4 ms·
This is what I came here to say. Poverty is a resource allocation problem that is judged relatively. As living standards increase, the subjective 'poverty' pe
by furyg3 11y ago
This is what I came here to say. Poverty is a resource allocation problem that is judged relatively. As living standards increase, the subjective 'poverty' perception also moves. The inverse is also true: when living standards decrease (say due to a war or disaster) the conception of poverty will also adjust. Additionally, a country cannot be expected to solve it's 'poverty' problem in the entire country is pretty equally in poverty. The resources simply do not exist to be allocated.
So the proper way to judge subjective poverty is by income equality (a ratio of the richest X% to the poorest X%) within a country. If inequality is very high and there is still subjective poverty in the country, that country's government is not taking poverty seriously... do not believe them, they have the resources! Any external help that is not advisory is essentially subsidizing the rich of that country; instead if we want to support those in poverty we should sanction that government until they act appropriately.
If inequality is very low in the country and subjective poverty exists, you can make an excellent case for external aid. Countries in this situation may be victims of war (Afghanistan), failed states, or so small/remote that they may not have the resources to take care of themselves.
This is a difficult mirror to hold up, however, as there are many developed countries that have high inequality scores.
- Dylan16807 11y ago>Poverty is a resource allocation problem that is judged relatively. I wouldn't go that far. It's a combination of relative inequality and of absolute living standards. We look at what it's possible to provide easily, and we look at what people truly need. Some costs are dragged up in proportion to the wealth of others. Some things drop to minimal cost as technology advances. The definition of the poverty line should increase with wealth, but it should increase slower than wealth does.
- jpmoral 11y ago> If inequality is very high and there is still subjective poverty in the country, that country's government is not taking poverty seriously... do not believe them, they have the resources! Any external help that is not advisory is essentially subsidizing the rich of that country; instead if we want to support those in poverty we should sanction that government until they act appropriately. Interesting point. What would you recommend to a relatively well-off citizen of such a country, would donating personal time, money, and labor to alleviate poverty then constitute a subsidy of the rich/political class?
- furyg3 11y agoNote that my argument is based on an international perspective. Within a country a voluntary wealth transfer is a great way to solve poverty IMHO. If one person can solve the whole county's subjective poverty problem, wonderful! The inequality in such a society may still be large, which is a shame, but if the country is democratic and 'functioning' (one criteria of mine is no poverty) then that sounds great. That person is sparing the rest of society from dealing with the issue, so in some way yes it's a subsidy to them. I don't see this happening, though. In my opinion a rich person who cannot solve the problem unilaterally should be lobbying his government and society to solve the problem at that level. Maybe that's more efficient administration, reallocation of budget, or higher taxes, or a new means of distribution. Probably some combination.
- jpmoral 11y agoThe reason I ask is because I am a citizen of just such a country (high income inequality and high incidence of poverty). I'm not wealthy, but I'm better off than the vast majority and feel I can and should help somehow. It's always interesting to hear other perspectives.