3 ms·
Like many commenters I have the same question about what "poverty" really means. I asked an economist doing social policy, and the response was basically that t
by zwieback 12y ago
Like many commenters I have the same question about what "poverty" really means. I asked an economist doing social policy, and the response was basically that the definition of poverty is not an economic question but a political one. Which would explain why we are talking about this issue so much without any real progress.
Without a doubt, today's definition of poverty would be very different from the one used in the 1950s but the fundamental question is whether we should have an absolute metric or a relative one.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoI think the fundamental question is whether or not people in poverty can afford to buy food to eat. Not 'nice food' but 'food', period. The answer is usually - and increasingly - a very simple 'no.' Here are stats from one food bank org: http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats Or how about being too poor to heat your home? At least 15% of households are in fuel poverty: http://www.opportunitystudies.org/repository/File/fuel%20poverty.pdf http://www.opportunitystudies.org/repository/File/fuel%20pov... Aside from the humanitarian questions, which should be self-evident, the reality is that poverty is a criminal waste of potential. At least some of those worrying about food and heat have - had - the potential to be inventors and entrepreneurs. That's not going to be possible while the culture they live in keeps them poor.