3 ms·
The problem is that poverty is continually redefined as standard of living and opportunities increase. Poverty used to be living in a shanty town during the du
by abduhl 13y ago
The problem is that poverty is continually redefined as standard of living and opportunities increase.
Poverty used to be living in a shanty town during the dust bowl where you could possibly die of dehydration any day. Poverty now is living in a house where you only get basic cable and don't have the money to buy a nice steak dinner.
- ctdonath 13y agoSome 87% of world population lives below the "poverty line" as defined in the USA. Without everyone sharing a sensible consistent definition of the word, the discussion will come to nothing but blows.
- digikata 13y agoDifferent places in the world should have different poverty lines related to the purchasing power needed to acquire at least the basic living needs: food, shelter, and clothing. (and healthcare) Comparing the numerical figure of the poverty line around to world is nonsensical.
- bd_at_rivenhill 13y agoAbsolutely agree, having a single worldwide standard would put ALL US residents in the 'wealthy' category when compared to places like Haiti.
- ctdonath 13y agoI'll agree there. Haitians, on the whole, are indeed objectively poor: given the limited land to work with, the large & growing population, and the high cost of import/export infrastructure, there just isn't enough resources to support residents. This vs the USA, where there is enough resources, and the best answer to poverty in most cases is MOVE to where there are sufficient opportunity & resources (like the Dakotas, where even mundane jobs pay very well because they can't get enough people to do the work needed to facilitate extracting wealth from natural resources).
- ctdonath 13y agoThe "87%" is PPP corrected. You make my point: it is nonsensical to argue about "poor" when wildly contradictory definitions are being used. A great many legally "poor" in the USA have homes, cars, running hot/cold clean water, HVAC, cable TV, smartphones, etc. and a livable income plus generous free food. For other areas, having a little more than an objectively minimal nutritional intake, survivable shelter, adequate clothing, and mundane healthcare counts one as "not poor" despite still being well below the official US standard. We need an objective definition of "poor" better than "can't get by on $X in the world's most expensive cities".