3 ms·

The "number of people living in poverty" is based almost entirely on how you define poverty. America defines it as "three times the cost of a minimum diet in 19

by fwip 4y ago

The "number of people living in poverty" is based almost entirely on how you define poverty. America defines it as "three times the cost of a minimum diet in 1963" (adjusted for inflation). No accounting for housing, medical expenses, education, transportation, etc. So you're right, we have fewer people starving to death, because food is relatively more affordable (and SNAP). However, we have more people who can't afford housing, medical emergencies, having children, or an education. The way that poverty has presented and affects people has changed, but our guidelines are still based on the idea that you aren't poor unless you literally can't afford to eat.

chii 4y ago
But what is poverty if it's not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure (relative to someone who is _not_ in poverty)? The line of poverty, under the relative measure model, would just keep growing. I don't agree with that - poverty should be measured absolutely; ala, the minimum calories you can intake and maintain health, the minimum heating/clothing required to not freeze to death or succumb to the elements, sanitation, and basic healthcare (things like cuts/bruises/bacterial infections dont kill you). As soon as you start to include things that didn't exist at the time of setting this absolute baseline but would in the future if the technology develops, you start moving the poverty goalpost. For example, the internet didn't exist in the 1960's, but i've heard that access to it is included in poverty meaasures today.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Their point wasn't about absolute versus relative. You need food and shelter and the number needs to reflect both. But I think it's fair to say that the baseline should grow, more slowly than the median. The internet has replaced other forms of communication and is needed to get almost all jobs, so yes it's a necessity now.

by fwip 4y ago

chii 4y ago

But what is poverty if it's not an absolute measure, but rather a relative measure (relative to someone who is _not_ in poverty)? The line of poverty, under the relative measure model, would just keep growing. I don't agree with that - poverty should be measured absolutely; ala, the minimum calories you can intake and maintain health, the minimum heating/clothing required to not freeze to death or succumb to the elements, sanitation, and basic healthcare (things like cuts/bruises/bacterial infections dont kill you). As soon as you start to include things that didn't exist at the time of setting this absolute baseline but would in the future if the technology develops, you start moving the poverty goalpost. For example, the internet didn't exist in the 1960's, but i've heard that access to it is included in poverty meaasures today.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Their point wasn't about absolute versus relative. You need food and shelter and the number needs to reflect both. But I think it's fair to say that the baseline should grow, more slowly than the median. The internet has replaced other forms of communication and is needed to get almost all jobs, so yes it's a necessity now.