2 ms·
I don't think it's possible to make an "objective, static measure" of whether or not someone is poor, since "poor" is relative. My point is simple: the details
by lotharbot 15y ago
I don't think it's possible to make an "objective, static measure" of whether or not someone is poor, since "poor" is relative.
My point is simple: the details of poverty have changed (and will keep changing), and because of this, comparing "how many people were poor" to "how many people are poor" is not really a sensible comparison. 1959 poor and 2009 poor are different, not just in minor details, but in significant ways.
The poor in 2009 are, in many ways and overall, better off than the poor in 1959 or 1970. That doesn't make them "not poor", it just makes them "better off" on average, and therefore not directly numbers-to-numbers comparable.
- dalke 15y agoPersonally I've wondered if the Gross National Happiness wouldn't be a better indicator. See, I was going to argue that an indicator of poverty is the stress of making enough money for basic survival. But then I remembered reading that middle-class and rich people have the same stress; people making $1 million per year worry that they don't make enough.