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

[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.