4 ms·

What is "extreme poverty" and what is the character of the life of someone who lives in "extreme poverty"? One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric:

What is "extreme poverty" and what is the character of the life of someone who lives in "extreme poverty"? One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor. If the most poor of us made 100k/yr, then they would be on the "extreme" end of the income scale. I fear that it's too easy to forget that making 15k/year today makes you dramatically better off than median income earners from 100 years ago.

helen___keller 8y ago
I don't disagree that descriptors like "extreme poverty" are inherently vague, but I think that's kind of the point - that regardless for where the exact line is, we can all agree there's some point where people are unambiguously in the world of "extreme poverty". For people in that world, we can easily pick out the hugest pain points in their struggle - lack of healthcare, lack of housing, and so on. And then, we can structurally change how these resources are distributed by society in a way such nobody will have to live without them. That's really all the progressive agenda is, right? We recognize that having no healthcare at all (and the associated problems with that level of poverty) is immoral, so we want healthcare for all, even if we have to raise the marginal tax rate at the top level to do so (and so on). I don't think there needs to be a formula for what constitutes "extreme poverty" to make poverty less painful for America. Edit: or to put it another way, since most everyone agrees that going full communism is categorically a bad idea, partially socializing resources that can be considered a common good is a good alternative. We already do this with plenty of things, like the military, we're just looking to take it a step further where appropriate.
yanslookup 8y ago
A rising tide lifts all boats... Or at least it should. What do you think the world looks like for the poorest in the world in the next 100 years? 300 years? Possibly/probably better than you or I have it now.
- normal_man 8y ago
  As long as where they live isn't flooded by rising sea levels, or their farms aren't desiccated by drought....
  - squirrelicus 8y ago
    Buy cheap land in Canada or Russia if you think arable land distribution will be affected by climate change :3
zemvpferreira 8y ago
My own definition: While we have people who are incapable of paying for food, shelter, healthcare and basic education, we have people living in extreme poverty. It's good that less of us are extremely poor today than 100 years ago, but the fact that you can watch Netflix in comfort while your teeth rot inside your mouth unattended does not mean change to the system isn't needed.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  Do you add any context to that? For example, lets say I go out and I spend my paycheck on a new gaming computer, the next day technically I can't afford food. Is it societies job to step in? What if I am able bodied but refuse to work? What if I could afford to live with roommates, but I prefer not to? As for healthcare is everyone entitled to cutting edge experimental therapies from the mayo clinic, or would access to their local hospital and free clinic be sufficient to meet your requirement? Depending on those definitions it may be that the vast majority of Americans already have those things or very few do. So clearly defining them is important.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    I think you know the answer. That in your hypothetical example you had a choice it’s clearly not what people in extreme poverty have. That’s what sufficient (not impoverished) money allows - the freedom to choose.
Balgair 8y ago
> Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[2] In 2018, extreme poverty widely refers to making below the international poverty line of $1.90/day (in 2011 prices, equivalent to $2.12 in 2018), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to making $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.[4] As of 25 June 2018, Nigeria became the poverty capital of the world with more than 86 million of its citizens living in extreme poverty despite abundant resources.[5][1][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty P.S.: In case anyone here hasn't read Factfulness and doesn't think that the world really is getting better in very measurable ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...
stcredzero 8y ago
One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor. From the blog post: I am not for the emerging progressive Robin Hood narrative. I am certainly not for the entrenched conservative Let Them Eat Cake narrative. I am for a new narrative that understands that everything must change if we are to find ways to support everyone in our society. As far as I can tell, all societies have some form of redistribution as well as some form of Pareto distribution. This is because the Pareto distribution just appears everywhere in the same way the Normal distribution appears everywhere. However, the social instincts of Homo sapiens operate on a relative basis. Social unrest can well be brought about from relative poverty. Evidence indicates that crime is strongly correlated with relative poverty, not absolute poverty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE Calling Pareto outcomes "immoral" is insanity. It's ideology denying historical and scientific facts. However, denying the social effects of relative poverty is also ideology denying historical and scientific facts. We do need a new narrative, or perhaps an old narrative updated for today. (We need to stop the squeezing of "everyone" pastimes for luxury profits.) Great wealth is only stable in a society where people feel the rising tide lifting all boats. In any case, a narrative that vilifies entire groups of people is the last thing we need in 2019.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  See that's kind of the schtick. There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible) Everyone should be able to take their family to the park, the museum, the movies, or the ballgame. Doing so shouldn't make you choose between feeling lesser/2nd rate or paying some big fraction of your entire paycheck. "Everywoman" and "everyman" should have their own nobility and feel they belong. That's how you know if a society works. The wealthy should rightly fear the unrest of the masses. That's simply how Homo sapiens have worked throughout all cultures and all of history. There should be virtuous works for the public which include the entire community. Basically, either they fill the populist role, or someone else will step in and do it for them. The 1st option is not only the best for them, it's the best for society as a whole.

helen___keller 8y ago

I don't disagree that descriptors like "extreme poverty" are inherently vague, but I think that's kind of the point - that regardless for where the exact line is, we can all agree there's some point where people are unambiguously in the world of "extreme poverty". For people in that world, we can easily pick out the hugest pain points in their struggle - lack of healthcare, lack of housing, and so on. And then, we can structurally change how these resources are distributed by society in a way such nobody will have to live without them. That's really all the progressive agenda is, right? We recognize that having no healthcare at all (and the associated problems with that level of poverty) is immoral, so we want healthcare for all, even if we have to raise the marginal tax rate at the top level to do so (and so on). I don't think there needs to be a formula for what constitutes "extreme poverty" to make poverty less painful for America. Edit: or to put it another way, since most everyone agrees that going full communism is categorically a bad idea, partially socializing resources that can be considered a common good is a good alternative. We already do this with plenty of things, like the military, we're just looking to take it a step further where appropriate.

yanslookup 8y ago

A rising tide lifts all boats... Or at least it should. What do you think the world looks like for the poorest in the world in the next 100 years? 300 years? Possibly/probably better than you or I have it now.

normal_man 8y ago
As long as where they live isn't flooded by rising sea levels, or their farms aren't desiccated by drought....
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  Buy cheap land in Canada or Russia if you think arable land distribution will be affected by climate change :3

zemvpferreira 8y ago

My own definition: While we have people who are incapable of paying for food, shelter, healthcare and basic education, we have people living in extreme poverty. It's good that less of us are extremely poor today than 100 years ago, but the fact that you can watch Netflix in comfort while your teeth rot inside your mouth unattended does not mean change to the system isn't needed.

fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
Do you add any context to that? For example, lets say I go out and I spend my paycheck on a new gaming computer, the next day technically I can't afford food. Is it societies job to step in? What if I am able bodied but refuse to work? What if I could afford to live with roommates, but I prefer not to? As for healthcare is everyone entitled to cutting edge experimental therapies from the mayo clinic, or would access to their local hospital and free clinic be sufficient to meet your requirement? Depending on those definitions it may be that the vast majority of Americans already have those things or very few do. So clearly defining them is important.
- r00fus 8y ago
  I think you know the answer. That in your hypothetical example you had a choice it’s clearly not what people in extreme poverty have. That’s what sufficient (not impoverished) money allows - the freedom to choose.

Balgair 8y ago

> Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."[2] In 2018, extreme poverty widely refers to making below the international poverty line of $1.90/day (in 2011 prices, equivalent to $2.12 in 2018), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to making $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.[4] As of 25 June 2018, Nigeria became the poverty capital of the world with more than 86 million of its citizens living in extreme poverty despite abundant resources.[5][1][6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty P.S.: In case anyone here hasn't read Factfulness and doesn't think that the world really is getting better in very measurable ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...

stcredzero 8y ago

One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor. From the blog post: I am not for the emerging progressive Robin Hood narrative. I am certainly not for the entrenched conservative Let Them Eat Cake narrative. I am for a new narrative that understands that everything must change if we are to find ways to support everyone in our society. As far as I can tell, all societies have some form of redistribution as well as some form of Pareto distribution. This is because the Pareto distribution just appears everywhere in the same way the Normal distribution appears everywhere. However, the social instincts of Homo sapiens operate on a relative basis. Social unrest can well be brought about from relative poverty. Evidence indicates that crime is strongly correlated with relative poverty, not absolute poverty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE Calling Pareto outcomes "immoral" is insanity. It's ideology denying historical and scientific facts. However, denying the social effects of relative poverty is also ideology denying historical and scientific facts. We do need a new narrative, or perhaps an old narrative updated for today. (We need to stop the squeezing of "everyone" pastimes for luxury profits.) Great wealth is only stable in a society where people feel the rising tide lifting all boats. In any case, a narrative that vilifies entire groups of people is the last thing we need in 2019.

squirrelicus 8y ago
See that's kind of the schtick. There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible)
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There's strong incontrovertible evidence that capitalism is the hitherto only discovered thing that causes the tide to actually lift all boats in reality. The contention is how equally it should lift (and if that's even possible and even desirable, if possible) Everyone should be able to take their family to the park, the museum, the movies, or the ballgame. Doing so shouldn't make you choose between feeling lesser/2nd rate or paying some big fraction of your entire paycheck. "Everywoman" and "everyman" should have their own nobility and feel they belong. That's how you know if a society works. The wealthy should rightly fear the unrest of the masses. That's simply how Homo sapiens have worked throughout all cultures and all of history. There should be virtuous works for the public which include the entire community. Basically, either they fill the populist role, or someone else will step in and do it for them. The 1st option is not only the best for them, it's the best for society as a whole.