What is your logic?

by dqpb 9y ago

"Obviously, poverty will always exist in some form" It's not obvious to me why that should be true. What is your logic?

It sort of depends on the definition of poverty. Poverty is currently often defined as percentage of the median income and that would make it "exist" unless all income would be close to the median. It's possible to conceive a society that distributes wealth in such a manner, but I'd currently regard that as implausible.

nr23 9y ago
What you describe is "relative poverty". Statistics indeed says this will always exist. This is about inequality. That's not very relevant here. When talking about homelessness, you're talking about "absolute poverty": the lack of means necessary to meet your basic needs (food, clothing, shelter). In this case, by definition, you can't meet at least the need for shelter. There's no reason that homelessness (or even absolute poverty) should always exist.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  Homelessness is a problem related to poverty, but it's cause is not always poverty alone. Homelessness exists in Berlin, where most of the homeless are covered by basic social security and have a right that the state provides a home. It's still there. It's often related to a mental health problem, though the initial cause and effect are muddied. I'd advocate for treating homelessness as a (public) health issue (with associated funding, ...) Absolute poverty should not exist in germany at all, but relative poverty is still a major issue: no access to a lot of the public life, less access to education, these are still problematic, even if the basic survival is ensured.
- Swizec 9y ago
  I doubt many homeless people in the US live in absolute poverty as it's officially defined: > In 2008, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.25/day (in 2005 prices), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day."[3] The vast majority of those in extreme poverty – 96% – reside in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, The West Indies, East Asia and the Pacific; nearly half live in India and China alone. Surely most homeless scrounge together at least $1 per day? I bet just begging gets you more than that on average. Sure that $1 won't get you very far in the US, but it brings you out of absolute poverty and into relative poverty.

Banthum 9y ago

There are some people who, if they are free (as in not institutionalized), will waste, misuse, or destroy any amount or kind of help given to them. Mostly such people have mental illnesses. (No, I'm not saying it's their fault or that they deserve to suffer. Just making a positive, not normative statement.)

andirk 9y ago
I agree that there is a portion of our society who are mentally ill and expected to achieve a level of success in our society by themselves somehow. We seem to understand that children should not have to fend for themselves because they are not mentally equipped, but many mentally ill people have the mind of a child yet still expected to act above their ability.
- Banthum 9y ago
  True. It's also notable that the gradient between fully functional people and the mentally ill people you describe is entirely smooth. The clear medical distinction between "mentally ill" and "not mentally ill" is an artificial construction that makes the situation easier to describe by throwing away most of the information. In truth, there is no clear line where one goes from "needs institutionalization" to "self-managing adult". It's all a matter of degree, which makes the whole discussion really difficult. What happens to the people who aren't medically diagnosible as mentally ill, but do have personalities, habits, or traits that make them take decisions that always destroy any opportunities or resources available to them? This group gets ignored a lot, often (I think) because it's uncomfortable to think about how such people exist, because in some moral systems there is no solution that doesn't hurt somehow.