11 ms·
The Meaninglessness of Ending Extreme Poverty
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- erikb 11y agoAnd also there are some that live on less money and are quite happy with that. What do we want to do about them? Push some money onto them?
- falcolas 11y agoWhen the poverty line is established as the line whether they can buy a basket of food, making sure everyone can purchase that basket of food is tough to call a "bad thing". We're advanced enough on a global scale that people perishing because they could not bring down a deer to feed them through the winter should not even be a thing. Hell, some countries let imported food rot in the warehouse due to politics, yet there exist people who starve because they can not afford food?
- toomuchtodo 11y agohttp://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-supermarket-food-waste-ban http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/france-superm... "On Thursday, France's parliament unanimously approved a new law prohibiting large supermarkets from throwing out unsold food, instead mandating stores donate any surplus groceries to charities or for animal feed use. The law, which aims to reduce waste in a country where people trash up to 30 kilos of food per person annually, is part of a more general energy and environmental bill." Those who helped campaign for this are working globally next.
- forkandwait 11y agoStupid comments like this are usually made by people who have a lot of money and have never been able to actually test such a hypothesis for themselves. But it makes them feel better about inequality from which they benefit. That's why I downvoted, in case you wonder.
- erikb 11y agoThanks for down voting because you have another opinion (or simply just haven't given it enough thought to understand it yet). But I'm already used to that, so no problem.
- jklinger410 11y agoI think your comment was mostly downvoted due to the fact that it doesn't add to the conversation and lacks basic value as an argument. What were you trying to say? That somehow people who enjoy poverty, however miniscule that population may be, would somehow be adversely affected by having spending power of any kind? As opposed to the damage that is done to all the innumerable people who are impoverished without almost any path out? It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. It doesn't pass even the most basic logic test. Not to mention, it seems to lack any empathy towards others.
- erikb 11y agoI was saying that some people decide to live without money (modern life nomads, they even exist in well known cities like Berlin) and some live in an environment were money is not part of life (thinking of the area around the Amazon river or maybe some steppe villages somewhere in Africa). According to that definition they are considered "poor" but actually they are not considering themselves that way. Now if you go and throw money at them they might not even be able to do anything with that. So, maybe that definition is not a good one. Poverty is not equal to having little money. It is more related to education, having one's basic needs fulfilled and opportunity (to travel, to build a house, etc). Also Money does not come alone. It comes with the corresponding culture. And while at first people are happy about all the new things they can get, in the end they are quite frustrated because their own identity, culture and values are suddenly non existant in their environment. So yeah, increasing one's spending power can indirectly be harmful, even if you don't make anything off it. You are right, that I may have explained that in more detail up front. But I think it's possible to see that in the first comment. It's just that many people start reading a text with a strong opinion in mind before they even start, which leads them to complete wholes in argumentation with assumptions which are very far off. I did at no point say anything about actions that should be taken, like not giving people money who need it. I was simply adding another point of view. > It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. If someone doesn't say that and you consider it a poor argument, why do you assume that was someone's opinion. Is that logical? Is it funny looking back after reading this longer text, how I was actually adding a point of view with empathy for people not considered by this definition of empathy instead of not having some for people who really need more money?
- mikeash 11y agoWho is quite happy with living on so little money that they can't afford enough food to eat?
- erikb 11y agoGood point. If you have enough food, because, for instance, you make your own by farming and hunting, then you don't need more money to fight hunger, right? Also if you compare someone who has everything they need and want to someone who simply has a lot of money, is the first person necessarily less happy? What if we define poverty as "lack of food <add other points here like education>" instead of "lack of money"? What if we define poverty differently but still consider giving people money who need money as a good way to help them?
- minerva_ivanova 11y agoThe World Bank defines the state of extreme poverty as being: Short of food for all or part of the year, often eating only one meal per day. Unable to save money - for if a family member falls ill and money is needed to see a doctor, or if the crop fails and there is nothing to eat. Unable to afford to send your children to school. Living in an unstable house made with mud or thatch that requires regular rebuilding. Having no close source of safe drinking water. If relieving the estimated 1.2 billion people in extreme poverty from living this way is meaningless then I despair.
- dsjoerg 11y agoYour claim of the World's Bank definition of poverty is not what the article states. Can you provide a link?
- mikeash 11y agoThis list is actually how people in poverty define poverty, according to a World Bank research project: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/chapters/chapter-life-you-could-save.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/chapters/chapter-lif... The World Bank's own definition of "extreme poverty" is much simpler: $1.25/day or less, as can be seen all over their site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/measuringpoverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/measuringpoverty
- minerva_ivanova 11y agoIt's important to note that the $1.25 denotes the relative purchasing power of their income and not something that would translate into some higher value in the country of the impoverished person.
- minerva_ivanova 11y agoExtreme poverty = absolute poverty http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty The article seems to be talking about relative poverty with the title suggesting this is the definition of extreme poverty.
- Dylan16807 11y ago>There's no scenario that sees the world ending poverty if the poverty line is set relative to the average incomes of the world’s poorest countries. No scenario? How about one where income inequality lowers in those countries? It's entirely possible to have all incomes be at least a certain percent of mean or median income.
- tomjen3 11y agoThat is badly formulated from the articles POV, but it is entirely possible for everybody to have the exact same income and still be poor: any sufficiently severe pandemic, war or natural disaster would do the trick. I general I think most people who considered it closely would realize that you don't get rich by your neighbor becoming poorer.
- Dylan16807 11y ago>That is badly formulated from the articles POV, but it is entirely possible for everybody to have the exact same income and still be poor: any sufficiently severe pandemic, war or natural disaster would do the trick. I don't think a disaster like that would actually flatten income. >I general I think most people who considered it closely would realize that you don't get rich by your neighbor becoming poorer. It's not about getting rich, it's about getting non-poor. Taxing a third of the money from the rich could greatly improve the lives of the entire bottom 80%. If you assume the economy won't suddenly implode for no reason at all, it becomes largely (not entirely) about relative wealth. If you don't assume that, you're making a strawman. It's possible to have a situation with so much money that despite similar levels of income disparity to today everyone can get food easily and afford a doctor, and the rich become stupendously rich, but that seems least likely of all. We should be tackling the problem of inequality in addition to working to raise total GDP.
- mdpopescu 11y ago>> ... you don't get rich by your neighbor becoming poorer. > It's not about getting rich, it's about getting non-poor. So far so good. Unfortunately, you immediately contradict yourself: > Taxing a third of the money from the rich could greatly improve the lives of the entire bottom 80%. Taxing the rich doesn't do anything for the poor. It's like in that joke with step 2 ??? - you jumped from taxing the rich to "helps the poor". You're assuming that step 2 is: distributing the results of that taxation to the poor people. Hint: that never happens. What actually happens is 1) the rich find loopholes, 2) the rich move away, 3) the taxes are spent on the politicians' friends, 4) other things.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoThe only useful way to look at poverty is to use an absolute scale. If we assume that every human being is born with absolutely zero wealth (or, at least, that this used to be the case in the distant past), then we should go about determining some objective minimum standard that is acceptable.
- ph0rque 11y agoWhat would a robust definition of poverty be? I think you'd have to get away from the concept of money, and define it as a lack of, or a lack of a way to get, any of the following: * shelter * transportation * food * medical care * education
- dcre 11y agoAmartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have worked to popularize something kind of like that, though your list is more oriented toward material things than theirs is. They call it the capabilities approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach Edit: here is Nussbaum's list, pulled from the Wikipedia article: Life Bodily Health Bodily Integrity Senses, Imagination, and Thought Emotions Practical Reason Affiliation [social interaction] Other Species Play Control over one's environment (political and material)
- lmm 11y agoEven that is very relative. What quality of housing? Of food? There are lifesaving medical procedures that even the richest struggle to afford, if the condition is rare enough (IIRC someone on HN posted about paying for genetic testing for him and his wife, $8k each, to figure out what their son's condition was - is that something you're "poor" if you can't afford?). It's even clearer with education - is basic schooling enough? Are you "poor" if you can't afford to do a PhD?
- ph0rque 11y agoAgreed. But perhaps we can come up with a general framework for identifying extreme poverty (that's on par with the $1.25/day threshold currently being used).
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y agoWe should definitely start with the necessities of life. Food and clean water, hygiene (it sounds dumb, but being able to bathe is a luxury in some places), dental care is probably more important than medical just from the standpoint that more need it... Shelter would definitely be on the list. Energy probably. Transportation probably not. How to define the minimums... not entirely sure. Simplistic formula are liable to be downright unpleasant (daily calories) if distorted in situations like the "lowest bidder provides". Anything more than simplistic will soon turn into a designed-by-committee mess. Clean water is the only easy one to define. Measured in gallons or liters, no contamination from toxins, no contamination that makes it unpalatable to a reasonable person. Even energy can take many forms... electricity, cooking fuel, heating. If you live on the equator, no need for heating, but in northern climes it is a matter of survival. And the exchange rates between various forms of energy aren't constant, not even within a single locale.
- alenox 11y agoSo by defining poverty on a relative sliding scale, we'll constantly be working to improve the conditions of the least fortunate of us... Good.
- lmm 11y agoAnd will have no idea how much our efforts are actually achieving (or even whether we're being harmful). Not so good.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- BurningFrog 11y agoAbsolute poverty is about actual living standards. How much food, housing, healthcare etc I have. Subjective poverty is about social status. Where am I in a ranked list of wealth and resources? Absolute poverty can change a lot, and that reflects real change in quality of life. Subjective poverty is a zero sum game. Half the people will always be in the bottom half, because math.
- bcgraham 11y agoI don't think your statements about subjective poverty are true. Subjective poverty is only a zero-sum game within a single social "game." If there are more games, there are more winners. Lots of little ponds means you are more likely to find the few where you can be the big fish. It's true that these ponds can be loosely ordered and some of them are inarguably ranked higher than others (e.g., being a top-tier actor has more social status than being a top-tier chess player). But for the vast majority of people, we just don't care that we're at the bottom of the vast majority of these games. For example, I'm pretty low on the totem pole in my local gym, but I'm pretty high on the totem pole at work (small company, long-ish tenure). Paul Graham is pretty high on the totem pole in Silicon Valley, but he's probably pretty low on the totem pole at a film festival. Except for a few of these "big" games (film industry, politics, the extremely wealthy), most of us get to be pretty good at entirely avoiding situations where we are subjectively poor. For those we can't avoid, we're able "give more weight" to where we're more important, through our own, personal valuations. Hence my "sum" across the games I care about is greater than zero, which is true for most people.
- tsotha 11y agoFor some reason I'll never be able to understand, a large percentage of the population considers relative wealth to be more important than absolute wealth.