3 ms·

Poor is a fuzzy word that could mean many different things. I think what you are describing could be understood as "poverty" while what OP described could be un

Poor is a fuzzy word that could mean many different things. I think what you are describing could be understood as "poverty" while what OP described could be understood as poor. I think OP's point is that wealth isn't requisite for a fulfilling life. If you have a good home life, a community, and enough money for the essentials, you can live a "rich" life.

Quinzel 3y ago
Sure wealth isn’t a requisite for a fulfilling life, but it’s pretty clear that OP wasn’t actually poor. If you have a good home life, a community and enough money for the essentials (and everything you want - according to OP) you’re not poor.
- deaddodo 3y ago
  People seem to be using simple financial metrics to define poor/poverty. They don't seem to understand that someone with 1000usd/mo (in the US) that chooses that lifestyle (usually has a decently supportive family structure to fall back on) is drastically better off than someone earning 1500usd/mo, that has two kids to clothe/feed and has zero opportunities to escape the cycle whereby the beater car that is all they can afford breaking down is a make or break it situation.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    there's also no empathy "what!? I was able to save on 1000usd/mo... with a kid!" assets are either greater than your liabilities, or they're not. the dollar amounts aren't really relevant.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      Being poor does not require being in debt. In fact it seems much more important to stay out of debt when poor.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        It can also mean that, but my point was including the possibility that expenses were higher than earnings
- Gualdrapo 3y ago
  Maybe because poverty is mostly a relative concept/status/whatever? i.e. I'd bet I'm relatively poor compared to many people from there, or even from my own country (Living in an impoverished neighborhood on a suburb from a third world city, don't own a house or a car, haven't ever left my country nor even my state in more than 30 years, I've never been how paid vacations feels like...) but definitely am not poor compared to what I was 10-15 years ago, or compared to several people from my own neighborhood. Surely if OP has all of their basic needs covered isn't poor for most people, but maybe some wealthy person can ponder them like they actually are.
  - joe_the_user 3y ago
    Maybe because poverty is mostly a relative concept/status/whatever? No, actual poverty involves physical survival being uncertain, it involve fear and the pain of hunger and the pain of other things related to an uncertain existence (untreated health problems, physically carrying the limit stuff you possess around, etc).
lazide 3y ago
If you can afford to do all the things you want or need to do, it’s hard to call that being poor.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  If you can barely afford all the things you need, but none of the things you want, then that sounds like the definition of poor to me. Not being able to afford basic needs needs a stronger term like ‘starving’.
  - lazide 3y ago
    The term is poverty. Which poor definitely encompasses! As always, 'need' and 'want' are somewhat up for debate. Is medical care a need, or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is dental care a need, or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is a roof over your head that you own (or have control over anyway) a need or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is physical safety (reasonably free from random assault and physical violence) a need or a want? Depending on your region of the world, its a want. Is a diet with meat and/or flavor a need or a want? Depending on your region of the world, it's a want. Is schooling/formal education a need or a want? (and to what level?) Depending on your region of the world, it's a want. Etc. But nothing in the article described someone who was even close to poor, let alone in poverty from my experience. Just not well off or rich, by American standards. By most of the world's standards (by land area especially!) they were describing upper middle class. Humans can survive on very little, and the basic level of objective 'need' is faaar below what HN might consider humane. So it's hard to draw a concrete or objective line. Feel free to browse [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poor https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poor]
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      If you were living in the Netherlands anywhere in the past 50-60 years, none of the things you’ve described would be ‘wants’, they would all be described as needs. And needs provided for by the state regardless of income at that (housing is a bit iffy at the moment). Given that regardless of how much money you have you’d have access to all of those, how would you define poor? What the OP describes is what my definition of poor was while growing up. There were simply no people around that had less than we had. Of course by comparison with any country in Africa we were all filthy rich, but that’s not really a useful comparison to make. In the context we were living we were poor.

Quinzel 3y ago

Sure wealth isn’t a requisite for a fulfilling life, but it’s pretty clear that OP wasn’t actually poor. If you have a good home life, a community and enough money for the essentials (and everything you want - according to OP) you’re not poor.

deaddodo 3y ago
People seem to be using simple financial metrics to define poor/poverty. They don't seem to understand that someone with 1000usd/mo (in the US) that chooses that lifestyle (usually has a decently supportive family structure to fall back on) is drastically better off than someone earning 1500usd/mo, that has two kids to clothe/feed and has zero opportunities to escape the cycle whereby the beater car that is all they can afford breaking down is a make or break it situation.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  there's also no empathy "what!? I was able to save on 1000usd/mo... with a kid!" assets are either greater than your liabilities, or they're not. the dollar amounts aren't really relevant.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Being poor does not require being in debt. In fact it seems much more important to stay out of debt when poor.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      It can also mean that, but my point was including the possibility that expenses were higher than earnings
Gualdrapo 3y ago
Maybe because poverty is mostly a relative concept/status/whatever? i.e. I'd bet I'm relatively poor compared to many people from there, or even from my own country (Living in an impoverished neighborhood on a suburb from a third world city, don't own a house or a car, haven't ever left my country nor even my state in more than 30 years, I've never been how paid vacations feels like...) but definitely am not poor compared to what I was 10-15 years ago, or compared to several people from my own neighborhood. Surely if OP has all of their basic needs covered isn't poor for most people, but maybe some wealthy person can ponder them like they actually are.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  Maybe because poverty is mostly a relative concept/status/whatever? No, actual poverty involves physical survival being uncertain, it involve fear and the pain of hunger and the pain of other things related to an uncertain existence (untreated health problems, physically carrying the limit stuff you possess around, etc).

lazide 3y ago

If you can afford to do all the things you want or need to do, it’s hard to call that being poor.

Aeolun 3y ago
If you can barely afford all the things you need, but none of the things you want, then that sounds like the definition of poor to me. Not being able to afford basic needs needs a stronger term like ‘starving’.
- lazide 3y ago
  The term is poverty. Which poor definitely encompasses! As always, 'need' and 'want' are somewhat up for debate. Is medical care a need, or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is dental care a need, or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is a roof over your head that you own (or have control over anyway) a need or a want? For most of the world (by numbers), it's a want. Is physical safety (reasonably free from random assault and physical violence) a need or a want? Depending on your region of the world, its a want. Is a diet with meat and/or flavor a need or a want? Depending on your region of the world, it's a want. Is schooling/formal education a need or a want? (and to what level?) Depending on your region of the world, it's a want. Etc. But nothing in the article described someone who was even close to poor, let alone in poverty from my experience. Just not well off or rich, by American standards. By most of the world's standards (by land area especially!) they were describing upper middle class. Humans can survive on very little, and the basic level of objective 'need' is faaar below what HN might consider humane. So it's hard to draw a concrete or objective line. Feel free to browse [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poor https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poor]
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    If you were living in the Netherlands anywhere in the past 50-60 years, none of the things you’ve described would be ‘wants’, they would all be described as needs. And needs provided for by the state regardless of income at that (housing is a bit iffy at the moment). Given that regardless of how much money you have you’d have access to all of those, how would you define poor? What the OP describes is what my definition of poor was while growing up. There were simply no people around that had less than we had. Of course by comparison with any country in Africa we were all filthy rich, but that’s not really a useful comparison to make. In the context we were living we were poor.