3 ms·

"Poverty" (the word) is relative and has a cultural meaning. But it's not clear that we should care about those components of the word/concept. If the poorest

by slibhb 5y ago

"Poverty" (the word) is relative and has a cultural meaning. But it's not clear that we should care about those components of the word/concept. If the poorest person in the world has a car, a home, food, and water, are they poor just because other people have much more? Even if they are, does it really matter? We find poverty viscerally disturbing because it comes with privation. If we get to a point where that is no longer the case, poverty may still exist but perhaps it shouldn't bother us as much.

goodpoint 5y ago
> poverty may still exist but perhaps it shouldn't bother us as much No, constant psychological distress e.g. anxiety about the future is extremely relevant. For example having "home, food and water" without universal healthcare or without personal safety.
coldtea 5y ago
>If the poorest person in the world has a car, a home, food, and water, are they poor just because other people have much more? Yes. And we could ask the same for things the poorest medieval peasant had, that a caveman didn't. Would you say the medieval peasant wasn't poor? >Even if they are, does it really matter? Yes. We're social animals. Here's another way to look at it. Would it be ok if the poorest black person in the world had a car, a home, food, and water, but the poorest white people had much more? If not, why? It would be better than today, no? Because it's racism? But if the same situation is good if we omit the racial qualifiers (which makes it your example, which you claim we should consider ok), why does it turn bad when the subsets are selected racially? I'd argue it was already bad even in your original example (when the rich vs poor dichotomy didn't have the race qualifiers). It's just than in one case it's bad as class+race, and the other it's bad just because of class.
- refurb 5y ago
  No it doesn’t matter. As a society we can determine what poverty is. Yes it can change over time, but there is a set standard of living that “isnt poverty”. Now if everyone in society has that standard of living it doesn’t make a different whether someone has 100x more, everyone has a set standard of living that is above poverty.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Peasants and cro-magnons both faced privation so I would call them poor without reservation. My argument is that the concept of poverty would need to be revised if we succeed at ending privation.
majormajor 5y ago
> If the poorest person in the world has a car, a home, food, and water, are they poor just because other people have much more? Even if they are, does it really matter? We find poverty viscerally disturbing because it comes with privation. If we get to a point where that is no longer the case, poverty may still exist but perhaps it shouldn't bother us as much. It might matter. I think the relative levels would be less important that the perceived ability to change one's level, and perceptions of if the different levels are earned. If everyone has basic needs met to a higher level than today, but hopelessness persists, and you still have violence and crime as a result... that's an outcome I'd want to change. But maybe that's less a result of what the baseline is, and more a result of being stuck, regardless of the baseline.

by slibhb 5y ago

goodpoint 5y ago

> poverty may still exist but perhaps it shouldn't bother us as much No, constant psychological distress e.g. anxiety about the future is extremely relevant. For example having "home, food and water" without universal healthcare or without personal safety.

coldtea 5y ago

>If the poorest person in the world has a car, a home, food, and water, are they poor just because other people have much more? Yes. And we could ask the same for things the poorest medieval peasant had, that a caveman didn't. Would you say the medieval peasant wasn't poor? >Even if they are, does it really matter? Yes. We're social animals. Here's another way to look at it. Would it be ok if the poorest black person in the world had a car, a home, food, and water, but the poorest white people had much more? If not, why? It would be better than today, no? Because it's racism? But if the same situation is good if we omit the racial qualifiers (which makes it your example, which you claim we should consider ok), why does it turn bad when the subsets are selected racially? I'd argue it was already bad even in your original example (when the rich vs poor dichotomy didn't have the race qualifiers). It's just than in one case it's bad as class+race, and the other it's bad just because of class.

refurb 5y ago
No it doesn’t matter. As a society we can determine what poverty is. Yes it can change over time, but there is a set standard of living that “isnt poverty”. Now if everyone in society has that standard of living it doesn’t make a different whether someone has 100x more, everyone has a set standard of living that is above poverty.
slibhb 5y ago
Peasants and cro-magnons both faced privation so I would call them poor without reservation. My argument is that the concept of poverty would need to be revised if we succeed at ending privation.

majormajor 5y ago

> If the poorest person in the world has a car, a home, food, and water, are they poor just because other people have much more? Even if they are, does it really matter? We find poverty viscerally disturbing because it comes with privation. If we get to a point where that is no longer the case, poverty may still exist but perhaps it shouldn't bother us as much. It might matter. I think the relative levels would be less important that the perceived ability to change one's level, and perceptions of if the different levels are earned. If everyone has basic needs met to a higher level than today, but hopelessness persists, and you still have violence and crime as a result... that's an outcome I'd want to change. But maybe that's less a result of what the baseline is, and more a result of being stuck, regardless of the baseline.