3 ms·
I don't think the point is that they could buy houses and live a middle class lifestyle. If you compare the two absolute circumstances: 1. Not having enough ca
by cpwright 12y ago
I don't think the point is that they could buy houses and live a middle class lifestyle. If you compare the two absolute circumstances:
1. Not having enough calories, and literally being pained by hunger, and the associated near-term consequences thereof.
2. Having too many calories in not the right proportions, which have longer-term consequences.
I would expect that people in both circumstances #1 and #2 would prefer for #2 to happen to them. Just because things aren't perfect, doesn't mean they aren't better than they were.
If you look at things as absolutes (as opposed to comparing "poor" people to the middle or upper class), then you can fairly assert that the kind of poverty that was more common in the US in the past and is still common in the developing world is, for the most part, solved.
- mhd 12y agoAgain, that's solving starvation, not poverty. Those might often go together, but aren't really identical. You could have all the money in the world, if there's a omnipresent famine that wouldn't help you a lot. If the goalpost for poverty is not starving, than that's a friggin' terrible definition. If that's the end of one's aspirations, just making sure that other people don't croak from hunger, then this paints a sadder picture of humanity than my initial interpretation of the original quote. I'm not denying that things haven't improved for people in the US, but in what kind of morality system would we consider this the end of the line?
- theworst 12y agoI don't see it as a goalpost for poverty, more of a milestone -- it's the first symptom of poverty that IMO humanity wants to relieve