Defining Poverty: Absolute vs Relative - Which is the Better Measure?

[russ_watters]

I kinda walked away from this thread, but...

"Less" and "few" are not absolute terms.

"few" is not - "Less" is. Ie, if I had 1000 calories of food to eat today and I had 2000 yesterday, had "less" to eat today than yesterday. That is just one clear-cut example of how a component of the definition of poverty (hunger is part of poverty) must be referenced on an absolute scale. Sure there is difficulty in knowing where to set the bar (2000 calories? 2500?), but if you have "less" today than you did yesterday, you are "more" poor. Its simple math.

Other components of poverty, like housing, are somewhat qualatative, but you can rank housing quality numerically if need-be. Ie, living on the street would be a 0 on a scale of 1-10. Living in a tin shack would be a 1, living in a leaky slum-apartment would be a 2, etc. If you used to live in a tin shack and now live in a leaky slum-apartment, your situation has obviously improved and the difference can be seen and measured in simple mathematical terms.

I am trying to understand the 'defend' poverty part.

Sorry - not enough characters available in the title to say "and defend your definition". On this topic, more than most, we get a lot of assertions and no defense of those assertions.

For absolutes, how about having nothing - no food, no water, may not clothes except perhaps some shorts, no home, no money, no tools, nada. Then go up from there. Clearly such a person is destitute. How about the refugees from New Orleans or the tsunamis. Well, maybe they had the clothes they were in and perhaps whatever they could carry.

Preciselly. Using the examples I provided above or yours, zero-points are easy to define and the absolute scale they anchor is obvious. Again, the only difficulty is where in that absolute scale to set the bar.

IMO, relative poverty is important as is one's income in relation to cost of living. What does it cost for the basic necessities - e.g. food of minimal caloric and vitamin/mineral content, clean water, a shelter, minimal clothing, and then go from there.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if you are talking about spare cash to get ahead, I agree that that is important - it's just that it isn't a part of what defines if someone is or is not in poverty. Relative scales are fine for measuring relative progress or potential (which is what, I think, communists/socialists are really upset about - some people progress faster than others).

More people owning something can be somewhat misleading if a portion (not necessarily well-defined) are actually in debt. Most people do not own their home outright - the mortgage holder does. 'Ownership' has increased with relatively easy access to debt. This brings us to net worth, in addition to income.

I'd say that's also a different issue, nonetheless, I agree that it is an important one.

Schrodinger's Dog, the topic of how banks do/should work is an interesting debate, but not relevant here, so I'm not going to address it.

Actually all of those are extremely relative as well. To be Cold is not an absolute state of being, it is merely to be colder than one wishes. We are all cold and all hot to a degree. Furthermore there is no one who is perfectly 'healthy' or perfectly 'sick' (you have to be alive to be sick), it's all relative to something.

You are misapplying the word "relative" here (similar to how people often misaply the word in "Einstein's Relativity" - I have heard he didn't really like that name for that reason...). All measurements are relative to some baseline, so it can be said that all measurements are relative. The issue here is whether that baseline should be an absolute standard or one based on the differential between what you are doing and what others are doing. Ie, if it is 72 degrees in here and you feel cold, that will not affect whether or not I feel cold. And if the temperature goes up, both of us will be less cold relative to the way we were before -- on that absolute scale of degrees F, again, with your feelings not affecting mine. Just as with Einstein's relativity, all measurements are absolute in their own reference frame - they are just relative to measurements in other frames.

Oi! Why are you bringing me into this? I can't remember ever, or at least not recently, discussing poverty with you, or anyone for that matter.

I think we have, but regardless, you aren't the only anarchist I've met. A few years back I spent an absurd amount of time in Yahoo chat rooms, talking politics.

 

[russ_watters]

So as to avoid the usual debate between conservatives and liberals regarding large gaps in wealth concentrations between the highest and lowest of the socioeconomic strata, I want to focus on the gap between the top 5% of wealth @ 12.1 percent of the population and the top 1% of wealth @ 32.7 percent of the population per distribution of wealth in the U.S. in 2001.

Interesting topic, but not relevant to the definition of poverty. With the exception of this:

Returning to the topic of poverty, if this is the definition of rich, than net worth may be a good definition for poor as well. ?

You are suggesting an absolute scale but I'd disagree that net-worth is a useful measure of poverty or wealth in general. One reason is that net-worth is heavily age-biased, another is that net-worth and standard of living are not necessarily linked, and another is the spread is much wider than actual lifestile would suggest. Using me as an example, my net worth right now is about $30,000, which sounds awfully small next to $2.4 million, yet my income level puts me in the middle of the 4th fifth according to the Census Bureau (SA, $157,000 is what you need for the top 5%: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01ar.html - I guess I need to put that link in my sig ) I'm about to buy a house, which will actually decrease my standard of living (due to the decrease in disposable income) and leave my net worth largely unchanged in the short term. But even assuming no growth whatsoever in my earnings, appreciation of the house, etc., - and therefore no change in my standard of living - I will still have 10x the net worth in 30 years that I do now. The reason? Simple: paying off the mortgage means I will eventually own the house outright. But in all of that 30 years, while my net worth increases, my standard of living would not. In that example, standard of living doesn't vary with net worth at all. In reality, standard of living does track with net worth, but that is mostly due to the fact that people do not stagnate as they age. Get a single raise above inflation and you end up with more money to burn.

Along a similar veign, I have a friend who can just barely stay ahead of her bills (she choose an apartment to live in alone, so she's quite happy even if it means not going out to dinner as much) and her net worth is what she owns of her Honda Civic (ehh... there's probably a couple years of teacher's pension there too, so maybe hers is similar to mine). Anyway, the point is that a person can live a quite comfortable middle-class lifestyle with virtually no net worth to speak of.

So I really think income and expenses - and therefore standard of living - is a better indicator than net worth. Also noteable, though net worth is hyperbolic in how it affects standard of living, so too is income: if you have an income of $20,000 and it doubles to $40,000, you will see more real change in your standard of living than someone who had $100,000 and it doubles to $200,000. Poverty scales need to reflect that.

Conservatives (especially those who identify with the top 1%) will argue that “during those two decades, the size of the overall "wealth pie" grew.” But they won’t acknowledge that the “ownership of that wealth is now more concentrated [at the top] than at any time since the 1920s.”

Those numbers (on both sides) are hard data. No serious person disagrees with hard data. What people disagree with is what those numbers mean and that's what this discussion is about. Ie:

1. Yes, it is a fact that both the wealth distribution and the income distribution curves have widened for Americans, with the biggest gains going to the top.

2. It is also a fact that the actual standard of living has increased across the board for Americans because that pie is getting bigger faster than the distribution curve is widening.

So the question is: which is more important to you? Me personally, I'm not interested in the number of dollars I have in my bank account, I'm interested in whether or not I can own a nice house, a nice car, and a nice telescope. A poor person is interested in if he/she can feed/clothe his family. Both of these are standard of living issues, not wealth distribution issues, and that's the point of this thread: it seems to me that people on the left purposely attempt to cloud the fact that standard of living is improving by focusing on the income gap in order to wrongfully convince people to believe that the standard of living is not improving. It's dishonest.

 

[russ_watters]

Poverty is relative to society.

If a family cannot afford the basics, including computers and internet they are at an economic disadvantage in a capitalist society.
Not having ones self maintenance needs met would be an absolute definition of poverty, however I would argue that not being able to afford access to the media and internet, transportation, and health insurance as being impoverished.

Your initial statement doesn't fit the rest of that - the standard of living isssues you mentioned are all still absolute issues, easily expressed mathematically: Having a car vs not having a car: 1>1. Having a car is means you are less poor (more wealthy) than if you don't.

2.8 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day. That's relative poverty.

No! That's absolute poverty. You didn't reference a relative scale so the only scale applicable is the absolute mathematical one: $2 is greater than $1 and $5 is greater than $2.

If you said, 'living on less than $2 while others live on $8 - a difference of 4:1' that would be referencing the poverty level to the income differential, making it a relative scale.

 

[Cyrus]

Now, why could using a relative scale for poverty be useful? In all honesty, I don't know. It does not tell you anything useful about the human condition or change in the human condition of the people it is used to describe. Ie: The income gap in the US is going up, but more people today own houses and cars and stocks than 20 years ago. So what does that tell us? A person who didn't used to be able to own a car but now can is poorer than he used to be? That doesn't even make sense, much less actually make a useful statement.

Im jumping in a bit late here, and I will admit right now that I did not read all of the posts. But as for this question, one needs to define relative poverty on a global scale. Poverty is entirely relative in my opinion. After all, poverty is based on a social definition, and thus will vary. Poverty in America, would amount to being middle-class in bangladesh, where povery over there means earing under $2 bucks per year, a homeless beggar in the US could easily get $2 begging on a street in one day.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Im jumping in a bit late here, and I will admit right now that I did not read all of the posts. But as for this question, one needs to define relative poverty on a global scale. Poverty is entirely relative in my opinion. After all, poverty is based on a social definition, and thus will vary. Poverty in America, would amount to being middle-class in bangladesh, where povery over there means earing under $2 bucks per year, a homeless beggar in the US could easily get $2 begging on a street in one day.

Are you saying then that those people in bangladesh who are considered middle class but poverty stricken here should go on being considered middle class? We should go ahead and consider poverty relative and so those people who are considered relatively well off where they come from even though they don't have much access to health care, clean water, and what not shouldn't be worried about since they are considered middle class there.

---edit---
And how is that considering the issue on a global scale anyway?

 

[russ_watters]

But as for this question, one needs to define relative poverty on a global scale.

The rest of your post implies that poverty should be measured on an individual or national scale...

Poverty is entirely relative in my opinion. After all, poverty is based on a social definition, and thus will vary. Poverty in America, would amount to being middle-class in bangladesh, where povery over there means earing under $2 bucks per year, a homeless beggar in the US could easily get $2 begging on a street in one day.

But that is where the relativity ends: once you figure out what standard of living - or what income gives what standard of living in what country - then the scale becomes fixed for that country and the mobility of one person up the scale does not alter the scale for everyone else. Let me repeat that last part: the mobility of one person up the scale does not alter the scale for everyone else. That is what is meant by an absolute scale of poverty. (edit: except in terms of inflation, but that is taken into account in all such scales anyway - including the data presented in above posts)

 

[Cyrus]

then the scale becomes fixed for that country and the mobility of one person up the scale does not alter the scale for everyone else.

Well, not fixed. The scale can change. For example, if bangladesh becomes rich due to some rare new natural element, bangladeshium, that is only found there, and their country has an average citizen income of 90k us, their scale of poor would change. There could be NO poverty, thus there would be NO scale. So, it does change.
Now for your second point. You are not arguing about fix or relative scale. You are talking about there being a finite amount of wealth, where wealth can only change from one hand to another, thus saying that new wealth cannot be created. I disagree with that philosophy. I think that there can be the creation of new wealth. This is evident from new industries that arise and create new jobs and new markets. So what you are really asking is a different question than you probably realize.

Are you saying then that those people in bangladesh who are considered middle class but poverty stricken here should go on being considered middle class? We should go ahead and consider poverty relative and so those people who are considered relatively well off where they come from even though they don't have much access to health care, clean water, and what not shouldn't be worried about since they are considered middle class there.
---edit---
And how is that considering the issue on a global scale anyway?

....what? I never said any of that actually, you did. I said what bangladesh would consider middle class to them is not what we would consider middle class to us, pay attention you ape!

 

[russ_watters]

Well, not fixed. The scale can change. For example, if bangladesh becomes rich due to some rare new natural element, bangladeshium, that is only found their, and their country has an average citizen income of 90k us, their scale of poor would change.

That doesn't make any sense. 0 is still a number on the old scale and saying that poverty is 0 still has to be referencing that scale.

There could be NO poverty, thus there would be NO scale.

0 is a number...

Now for your second point. You are not arguing about fix or relative scale. You are talking about there being a finite amount of wealth, where wealth can only change from one hand to another, thus saying that new wealth cannot be created. I disagree with that philosophy. I think that there can be the creation of new wealth.

Close, but you have the sides backwards: in order for the income distribution to widen and for poverty to simultaneously decrease, the total amount of wealth available has to increase. Indeed - the wealth available must increase, otherwise population increase would dilute the wealth-pool and increase poverty. No, it is those who are arguing for relative poverty that are arguing that the quantity of wealth available is fixed. That is one of the primary arguments for it - and you are correct that it is factually wrong. The quantity of wealth available can and is measured and it is increasing (which is not to say it is infinite, just that we haven't reached a ceiling yet).

 

[SOS2008]

Wealth is an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, and encompasses money, real estate and personal property. In many countries wealth is also measured by reference to access to essential services such as health care, or the possession of crops and livestock. An individual who is wealthy or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group.

In other words net worth.

An entire lack of any kind of wealth may constitute poverty, although the opposite of poverty may be sufficiency (in terms of food, shelter, education and healthcare) rather than the abundance implied by wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth#Global_wealth

Poverty is the state of being without the necessities of daily living, often associated with need, hardship and lack of resources across a wide range of circumstances. For some, poverty is a subjective and comparative term; for others, it is moral and evaluative; and for others, scientifically established. The principal uses of the term include:

· Descriptions of material need, including deprivation of essential goods and services, multiple deprivation, and patterns of deprivation over time.
· Economic circumstances, describing a lack of wealth (usually understood as capital, money, material goods, or resources, especially natural resources). The meaning of "sufficient" varies widely across the different political and economic parts of the world. In the European Union, poverty is also described in terms of "economic distance", or inequality.
· Social relationships, including social exclusion, dependency, and the ability to live what is understood in a society as a "normal" life: for instance, to be capable of raising a healthy family, and especially educating children and participating in society.
A person living in the condition of poverty is said to be poor or impoverished.
· In economics, conventional discourse focuses on two kinds of poverty: absolute and relative. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context. A reduction in absolute poverty is compatible with an increase in relative poverty. Poverty is measured either by indices of consumption or of income. Some countries, like the US measure poverty by identifying a minimum dietary or basket of goods; the US poverty line is based on a multiplier of dietary costs. The main conventional measure used in the OECD and the European Union, however, is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% or 60% of the median household income. In the latter case, the number of people counted as poor could increase while their income rise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

Debates about poverty

In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For example the Henderson Poverty Line frequently used in Australia is a relative measure. Such income based measures also frequently take no account of wealth.

Poverty is a highly political issue. In many Western countries, many people with conservative or right wing views often see poverty as related to poor personal choices or preferences, a lack of family planning, a corrosion of the traditional nuclear family, and/or too much interference from government. Contrastingly, people with more liberal or left wing views might often see poverty more in terms of social justice (rather, social injustice) and lack of opportunity in education along with less-favorable economic opportunity. It is a highly complex issue in which various factors often play a part. There is some cross-over on both sides however and these views are slightly generalized here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Debates_about_poverty

So everyone is right and no one is wrong.

 

[Cyrus]

That doesn't make any sense. 0 is still a number on the old scale and saying that poverty is 0 still has to be referencing that scale.

Sure it does. If povery is elimintated, there is no such thing as poverty! What are you saying poor is, to have nothing? No one has nothing. Thus, the word itself is meaningless. There is no old scale. The scale is something that is in constant flux. Thats the whole point here. Ok, look. Here is a GOOD example. A bushman in africa, would be by your definition, poor. He owns no land, he has no money. But to him, he is rich. He has some pigs, a few wives, and children. He is happy, he does not have any desire for your defintion of wealth. YOU would call him poor, HE would call himself RICH.

So everyone is right and no one is wrong.

No, were all right, your wrong. YOU APE!

Close, but you have the sides backwards: in order for the income distribution to widen and for poverty to simultaneously decrease, the total amount of wealth available has to increase. Indeed - the wealth available must increase, otherwise population increase would dilute the wealth-pool and increase poverty. No, it is those who are arguing for relative poverty that are arguing that the quantity of wealth available is fixed. That is one of the primary arguments for it - and you are correct that it is factually wrong. The quantity of wealth available can and is measured and it is increasing (which is not to say it is infinite, just that we haven't reached a ceiling yet).

Well, I believe in relative poverty, but I don't believe in fixed wealth. Thats my position. I don't know about the general position on relative poverty, or what they believe in, because I have my own personal version, which is better.

Look poverty is a word. Its not the precise mathematical definition you want it to be. You are dealing with the social sciences here, not engineering. You can't treat the word as an absoute.

 

[Art]

In other words net worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth#Global_wealth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Debates_about_poverty
So everyone is right and no one is wrong.

They're interesting sources SOS and confirms the statement which led to this thread that there are 2 ways of measuring poverty, relative and absolute, which will both give different results.

I don't think it is possible to say that either method is 100% right but it is equally futile to insist only one is relevent.

 

[russ_watters]

So everyone is right and no one is wrong.

I would argue that just because a government decides to produce some statistics, that doesn't automatically make those statistics relevant. Governments screw with numbers all the time to make them imply things that aren't true. So just because some countries choose to make poverty statistics relative, that doesn't automatically make them right.

People who use a relative definition of poverty are misusing the word "poverty". The dictionary definition of "poverty" can only be take as an absolute definition.

In addition, when you step away from the words and the definitions and start talking about general concepts, you find (as we did in this thread) that people who advocate using the relative definition hold/express self-contradictory views on the subject. And the reason is the same as the above: when you get down to it, what is important is the human condition and if the definition of "poverty" being used doesn't reflect the human condition, it isn't useful. You end up with people [grudgingly] acknowledging that the human condition is improving while simultaneously claiming that poverty is rising.

Also, much of those quotes was about this wealth vs income issue - that really is a secondary issue because both can still be tied to an absolute or relative scale. I argued that income is more useful, but that is separate from the argument about the scale being absolute.

 

[jimmie]

I would argue that just because a government decides to produce some statistics, that doesn't automatically make those statistics relevant.

I agree with that statement.

Maybe a little off topic, but the next question was: what makes statistics relevant, so as to be represented by invented words such as "poverty"?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure it does. If povery is elimintated, there is no such thing as poverty!

Warp drive doesn't exist either, but it is still a concept with a definition that can be read and understood.

What are you saying poor is, to have nothing? No one has nothing. Thus, the word itself is meaningless.

Huh? No - being poor means having almost nothing. That's what this whole "setting the bar" thing I've been mentioning is about. Ie, someone who eats 1000 calories a day doesn't have nothing, but is still hungry. Someone who lives on less than $1 a day (according to one bar) doesn't have nothing, but is poor.

There is no old scale. The scale is something that is in constant flux. Thats the whole point here. Ok, look. Here is a GOOD example. A bushman in africa, would be by your definition, poor. He owns no land, he has no money. But to him, he is rich. He has some pigs, a few wives, and children. He is happy, he does not have any desire for your defintion of wealth. YOU would call him poor, HE would call himself RICH.

I thought we already agreed that different countries can have different standards? That doesn't mean that that bushman can't still have a line under-which he'd consider himself poor. Bushmen are one drought away from starvation and I rather suspect that if his condition dropped to where he was starving, he'd consider himself poor and wouldn't be happy.

That is different from having a scale that is constantly changing.

Well, I believe in relative poverty, but I don't believe in fixed wealth. Thats my position. I don't know about the general position on relative poverty, or what they believe in, because I have my own personal version, which is better.

Yeah, I don't think we disagree on the core issues here, it's just that you have your own way of describing it that is differen than what I am saying. Same concepts, different names.

 

[russ_watters]

They're interesting sources SOS and confirms the statement which led to this thread that there are 2 ways of measuring poverty, relative and absolute, which will both give different results.

It is an obvious fact that people measure poverty in two different ways. That isn't the issue here. What this discussion is about is whether or not both are correct as applications of the word "poverty".

I don't think it is possible to say that either method is 100% right but it is equally futile to insist only one is relevent.

I disagree. Can you support your opinion with an argument? You've tried several times to apply a relative scale to the absolute concept of human condition, but so far you haven't succeeded.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with that statement.

Maybe a little off topic, but the next question was: what makes statistics relevant, so as to be represented by invented words such as "poverty"?

Ehh, good queston. You're starting earlier than I did, with what really is a foundation issue - how words can describe statistics or vice versa.

The word "poverty" predates modern statistical analysis, so to me it is clear that if one chooses to use the word, they should make the statistics match the definition of the word as opposed to changing the definition of the word to match the statistics. You can't just grab any random statistics and attach the label "poverty". Otherwise, what stops me from attaching the word "poverty" to the ratio of gray hairs on a person's head? Below 20% gray and you are "rich" and above that you are "poor"? Meaningless, right? So too with misapplying the word "poverty" to what is actually just "income distribution".

The point is, the verbal definition of poverty is clear - and when pressed, pretty much everyone will agree on it. So it should be equally clear that any statistical analysis should be an honest attempt to measure the concept described in that definition.

 

[jimmie]

Meaningless, right?

In regards to attaching labels to numbers, I believe so.

Your response talks about the word being relevant to the numbers/statistics.

What I am talking about is, prior to any invented word being applied to the "statistics", let's justify the "statistics" themselves, so as to determine that we are dealing with only data that is relevant and not deprecated.

Perhaps, the methodology of collecting "statistics" from any particular source without regards to its place within the whole planetary population is/was redundant. Highlights are/were an illusion.

Perhaps, what is needed is to intend to collect "statistics" from each individual human being on the planet.

Until all "statistic" compilers intend to collect "statistics" from each and every particular individual human being on the planet, all "statistics" are not relevant.

 

[russ_watters]

What I am talking about is, prior to any invented word being applied to the "statistics", let's justify the "statistics" themselves, so as to determine that we are dealing with only data that is relevant and not deprecated.

Perhaps, the methodology of collecting "statistics" from any particular source without regards to its place within the whole planetary population is/was redundant. Highlights are/were an illusion.

Perhaps, what is needed is to intend to collect "statistics" from each individual human being on the planet.

Until all "statistic" compilers intend to collect "statistics" from each and every particular individual human being on the planet, all "statistics" are not relevant.

I'm not sure what you mean - are you questioning the accuracy or the relevance of statistics in general? I don't think anyone would claim statistics are perfect. There are always margins for error and limitations. Discussions like this must presuppose that the numbers themselves are accurate.

 

[jimmie]

I am saying that statistics are redundant by default.

The numbers themselves may be accurate, but they relate to only a particular portion of the planet.

How can the particular thing measured be truly known if we do not know its position within the big picture, because we do not know the big picture?

Furthermore, why was that statistic compiled in the first place? To determine how much "poverty" there was?

 

[Art]

It is an obvious fact that people measure poverty in two different ways. That isn't the issue here. What this discussion is about is whether or not both are correct as applications of the word "poverty". I disagree. Can you support your opinion with an argument?

I already have (see post #15) but you chose not to reply.

You've tried several times to apply a relative scale to the absolute concept of human condition, but so far you haven't succeeded.

That is simply your opinion. Perhaps the problem is you didn't understand my response??

Whilst we are stating opinions as fact let me say; You lost this argument long ago around the point where you started playing on the nuances of the words 'absolute' and 'relative' to try and pull any convincing arguments into your camp.

 

[SOS2008]

I already have (see post #15) but you chose not to reply.
That is simply your opinion. Perhaps the problem is you didn't understand my response??

Whilst we are stating opinions as fact let me say; You lost this argument long ago around the point where you started playing on the nuances of the words 'absolute' and 'relative' to try and pull any convincing arguments into your camp.

The reason I brought up the concept of wealth was to point out how many people misperceive themselves as either being a part of that class in society, or believe they will be a part of that class in society at some point in life. That is the capitalist premise, whether realistic or not.

I brought up this point because as a result of this disillusionment, there are those who refuse to acknowledge poverty as a real problem in the world. They will even contest definitions, statistics, etc., that don’t fit into their black and white world view, so facts or logic can’t even overcome these people’s disillusionment.

 

[alexandra]

People who use a relative definition of poverty are misusing the word "poverty". The dictionary definition of "poverty" can only be take as an absolute definition.

This just doesn't make sense: unless everyone had exactly equal amounts of 'stuff', neither wealth nor poverty would exist. There can only be 'poverty' if there is 'wealth' - both terms are necessarily relative. Here are some dictionary definitions of poverty and, as far as I can tell, they seem to be 'relative':

POOR
1 a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=poverty

Note the words 'usual or socially acceptable' - surely those indicate 'relative' metrics?

“Poverty” from Econterms

Definition: Poverty is, as commonly defined by U.S. researchers: the state of living in a family with income below the federally defined poverty line.
http://economics.about.com/od/economicsglossary/g/poverty.htm

Note the words 'federally defined poverty line' - again a 'relative' metric.

How can one define 'poverty' if not in juxtaposition to its opposite, 'wealth'? How can one define 'good' if not as the opposite of 'bad'?

In addition, when you step away from the words and the definitions and start talking about general concepts, you find (as we did in this thread) that people who advocate using the relative definition hold/express self-contradictory views on the subject. And the reason is the same as the above: when you get down to it, what is important is the human condition and if the definition of "poverty" being used doesn't reflect the human condition, it isn't useful. You end up with people [grudgingly] acknowledging that the human condition is improving while simultaneously claiming that poverty is rising.

Some people (like me) argue that the human condition is not improving for most people on the planet (and is actually getting worse), that more people are living in 'relative poverty' (relative to how they lived before the 'economic restructuring' wrought by this phase of global capitalism), and that a relatively tiny minority of people are becoming very (obscenely) wealthy.

 

[Amp1]

Let me take a crack at it.

To be in poverty, is the state wherein a group or individual does not have the quantity of possesions (food,wealth,land,shelter) minimally required for contentment relative to their inhaabited region. I think this definition takes into account people who may be greedy, needy, stoic or satisfied.

 

[russ_watters]

I already have (see post #15) but you chose not to reply.

I guess in my absence, I missed that one...

I don't know definitively...

Indeed - that's my point. You'd like it to work that way, but you don't know how it is possible. Perhaps if you made an effort to develop your idea, you'd find that it isn't feasible...?

And why do expectations change? Because people judge their condition relative to their peers.

That's one reason expectations change - people want to "keep up with the Jones's" - but keep your eye on the ball here: how does that fit with the definition of "poverty"? Simple answer: it doesn't. If your neighbors buy a new car and that makes you jealous, have you actually become more poor? Of course not! (but than you for supporting my opinion that liberals base their beliefs about this on envy)

What does change the scale is things like advances in technology. Refrigeration and air conditioning didn't exist 50 years ago, so they couldn't be factored into the equation. Now that they do, you adjust the scale to compensate, but be careful: you aren't adjusting the scale because your neighbor has air conditioning, you are adjusting the scale simply because air conditioning exists. So the scale changes, but it is still based on absolute condition.

I chose lifespan randomly as an example rather than the definitive measure of poverty but as for a longer lifespan=good I think most people would consider this to be true.

Lifespan is a good example, and it is a component of poverty, it just doesn't say what you wanted it to. But again, if you are having trouble making the examples fit your underlying opinion, that should tell you something about your underlying opinion.

I don't follow your logic here?? Yes poverty should be referenced to the human condition as you say but the argument seems to be whether it is more relevant to reference against the human condition of one's predecessors or ones's peers. I do not see any supporting argument for your contention that this human condition has to be an absolute scale??

Yeah, I think you may be missing the point - a relative scale and a time-varying scale are not the same thing (*added bonus below). Ie., on a single day last year, the owners of Google became muti-billionaires. That had a small but measurable effect on the wealth distribution of the US. If you measure poverty based on relative wealth distribution, then you have instantly created probably (guess) 1,000 new poor people. Yesterday these people were not poor, nothing changed about their condition since yesterday, and nothing changed about what is typically achievable since yesterday - and yet now they are poor. So how does that fit the definition of the word "poverty?"

*Added bonus - even with the sliding scale, liberals still must acknowledge that it is a fact that the human condition is improving. Changing the definition doesn't change the facts and just labeling someone "poor" doesn't doesn't necessarily mean they are in need (if the relativity argument were correct).

It seems I was wrong but I thought the point of this thread was to first define what poverty is and then formulate how it should be measured and tracked so perhaps that is what we should do; take this one step at a time and first establish precisely what we mean by poverty and then address the issue of how best to measure it.

I gave the dictionary definition of the word in the very beginning of my explanation in post #2. Typically it is not useful to argue against definitions (and people seemed to like that definition anyway), but if you want to do that, there isn't anything stopping you...

My personal definition would probably be something based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs with the cut off being level 2 acquired.

Well, that's not a definition of the word "poverty", but a definition of a scale for measuring poverty. Regardless, that sounds good to me - so how does my being at level 4 affect anyone's ability to get above level 2? How can you apply that scale in a relative way? Ie, if I jump from self-esteem to self-actualization, will that automatically make someone unsafe? Sounds pretty absurd to measure your safety against my happiness, doesn't it?

So anyway, it doesn't look to me like you made a lot of progress with your explanation in post 15 - you came right out and admitted it has serious flaws.

That is simply your opinion.

Even setting aside that others pointed out the same flaws, - you came right out and admitted more than once that your examples don't work.

...let me say; You lost this argument long ago around the point where you started playing on the nuances of the words 'absolute' and 'relative' to try and pull any convincing arguments into your camp.

Try visiting the Relativity or math sections of the forum every now and then. We get the exact same misunderstanding of the word "relative" there as you are using here.

 

[russ_watters]

The reason I brought up the concept of wealth was to point out how many people misperceive themselves as either being a part of that class in society, or believe they will be a part of that class in society at some point in life. That is the capitalist premise, whether realistic or not.

I think that's a pretty neat thing and a good indicator of the beauty of capitalism. 200 years ago, you could look down at your floor and know precisely which class you were in (if it is dirt, you are poor). Today, it isn't so much that the lines have blurred, but that they have become irrelevant.

I brought up this point because as a result of this disillusionment, there are those who refuse to acknowledge poverty as a real problem in the world. They will even contest definitions, statistics, etc., that don’t fit into their black and white world view, so facts or logic can’t even overcome these people’s disillusionment.

Certainly there are those who both under and overstate the poverty issue. And that's why it is important to pin down those definitions and make them meaningful. We've had a number of discussions on this board where it has seemed as if people were using the word "poverty" in such a way that it was saying something intentionally deceptive about the state of the human condition. Certainly the public must be confused when a politician says "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer" - I can't remember who said it, but I heard it during the DNC. When Joe Public hears that, turns to his dictionary and looks up the definition of "poverty", he concludes - erroneously - that the physical human condition is deteriorating. And that is simply not true.

 

[russ_watters]

This just doesn't make sense: unless everyone had exactly equal amounts of 'stuff', neither wealth nor poverty would exist.

"unless everyone had equal amounts of stuff, neither wealth nor poverty would exist" Um - you sure you didn't mean 'if everyone had equal amounts of stuff, neither wealth nor poverty would exist"? The way you are saying it now fits the situation we are in now: today not everyone has exactly equal amounts of stuff, therefore poverty and wealth do not exist.

There can only be 'poverty' if there is 'wealth' - both terms are necessarily relative.

I need to restate the math again: every measurement is relative to the scale at which it is measured. The question is whether the scale itself is absolute or relative.

In any case, let's say that everyone had equal amounts of stuff (the Marxist dream) but that every single person was naked, lived under a tree, and was on the verge of starvation. What word would you use to describe them?

Here are some dictionary definitions of poverty and, as far as I can tell, they seem to be 'relative':

Hmm, now that first one is interesting - it is somewhat different than the one I found on dictionary.com. "Socially acceptable" implies variation from one society to the next and from one time to the next. But here's the question: how do you determine what is socially acceptable? If you determine what is socially acceptable by looking over the fence into the Jones's yard, then, yes, you have a relative scale. But wait - you're a Marxist - aren't you supposed to be the one rejecting greed, not embracing it?

I'll tell you what - I'll concede that a greed-based-poverty definition is viable if you concede that greed is the basis of the desire to form a Marxist utopia.

I just don't think that's what is meant by "socially acceptable". I think "socially acceptable" is still referring to human condition issues: it is socially unacceptable to have people living without a roof, without enough food to eat, etc. Tell me what is really important to you: is ensuring that everyone has enough food to eat important or is ensuring that everyone has the same amount of food to eat - even if it isn't enough - what is important?

If what is important is the distribution, then doesn't that mean you would consider a country like Ethiopia to be wealthy? The income distribution is far flatter than the US's - so we're poor and they're rich, right?

Note the words 'federally defined poverty line' - again a 'relative' metric.

There is nothing descriptive at all about that term - it is just telling you who defined it. To know if it is relative or not, you need to know the actual definition they use. So let me tell you: the government defines poverty according to set standards of human condition.

How can one define 'poverty' if not in juxtaposition to its opposite, 'wealth'? How can one define 'good' if not as the opposite of 'bad'?

If tomorrow everyone stopped breaking the law, would you feel the need to redefine the scales of "good" and "bad" or would you just say that there are less bad people than there used to be?

Tell me - how is the word "poverty" used or useful if you define it so that there is a constand fraction of poor people or a fraction dependent on what the top of the scale is? What has it told us of value for making decisions about the future?

Some people (like me) argue that the human condition is not improving for most people on the planet (and is actually getting worse), that more people are living in 'relative poverty' (relative to how they lived before the 'economic restructuring' wrought by this phase of global capitalism), and that a relatively tiny minority of people are becoming very (obscenely) wealthy.

And there's the contradiction again. Yes that's what I have alluded to previously: you do care about how many people are starving to death and you do care about how many children are getting their vaccinations, etc. But that statement of yours strongly implies that the data will show, in absolute terms that more people died of starvation last year than the previous year and that fewer children got their vaccinations last year than the previous year.

You are using your relative definition of poverty to make factually inaccurate claims about the absolute condition of the humans on this planet.

That contradiction is my reason for starting this thread.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Hi everyone!

My name is Rui. It's been a long time since my last post here.
As for this post, i must say i haven't read it with detail (it's late :zzz: ) but i just wanted to add my view and re-affirm some things already said and posted.


The following definitions were established by the World Bank:

Extreme (or absolute) poverty: Living in extreme poverty (less than $1 a day) mean not being able to afford the most basic necessitites to ensure survival. 8 million people a year die from absolute poverty.

Moderate poverty: Moderate poverty, defined as earning about $1 to $2 a day, enables households to just barely meet their basic needs, but they still must forgo many of the things-education, health care-that many of us take for granted. The smallest misfortune (health issue, job loss, etc.) threatens survival.

Relative poverty: Lastly, relative poverty means that a household has an income below the national average.


I understand these were already mentionated but i think it's important to re-post them.

The establishment of these definitions arises from the need to have criteria so that is possible to diminish the wealth gap within a country and between countries. This is the ultimate goal when such criteria are made, to provide a more equal and just world.

Definitions allow to establish priorities and a framework of action.

Rui.