9 ms·

Poverty is not a problem. It is the default state. Instead of asking what causes poverty, we need to ask what causes wealth. We also need to realize that bei

Poverty is not a problem. It is the default state. Instead of asking what causes poverty, we need to ask what causes wealth. We also need to realize that being poor is not a good/bad thing. Again, it's the default state.

yorwba 9y ago
Being the default doesn't make it not a problem. In fact, poverty being the default is a problem in itself. I'd prefer it if the default were not having to worry about the future, and I think most poor people would agree.
- anovikov 9y ago
  I think being not poor and not worrying about the future is a bit contradictory for everyone except the very small part of top 1% who are independently wealthy. Probably under 0.1%. Poverty is a stable, default state, everything else requires constant effort and standing the competition.
  - dictum 9y ago
    > standing the competition I'm not sure what you meant by standing, but while competition may be a requirement for generating and amassing greater wealth, it's not a requirement to keep people from poverty.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
The default state is that of a subsistence farmer being regularly preyed on by bandits. Without society, without the apparatus and knowledge bequeathed to us by those who came before us, that would be the fate of everybody, including Bill Gates. We get our wealth by standing on the shoulders of giants. The poor deserve the fruits of the labors of those giants just as much as the rest of us do.
- oreo81 9y ago
  > The poor deserve the fruits of the labors of those giants just as much as the rest of us do. Who's stopping them?
odonnellryan 9y ago
If you mean that we should do away with wealth, then yes I agree we should "figure out what causes wealth" even though I'm sure we already have a small idea, at least! I think a lot of Star Trek fans share this fantasy... but what makes it impossible?
sevensor 9y ago
> being poor is not a good/bad thing This is a silly line of reasoning. As more people grow wealthy, we find more ways to systematically mistreat those who have not. It's not just that the poor started poor and stayed that way, it's that the rest of us find ways to make things even harder for them as our comparative wealth grows. Being poor is most definitely a bad thing.
- randomdata 9y ago
  The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. The parent questions why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    >The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. This is clearly wrong.
    - randomdata 9y ago
      I struggle to see what is inherently bestowed upon a new born child beyond life itself? The child may eventually be given things, but that's not the same thing as what we are talking about. Some examples of how it is clearly wrong would be useful, because there is nothing clear about it to me.
      - tangent128 9y ago
        If the question is "why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely", then the fact that some children are given $millions in liquid assets where others are lucky to be given food and clothing would certainly seen germane.
        randomdata 9y ago
        But that is outside what someone starts with. When a child is born, those millions will be originally held in the same of someone else (perhaps the parents, grandparents, whoever). It may be transferred to the child, but it remains that the child started with nothing. On the question of why some flourish and others do not, I think you're just echoing the point that has persisted through this entire thread.
Moto7451 9y ago
Poverty is definitely a problem. Having to choose between eating and running the heater on a cold night is not a “default state” in the US, nor should it be anywhere else. I’ve personally had enough of those nights and experienced the gaumut of unpleasantries when living on $40 per day in a temperate (albeit more expensive) city, both when growing up and again during the downturn as a freshly minted adult. I can’t imagine how much worse the people in the articles have it at 1/10th the income in a harsher climate.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
There is no 'default' state, poverty or not and being poor is definitely bad. Think like this: if we could make everyone not poor tomorrow, would that be a good thing? Of course (holding all else the same.)
afandian 9y ago
> Infants starving is not a problem. It is the default state. Instead of asking why infants starve when they aren't fed, we need to ask why adults eat. We also need to realize that infants starving is not a good/bad thing. Again, it's the default state.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I am not sure what we should take from your statement. Let's go one step further and declare that being dead is the default state. The time when we live is so short compared to the time we are not born yet or dead that it is insignificant.
- jodrellblank 9y ago
  That's a quirk of English. There's no such thing as "being" dead. "You" are not dead. It's not an active state, it's not something that happens to you, or an experience you have. /Death/ as a transition happens to you, as a momentary thing, then you cease to be. "They died" is OK. "They are dead" implies a continuing presence and continuing experience which isn't precise. Dead is not the default state, because it's not a state of you, because there's no you for it to be a state of.
sp332 9y ago
But you can work hard your whole life and generate tons of wealth but if it all gets taken by other people, then you are still poor. Edit: or dead. Recent example: http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/23/homeless-man-died-days-council-took-sleeping-bag-away-7253293/ http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/23/homeless-man-died-days-council...

yorwba 9y ago

Being the default doesn't make it not a problem. In fact, poverty being the default is a problem in itself. I'd prefer it if the default were not having to worry about the future, and I think most poor people would agree.

anovikov 9y ago
I think being not poor and not worrying about the future is a bit contradictory for everyone except the very small part of top 1% who are independently wealthy. Probably under 0.1%. Poverty is a stable, default state, everything else requires constant effort and standing the competition.
- dictum 9y ago
  > standing the competition I'm not sure what you meant by standing, but while competition may be a requirement for generating and amassing greater wealth, it's not a requirement to keep people from poverty.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

The default state is that of a subsistence farmer being regularly preyed on by bandits. Without society, without the apparatus and knowledge bequeathed to us by those who came before us, that would be the fate of everybody, including Bill Gates. We get our wealth by standing on the shoulders of giants. The poor deserve the fruits of the labors of those giants just as much as the rest of us do.

oreo81 9y ago
> The poor deserve the fruits of the labors of those giants just as much as the rest of us do. Who's stopping them?

odonnellryan 9y ago

If you mean that we should do away with wealth, then yes I agree we should "figure out what causes wealth" even though I'm sure we already have a small idea, at least! I think a lot of Star Trek fans share this fantasy... but what makes it impossible?

sevensor 9y ago

> being poor is not a good/bad thing This is a silly line of reasoning. As more people grow wealthy, we find more ways to systematically mistreat those who have not. It's not just that the poor started poor and stayed that way, it's that the rest of us find ways to make things even harder for them as our comparative wealth grows. Being poor is most definitely a bad thing.

randomdata 9y ago
The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. The parent questions why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  >The fact remains that everyone starts with nothing. This is clearly wrong.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    I struggle to see what is inherently bestowed upon a new born child beyond life itself? The child may eventually be given things, but that's not the same thing as what we are talking about. Some examples of how it is clearly wrong would be useful, because there is nothing clear about it to me.
    - tangent128 9y ago
      If the question is "why some are able to flourish, while others continue with nothing indefinitely", then the fact that some children are given $millions in liquid assets where others are lucky to be given food and clothing would certainly seen germane.
      - randomdata 9y ago
        But that is outside what someone starts with. When a child is born, those millions will be originally held in the same of someone else (perhaps the parents, grandparents, whoever). It may be transferred to the child, but it remains that the child started with nothing. On the question of why some flourish and others do not, I think you're just echoing the point that has persisted through this entire thread.

Moto7451 9y ago

Poverty is definitely a problem. Having to choose between eating and running the heater on a cold night is not a “default state” in the US, nor should it be anywhere else. I’ve personally had enough of those nights and experienced the gaumut of unpleasantries when living on $40 per day in a temperate (albeit more expensive) city, both when growing up and again during the downturn as a freshly minted adult. I can’t imagine how much worse the people in the articles have it at 1/10th the income in a harsher climate.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

There is no 'default' state, poverty or not and being poor is definitely bad. Think like this: if we could make everyone not poor tomorrow, would that be a good thing? Of course (holding all else the same.)

afandian 9y ago

> Infants starving is not a problem. It is the default state. Instead of asking why infants starve when they aren't fed, we need to ask why adults eat. We also need to realize that infants starving is not a good/bad thing. Again, it's the default state.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I am not sure what we should take from your statement. Let's go one step further and declare that being dead is the default state. The time when we live is so short compared to the time we are not born yet or dead that it is insignificant.

jodrellblank 9y ago
That's a quirk of English. There's no such thing as "being" dead. "You" are not dead. It's not an active state, it's not something that happens to you, or an experience you have. /Death/ as a transition happens to you, as a momentary thing, then you cease to be. "They died" is OK. "They are dead" implies a continuing presence and continuing experience which isn't precise. Dead is not the default state, because it's not a state of you, because there's no you for it to be a state of.

sp332 9y ago

But you can work hard your whole life and generate tons of wealth but if it all gets taken by other people, then you are still poor. Edit: or dead. Recent example: http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/23/homeless-man-died-days-council-took-sleeping-bag-away-7253293/ http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/23/homeless-man-died-days-council...