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

[russ_watters]

I'll probably split some posts from a previous thread, but for now:

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

People define poverty differently, that is true. But poverty itself is not difficult to define. The dictionary states it quite simply: "the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions". The argument could stop right there - that definition is simple, straightforward, and absolutely excludes the concept of "relative poverty". And yet some people argue for a relative definition. Why? The reason is the usual one: politics. It's the same reason people attempt to change the definitions of other words in political context - even the definition of the word "is". Setting the motivations aside, let's examine the word and see if we can explain why the word is defined in absolute terms and why it cannot be defined in relative terms and remain useful.

The word poverty is defined in absolute terms because it is a description of a human condition. Like "sick" or "healthy" or "tired" or "cold" the word describes how you as an individual are. As a result, the word can only be used correctly in the absolute sense. Let me provide some examples of how the word is used to illustrate:

Case 1:
A person has $2 in his wallet today and had $1 yesterday (assume factors such as inflation are nonexistent or constant). He has no knowledge of the condition of anyone else.

This person, if you asked him, would say his condition has improved and therefore he has become less poor.

Case 2:
Person "A" has $2 in his wallet today and had $1 in his wallet yesterday. Person "B" (a close, personal friend of person "A") has $8 in his wallet today and had $2 in his wallet yesterday.

In the absolute sense, has person A's condition improved? Of course. Does the fact that person B's condition improved more in any way imply that person A's condition got worse? Or more fundamentally, does person B's improvement directly harm (ie, decrease) person A's condition? Of course not. The ususal counterargument here is that if person B had improved less, than person A could have improved more. That may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. In fact, saying that person B improved more than person A is still an admission that person A improved!

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.

 

[russ_watters]

There's an irony that I just realized here: defining poverty in relative terms means that you are describing "prosperity" or "success" as a "race to posessions". Isn't that backwards? The capitalists are supposed to be the ones who are in a "race to posessions" while the communists are supposed to be the ones who are trying simply to improve the human condition. To me, this exposes a real flaw in the mindset of communists(/socialists/Marxists/anarchists/etc) and a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of capitalism by those who would oppose it.

 

[X-43D]

Absolute poverty is the severe deprivation of basic human needs including safe drinking water, food, shelter, sanitation facilities, health, education and information.

 

[daveb]

Absolute poverty is the severe deprivation of basic human needs including safe drinking water, food, shelter, sanitation facilities, health, education and information.

This seems the best definition I can fathom. I would be hard-pressed to describe some native tribes as living in "poverty" since they have little to no need for money. Poverty would then be a lack of the means to legally acquire these basic necessities.

 

[BobG]

People define poverty differently, that is true. But poverty itself is not difficult to define. The dictionary states it quite simply: "the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions". The argument could stop right there - that definition is simple, straightforward, and absolutely excludes the concept of "relative poverty". And yet some people argue for a relative definition. Why? The reason is the usual one: politics. It's the same reason people attempt to change the definitions of other words in political context - even the definition of the word "is". Setting the motivations aside, let's examine the word and see if we can explain why the word is defined in absolute terms and why it cannot be defined in relative terms and remain useful.
The word poverty is defined in absolute terms because it is a description of a human condition. Like "sick" or "healthy" or "tired" or "cold" the word describes how you as an individual are. As a result, the word can only be used correctly in the absolute sense. Let me provide some examples of how the word is used to illustrate:
Case 1:
A person has $2 in his wallet today and had $1 yesterday (assume factors such as inflation are nonexistent or constant). He has no knowledge of the condition of anyone else.
This person, if you asked him, would say his condition has improved and therefore he has become less poor.
Case 2:
Person "A" has $2 in his wallet today and had $1 in his wallet yesterday. Person "B" (a close, personal friend of person "A") has $8 in his wallet today and had $2 in his wallet yesterday.
In the absolute sense, has person A's condition improved? Of course. Does the fact that person B's condition improved more in any way imply that person A's condition got worse? Or more fundamentally, does person B's improvement directly harm (ie, decrease) person A's condition? Of course not. The ususal counterargument here is that if person B had improved less, than person A could have improved more. That may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. In fact, saying that person B improved more than person A is still an admission that person A improved!
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.

The absolute poverty level based on how many necessities a person can acquire is most important and there are fewer of those in the US in true poverty than in the past.

Still, your argument is a little simplistic - mainly because you left out inflation. It assumes an unlimited supply of goods. If there is suddenly more money available overall, prices will rise to meet the total amount of money available - at least until the high prices encourage production of more goods. But, since the same amount of money is worth less, the increase in the amount of new goods produced never balances the original price increase.

The only way to reduce the absolute poverty level is to improve the method of making goods, reducing their cost - in other words, people have to be more productive. This often does have a net effect of raising how much money a company distributes to employees, especially if the improved methods require people with more training and experience, but, hopefully, the increased amount of money is balanced by keeping prices for necessities from rising as fast as the total amount of money available.

That's not always the case. In Colorado, cities practically go to war with each other over water. There is no way to produce 'more' water. There's only better ways to move water over the mountains to the front range (with the ultimate goal of ensuring Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California get only the amount they are legally entitled to and not a drop more) and ways to prevent other cities from getting water you want (Colorado Springs is legally entitled to a certain amount of water from Pueblo's reservoir, but Pueblo has managed to block building a pipeline that would actually move that water to Colorado Springs). There's only so much water to go around and anyone looking at the problem realistically realizes cities are really fighting to delay the day that the water crises hits them, not to prevent a crisis from hitting.

Population growth means there is always an increasing number of people vying for a nearly fixed level resource. People in upper class neighborhoods have compacts that require them to have mostly grass lawns that are green and well groomed or they pay a fine. People in those neighborhoods believe there should be no water rationing; that water shortages should be solved by higher prices for water. In other words, raise the price and people with money will have green lawns while folks with lower incomes will water their lawns less, shower less, and wash their clothes less often and the water crises will be resolved. (The actual solution is a mix of tiered prices and rationing and at least reasonably fair).

One resource among other necessities whose relative price is cheaper than in the past doesn't give a whole picture, but neither does just using an absolute dollar amount for poverty, or just using a percentage comparison of income.

Income is meaningless. The only accurate picture of poverty is how many necessities a person can buy.

 

[Art]

Relative poverty is a valid measure for several reasons. For example as society has progressed life expectancy has increased but by how much depends on one's wealth. One could also look at it as a mathematical model by measuring the number of people > minus 2 SD from the norm at different times. Personally I have no idea what these figures would be but I think it would give a more accurate indication of whether poverty is increasing or decreasing.

Also if one uses a purely absolute scale based on a historical baseline then by definition there is no such thing as poverty as there is probably not a human being on the planet who is not better off than our stone age ancestors.

Therefore on a global scale I think it is fair to say that countries who's citizens still only have a life expectancy in the low 30s could accurately be described as poverty stricken even if their income is greater than their predecessors.

Edit - Here's an interesting article showing how poverty is defined in the US and detailing some of the financial and social ramifications of failing to deal with it. http://www.childrensdefense.org/familyincome/childpoverty/definingpoverty.pdf

 

[NewScientist]

I was speaking with the Head of the UK branch of a charity who deals with poverty and he gave poverty in these terms.

In Britain, the brink of disaster is being homeless with no means to uspport your self. Destitution is when you cannot feed yourself in a bed sit. Poverty is when you cannot buy a television and rent a bed sit.

He put it to me poverty in the UK was not the issue, the former 2 were

 

[Moonbear]

Therefore on a global scale I think it is fair to say that countries who's citizens still only have a life expectancy in the low 30s could accurately be described as poverty stricken even if their income is greater than their predecessors.

I'm confused by what you're saying here. Wouldn't a shorter life expectancy mean people had less access to the basic necessities for life, thus this would be referring to absolute poverty rather than relative poverty? You started out saying you were arguing that relative poverty is valid, but it sounds like your supporting statements actually defend absolute poverty rather than relative poverty.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm confused by what you're saying here. Wouldn't a shorter life expectancy mean people had less access to the basic necessities for life, thus this would be referring to absolute poverty rather than relative poverty? You started out saying you were arguing that relative poverty is valid, but it sounds like your supporting statements actually defend absolute poverty rather than relative poverty.

Yes! That is the basic problem with arguing for relative poverty: it is logically flawed and as a result, it can't be done without jumping back and forth between relative and absolute. Art, you still cited the absolute several times in your post.

Can you give a justification for using a relative scale that does not mention human condition at all or shows that one person's improvement in condition causes another person's condition to get worse even as it improves? (yes, that's self-contradictory...)

 

[russ_watters]

I was speaking with the Head of the UK branch of a charity who deals with poverty and he gave poverty in these terms.
In Britain, the brink of disaster is being homeless with no means to uspport your self. Destitution is when you cannot feed yourself in a bed sit. Poverty is when you cannot buy a television and rent a bed sit.
He put it to me poverty in the UK was not the issue, the former 2 were

That's mostly an issue of where to set the bar, not whether it should be an absolute or relative bar. I would tend to agree with you though, that western countries set the bar unreasonably high.

That isn't to say, however, that the bar shouldn't be moved as standards change (Art - so no need to bring cavemen into this). But moving the bar is not the same as making the scale relative.

 

[russ_watters]

The absolute poverty level based on how many necessities a person can acquire is most important and there are fewer of those in the US in true poverty than in the past.

Agreed.

Still, your argument is a little simplistic - mainly because you left out inflation.

Not really - I may not have mentioned inflation, but it isn't really necessary because the statistics are so unequivocal: even with inflation factored in, the progress has been dramatic. In fact, taking inflation into account is mandatory (so it can just be assumed from my post) for determining where where to set the bar since inflation is how you keep the measure of a person's material condition consistent.

It assumes an unlimited supply of goods. If there is suddenly more money available overall, prices will rise to meet the total amount of money available - at least until the high prices encourage production of more goods. But, since the same amount of money is worth less, the increase in the amount of new goods produced never balances the original price increase.

Inflation, right - already covered. Again, the definition is not about money, it is about condition. Measuring money gives an approximation of condition, but of course no poll can give perfect results (no poll of anything can give perfect results). The issue here isn't the particulars of the scale, it's about which scale to use. And you seem to agree - only an absolute scale fits the definition of the word.

Income is meaningless. The only accurate picture of poverty is how many necessities a person can buy.

Not meaningless, just not perfect. There are, of course, exceptions, and inflation isn't uniform (some markets are inflationary, some deflationary) but the fact that the average bottom fifth household earns 9% more today than 20 years ago (inflation adjusted) means that in general, that household has 9% more buying power than it did 20 years ago. Thats what "inflation adjusted" means. And that fact is borne out, probably in the best way it can be illustrated, by the market penetration of household devices. I used to have a great link (I'll look more) that had statistics for market penetration of everything from TV's to microwaves to refrigerators to air conditioning. Needless to say, things that used to be luxuries for the rich have become ubiquitous.

 

[Art]

I'm confused by what you're saying here. Wouldn't a shorter life expectancy mean people had less access to the basic necessities for life,

Precisely, relative to those on a higher income

thus this would be referring to absolute poverty rather than relative poverty?

Not at all. As stated their income might very well be higher than their predecessors but their life expectancy has not increased by the same rate as their wealthier peers and may in fact have even fallen as a result of industrialisation etc...

I am not making any contention as to whether poverty has increased or decreased I am merely pointing out that it is perhaps generally more relevant to adjudge poverty on a 'relative to one's peers' scale than on an historical scale.

 

[russ_watters]

Precisely, relative to those on a higher income Not at all.

How, then, do you gage if they are more or less poor than they were before? It just seems to me like you are setting the bar, but avoiding saying whether it is a relative or absolute bar. How you arrive at that bar at a single point in time is irrelevant for determining if it is an absolute or relative bar. What makes it relative is if it tracks the disparity through time. Ie, if a poor person has a life expectancy of 30 and had a life expectancy of 25, doesn't that mean their physical condition has improved and thus they are less poor? It doesn't matter how you initially set the bar at 30 - in fact, you can even raise the bar as expectations change - but unless it is always tied to the lifespan of other people, then it is not a relative bar.

As stated their income might very well be higher than their predecessors but their life expectancy has not increased by the same rate as their wealthier peers

If that were true (it isn't), then it would be a good argument for why income alone is not a good indicator of poverty level - but it is still irrelevant because you are still directly referencing an increase in a human condition! (increased lifespan=good). Ironically, about the only way to use a sliding scale that doesn't reference a human condition is to use money alone - but since you are aware of the flaws in that (you pointed some out), it seems you agree that the word "poverty" must be referenced to a human condition - you just need to take the next step in logic and accept that "poverty" is only meaningful if referenced to an absolute scale of human condition. That's because human condition itself is an absolute thing.

 

[Art]

How, then, do you gage if they are more or less poor than they were before?

I don't know definitively, I did suggest perhaps a form of mathematical modelling in my earlier post but I'm not saying that is the answer.

It just seems to me like you are setting the bar, but avoiding saying whether it is a relative or absolute bar. How you arrive at that bar at a single point in time is irrelevant for determining if it is an absolute or relative bar. What makes it relative is if it tracks the disparity through time. Ie, if a poor person has a life expectancy of 30 and had a life expectancy of 25, doesn't that mean their physical condition has improved and thus they are less poor? It doesn't matter how you initially set the bar at 30 - in fact, you can even raise the bar as expectations change

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

- but unless it is always tied to the lifespan of other people, then it is not a relative bar. If that were true (it isn't), then it would be a good argument for why income alone is not a good indicator of poverty level - but it is still irrelevant because you are still directly referencing an increase in a human condition! (increased lifespan=good).

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.

Ironically, about the only way to use a sliding scale that doesn't reference a human condition is to use money alone - but since you are aware of the flaws in that (you pointed some out), it seems you agree that the word "poverty" must be referenced to a human condition - you just need to take the next step in logic and accept that "poverty" is only meaningful if referenced to an absolute scale of human condition. That's because human condition itself is an absolute thing.

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??

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.

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

 

[kyleb]

The dictionary states it quite simply: "the state of having little or no money and few or no material possessions".
...
The word poverty is defined in absolute terms because it is a description of a human condition.

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

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.

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 guess the problem in defining poverty is what standard or reference to use, and then determine how many people fall below that reference.

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.

 

[SOS2008]

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

Ditto.

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.

Interesting. Perhaps similar to what lenders look at, such as credit score, debt-income ratio (which takes into account income and assets versus debt and depreciation of assets, etc.). They also look at stability/job security. People who are in and out of employment, or live month-to-month so if they lost their job they would soon lose everything--maybe look at health too?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Interest and inflation were created by Economists and used by governments to control amounts of available wealth(Governemnt sometimes need more money than it's actually worth to balance budgets so inflation increases).

Many Political leaders Especially Americans in the past have treated banks like a necessary evil. Something they need but would rather do without.

Banks know that people are essentially bad with money and if they can have it now they very often will(this is how banks make money) they take interest and fees use that to make more wealth and in turn make credit more accessible. Banks will tell you that this is how they work, they'll tell you that that is what's important to them unless your a customer then they'll tell you your the most important person in the world and offer you a gold credit card

IMO financial institutions have a lot to answer for, banks are buisnesses, yes they need to make money, but when it comes to exploiting human weaknesses or making a whole countries political environment even more unstable, someone has to say what are you up to surely?

I like the Islamic banks, no interest, now there's a damn good reason why they do that

If your offering credit to someone with $50,000 dollars of debt you should be asking the question can they afford to pay not mmm ok have $25,000, can I make enough money to cover them if they can't by selling them into poverty .

 

[SOS2008]

Interest and inflation were created by Economists and used by governments to control amounts of available wealth(Governemnt sometimes need more money than it's actually worth to balance budgets so inflation increases).
Many Political leaders Especially Americans in the past have treated banks like a necessary evil. Something they need but would rather do without.
Banks know that people are essentially bad with money and if they can have it now they very often will(this is how banks make money) they take interest and fees use that to make more wealth and in turn make credit more accessible. Banks will tell you that this is how they work, they'll tell you that that is what's important to them unless your a customer then they'll tell you your the most important person in the world and offer you a gold credit card
IMO financial institutions have a lot to answer for, banks are buisnesses, yes they need to make money, but when it comes to exploiting human weaknesses or making a whole countries political environment even more unstable, someone has to say what are you up to surely?
I like the Islamic banks, no interest, now there's a damn good reason why they do that
If your offering credit to someone with $50,000 dollars of debt you should be asking the question can they afford to pay not mmm ok have $25,000, can I make enough money to cover them if they can't by selling them into poverty .

The matter of banking regulations, most specifically credit cards, is a topic of much debate. There was a very good program on Frontline (PBS) -http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/dodd.html Senator Chris Dodd is in this program as an advocate for consumers, but so are others such as Senator Dianne Feinstein - http://feinstein.senate.gov/news-plastic0522.html You may note these are Democrats.

But what this really gets back to is how things would be in a truly free trade market. You think these credit card companies behave like loan sharks now?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'll have to look at that link later, thanks for the info in advance There used to be extremely tight laws about lending in this country, they were relaxed leaving a situation that I find personally moraly abhorent. The average level of debt in England is now 20,000 pounds About $36,000 dollars. That disgusts me that banks can minipulate people so badly. They need to reintroduce the measures that existed before to stop banks abusing there customers.

Here's an example of abuse I went overdrawn once in the year cheque didn't clear so I had more money going out than coming in. I got fined for this fair enough. I then wanted to extend my overdraft from 50 back to the original but was refused because I had gone overrdrawn once in the year. I had no choice but to go overdrawn I needed some medication and to pay for a course and I don't own a credit card. They refuse after I complained the manager said "computer says noooo". I went over his head they said no. I went over his head tehy said rules is rules bucko tough. I ended up being charged over 450 pounds, when had I of had an overdraft I would have not gone overdrawn at all( that disgusts me and the staff in the bank we're apauled too, but they we're powerless to do anything about it) I removed my account from the bank as soon as possible, losing them perhaps a few hundred thousand pounds worth of in vestment money probably a lot more than they made in fees in the long run. Sometimes Beurueacracy is idiotic to the point of lunacy. I may sound like someone who hates banks, yes I do, but this isn't the only time I've been screwed over by petty small minded suits.

I detest people like this who sit in offices bringing nothing but suffering and debt to others and going home to there huge house and wealth. These people are lower and less humain or human for that matter than the poor people they so often dismiss.

 

[alexandra]

Here's an example of abuse I went overdrawn once in the year cheque didn't clear so I had more money going out than coming in. I got fined for this fair enough. I then wanted to extend my overdraft from 50 back to the original but was refused because I had gone overrdrawn once in the year. I had no choice but to go overdrawn I needed some medication and to pay for a course and I don't own a credit card. They refuse after I complained the manager said "computer says noooo". I went over his head they said no. I went over his head tehy said rules is rules bucko tough. I ended up being charged over 450 pounds, when had I of had an overdraft I would have not gone overdrawn at all( that disgusts me and the staff in the bank we're apauled too, but they we're powerless to do anything about it) I removed my account from the bank as soon as possible, losing them perhaps a few hundred thousand pounds worth of in vestment money probably a lot more than they made in fees in the long run. Sometimes Beurueacracy is idiotic to the point of lunacy. I may sound like someone who hates banks, yes I do, but this isn't the only time I've been screwed over by petty small minded suits.

This sounds like it was quite a nightmare, Schrodinger's Dog. I once overdrew (accidentally) from my account from an ATM. There was no message warning me I was overdrawing, and I just didn't realize it had happened until I got my bank statement at the end of the month. They fined me double what I'd overdrawn! This was ludicrous - I went in and complained. They agreed to detract the fine, but only because I threatened to go to the Ombudsman. Real crooks, aren't they?

I detest people like this who sit in offices bringing nothing but suffering and debt to others and going home to there huge house and wealth. These people are lower and less humain or human for that matter than the poor people they so often dismiss.

One of the reasons I am so passionately opposed to capitalism

 

[X-43D]

The good thing is that all privately owned banks are subordinate to the central bank (the government). This limits the power of private banks.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Agreed, was kinda hoping that people would see that that was unfair and that I'm not nuts. Capatilism is fine but within a moral framework, once people lose sight of that they lose the ability to make rational decisions about money, it becomes a make money at all costs mentallity, and presently this is often the case.
Historically, Banks have forced countries, even America to bend to there will. I have some quotes from Presidents such as Lincoln, jefferson etc,etc.(I'll turf them up from my archives) Really did force there government into debt to make money, to make a war about not the principal but about the idea of making more money. And by doing so sacrifice many more lives than was necessary.

 

[Astronuc]

How about -

I.R.S. Move Said to Hurt the Poor, NY Times, Jan 11, 2006

Tax refunds sought by 1.6 million poor Americans over the last five years were frozen and their returns labeled fraudulent, although the vast majority appear to have done nothing wrong, the Internal Revenue Service's taxpayer advocate told Congress yesterday.

A computer program identified the refund requests as suspect and automatically flagged the taxpayers for extra scrutiny for years to come, the advocate said in her annual report to Congress. These taxpayers were not told that the I.R.S. criminal investigation division suspected fraud.

The advocate, Nina Olson, said the I.R.S. devoted vastly more resources to pursuing questionable refunds sought by the poor - which under the highest estimate is $9 billion - than to the $100 billion in taxes not paid each year by people who work for cash and either fail to file tax returns or understate their income.

As for the suspected fraud in refund requests, Ms. Olson said her staff sampled the suspect returns and found that 66 percent were entitled to the amount sought or more. Another 14 percent were due a partial refund. She expressed doubt that many among the remaining 20 percent had committed fraud.

One measure of poverty could be the inability to pay income tax because one's earnings are too low.

And on top of that, the government which is supposed to provide for the 'General Welfare' is hostile to those with the least.

 

[Smurf]

The word poverty is defined in absolute terms because it is a description of a human condition. Like "sick" or "healthy" or "tired" or "cold" the word describes how you as an individual are.

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.

To me, this exposes a real flaw in the mindset of communists(/socialists/Marxists/anarchists/etc) and a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of capitalism by those who would oppose it.

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.

Oh wait.. Dooga is one of them anarcho-commi's isn't he?

I'll have to get used to not being the only anarchist around these parts.

 

[Smurf]

the Ombudsman.

The who?

 

[SOS2008]

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.

Why? Because:

1) I agree with conservatives that traditional comparison tends to unfairly lambaste the smart, innovative, hard-working and educated--in the top 5% of wealth, while neglecting to note that many of the unsuccessful poor are often so because they are lazy and uneducated and are often given a free pass undeservedly.

2) The top 5% of wealth is at least realistically achievable, however those in this percentile are NOT the ruling elite, and falsely identify with the ruling elite.

3) The top 1% of wealth is NOT realistically achievable. So all you folks out there in the top 5% need to get a reality check when it comes to discussions about the ruling elite. As well as being concerned about any increase in disparity, and the importance of maintaining a middle class and limiting the lower class, because it will and does impact your well-being too.

The threshold for inclusion in the top 1% was about $2.4 million in net worth in 1992 (in 1992!), net worth being the definition of “rich” in a number of studies. research.stlouisfed.org/ publications/review/97/07/9707jw.pdf

As stated above, feel free to calculate the odds that you will have a net worth of $2.4 million, let alone what ever it is now in 2006. Because when you make it to that, you might actually have some say in what happens in this world, and to you as an individual in this world.

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. ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

SOS2008, I have three technical problems with thiis post:

1. I can't make head or tails out of the percentages in this

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

2. The link you gave didn't work for me.

3. You never gave the income required to be in the top 5%.

But I thoroughly agree with the thrust of your argument, and I would add that I've seen stories that something like 25% of Americans believe they're in the top 10%.

 

[SOS2008]

SOS2008, I have three technical problems with thiis post:

1. I can't make head or tails out of the percentages in this
2. The link you gave didn't work for me.
3. You never gave the income required to be in the top 5%.

But I thoroughly agree with the thrust of your argument, and I would add that I've seen stories that something like 25% of Americans believe they're in the top 10%.

Here is a good link for the percentages of wealth, and what percentage of the population each are:

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Ooops, sorry, the link provided was supposed to be to a scholarly PDF doc that is not directly accessible. Here is another site:

http://www.osjspm.org/101_wealth.htm#4

In 1998, the last year for which figures are available, it took over $250,000 to be in the top 10% of wealth holders [and $475,600 to be in the top 5% of wealth holders]. It took over $3,000,000 to reach the top 1%.

One can see the exponential jump from one to the next, and of course the $3,000,000 is just the threshold for the top 1%, meaning a small few at the bottom rung. And of course figures for 2006 are not yet available, but one could extrapolate from the charts (e.g., “Changes in Wealth Ownership” chart) if they care to. It is interesting to see that the top 1% has nearly doubled while the next 4% to middle 20% groups have all gotten smaller.

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.”

They are just shooting themselves in the foot with their delusional identification with the top 1%.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

I grew up in Appalachia, I know what it is like to be teased because of the clothes I had to wear to school. Was I starving? No. But I was poor. I know first hand how much harder it is to succeed when you have an artificial barrier, like poverty or some other form of discrimination to overcome.

Ironically the kids that did the teasing were not much better off than me.

 

[X-43D]

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

 

[SOS2008]

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

Here is a site with more facts on poverty:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

 

[loseyourname]

I grew up in Appalachia, I know what it is like to be teased because of the clothes I had to wear to school. Was I starving? No. But I was poor. I know first hand how much harder it is to succeed when you have an artificial barrier, like poverty or some other form of discrimination to overcome.

A lot of it is purely psychological, and just depends on how much people really care. I didn't grow up rurally, but I did grow up poor, and it honestly didn't matter to me. I was still able to go to school (it is, after all, free), I had access to the public library (also free), and all the legos I could want, which were cheap and all I really played with. My clothes were older and cheaper, and I never had the cool toys and gadgets other kids had, but I never wanted them either. We always had enough food, and my dad got great health benefits; those were probably the only two things I would have really missed if we didn't have them.

I could tell it took much more of a toll on my parents, though. Living paycheck to paycheck did stress them out a lot. Even that always seemed psychological to me, though. My dad brought home the same amount of money every month, and he was never in any threat of losing his job. They might have squeaked by, but they always paid every bill on time every month. It seemed to me unnecessary to worry so much when what you worried would happen had never once happened. Even with all the worries, we were never hungry, had two cars, had our own rooms, owned our own home; what more do you honestly need? So what if kids made fun of my clothes? I made fun of them because I was smarter, better looking, and more athletic. Which would you rather have?

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is a site with more facts on poverty:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp

Excellent link SOS.

 

[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.