I'll probably split some posts from a previous thread, but for now:
It is true that different people define poverty differently, and relative vs absolute is the key difference. I'd like to hear the case for defining poverty in relative terms from anyone who cares to argue it. I will argue for an absolute definition.Art said:Poverty is difficult to define. It can be measured in absolute terms with a baseline of 0 in which case it is probable that in percentage terms there are less people living in poverty today than 50 years ago but if measured in relative terms in respect to differential incomes within a given population I believe most folk would agree poverty has increased hugely over the same time period as the process of capitalism necessarily shifts wealth to the already wealthy.
The point being before arguing whether poverty has increased or decreased it seems necessary to agree what the definition of poverty should be.