What is poverty?

[Boozy]

I just found this, and I think everyone here will get a good laugh out of it:

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide..._americas_rich

[rahmota]

Boozy & Seshat: Maybe we are talking about the same thign using different terms and perspectives on it. Also my own personal POV is that of what you are talking about somewhat Seshat. But with the caveat that once I get enough why do I need anything more? To take more than enough to supply your basic needs and a little bit extra is wrong morall and ethically. you have a responsibility to stop or be stopped before you get greedy. Sort of like setting the candy out at halloween. Responsible kids will take a handfull or less while the irresponsible ones will scarf the whole bowl. Yeah i can only drive one vehicle at a time and I own more than one but each one fulfills a different job on the farm or with my family. A millionare like jay leno with all those useless toys serving no practical useful purpose. Take 9 of them away and put them in a museum or soemthing.

Also technology and social advancements are what would make it capable of supporting up to 8 billion people on a somewhat less than middle class america (whatever that is) and more than subsistence levels which is what I call having just enouhg food and resources to get by but nothing left over to store for lean times. Gas electric hybrids, hydrogen fuel vehicles,biofuels, hydroponics, sustainable agricultural practices, better urban sprawl control, Solar and alternative energy systems all need to be used more extensively and hardcore or you are right we will not be able to support 6 billion people. But if we keep goign at the way we are now that wont be a problem as the system will balance itself out with some sort of cataclysmic bookkeeping. be it hurricanes, global warming, plagues, war for scarce resources or something else either we resolve to do something to reduce, reuse, recuycle our resource, increase the fair and equitable distribution of resources or humanity pays the price. And what is so sad is that most of the technology is already in practical development phase but many companies refuse to implement them as they are still making too much money off traditional systems.

If you want to compare the levels of poverty in america then look only at america. Bring nothign else into the conversation or comparison

I'm not sure I made myself clear on this one. If you are trying to discus how poor a person is relative to another you have to use a common frame of reference. America has a certain set of principles and values and social quirks compared to india, australia or anywhere else. This menas that while yes in realtive scale worldwide the guy living in the homeless shelter is richer than someone living on the streets in calcutta, within his own society and social environment he is still living in the same relative level of poverty. I guess one of the other problem is that I deal win very few absolutes. And I see the two as conjoined issues that one leas to or reinforces the other in a dangerous feedback loop. Lower social classes are cut off or have to struggle to acheive the same basic ends that someone of a higher social classes find easier.

[Seshat]

Boozy & Seshat: Maybe we are talking about the same thign using different terms and perspectives on it.

This is common.

My definition of poverty: not having enough for a healthy life.

My definition of lower social class: having few or no status symbols, fewer resources within a particular society.

I see the first as an urgent health/public welfare problem, the second as a less urgent potential social problem.

This may help avoid definition-caused difficulties.

Yeah i can only drive one vehicle at a time and I own more than one but each one fulfills a different job on the farm or with my family.

A combine harvester != a flatbed truck != a van to haul your kids and their friends around. Having multiple tools for different purposes is different from having multiple status symbols. I don't think anyone is calling you 'rich' because of your toolkit.

Also technology and social advancements are what would make it capable of supporting up to 8 billion people on a somewhat less than middle class america (whatever that is)

I agree on the point of 'middle class America' being a rather loose definition.

However, I also think there's a point where technology will max out. Every square metre of Earth's surface only gets so much sunlight, and sunlight is our primary source of energy (our secondary source being the heat internal to the planet, which itself is limited).

I also think that we need to limit ourselves to having a share of Earth's resources, not claiming it all. There are other species on this planet, after all.

I'm not sure I made myself clear on this one. If you are trying to discus how poor a person is relative to another you have to use a common frame of reference. America has a certain set of principles and values and social quirks compared to india, australia or anywhere else.

My interest in poverty is limited to public health and well-being, and that's an absolute. The nature of poverty changes from North America to Central America to South America to India to Australia to Russia, but the fact of not having enough doesn't.

I also have an interest in the problems caused by social stratification and inequal and unfair distribution of wealth, but I don't label that a 'poverty' issue, nor do I think of it as a poverty issue.

And I see the two as conjoined issues that one leas to or reinforces the other in a dangerous feedback loop. Lower social classes are cut off or have to struggle to acheive the same basic ends that someone of a higher social classes find easier.

Agreed, and I also agree that distribution of wealth impacts poverty. But I think it's important to keep the two definitions separate, especially when discussing them as a political matter.

If you don't define them separately and keep them clear in your own mind, it's difficult to convince other people to help. It's very easy for other people to think you're talking about 'giving more' to people who are whining because the TV in their bedroom isn't high-definition.

If you keep them separate in your own mind, it's much easier to clarify for the people you're talking to. Much easier to explain that you're trying to help the working-poor farmer, cashier, or waiter who has no access to affordable health care and is living in a cold-water sixth-floor walkup. (Okay, farmers rarely live on the sixth floor, but you get the idea.)

[rahmota]

Seshat: I'll give you this one with the definitions as our perceptions of poverty/social class are somewhat different yet similar enough to not make a major enough argument out of. Solve the causes of one problem and the other one will be a lot easier to fall into whichever way folks come at the problems.

I don't think anyone is calling you 'rich' because of your toolkit.

Actually believe it or not but yes I have been called if not rich at least well off enough becuase of how many "expendable assets" I have available. Some people dont see the toolkit analogy and just see several pieces of equipment and vehicles sitting around here.

However, I also think there's a point where technology will max out. Every square metre of Earth's surface only gets so much sunlight, and sunlight is our primary source of energy (our secondary source being the heat internal to the planet, which itself is limited).

I also think that we need to limit ourselves to having a share of Earth's resources, not claiming it all. There are other species on this planet, after all.

Well that right there is another reason why the space program is rather important. If they'd get their act together and stop trying to live in the shadows of apollo we could work on having practical space stations and lunar colonies. Not to mention the whole keeping your eggs in one basket issue.

If you keep them separate in your own mind, it's much easier to clarify for the people you're talking to. Much easier to explain that you're trying to help the working-poor farmer, cashier, or waiter who has no access to affordable health care and is living in a cold-water sixth-floor walkup. (Okay, farmers rarely live on the sixth floor, but you get the idea.)

Yeah i see what you're talking about. I also see a cause and effect duality there that maybe our semantics or perceptions are not aligning on. When isay distributing resources I'm not talking about HD tvs or ipods or other fluff. I'm talking clean water, health care, good nutritious food, and all the rest of that stuff you mentioned.

The more we go on this the more I think we're talking the same thing just down parrellel roads with it. Your talking basic root level resource supply first, and I'm aiming for that but also to try and rectify some of what I see as the reason why those basic supplies may not be available simultaneously. An all for one deal.

Either way it is a serious issue that too many people are ignoring.

[Seshat]

Solve the causes of one problem and the other one will be a lot easier to fall into whichever way folks come at the problems.

Agreed.

Some people dont see the toolkit analogy and just see several pieces of equipment and vehicles sitting around here.

Correction: neither Boozy nor I seem to be calling you rich because of your toolkit.
I agree that many people fail to see that expensive equipment (computers, in my case) is simply the necessary toolkit to perform a job.

Well that right there is another reason why the space program is rather important. <snip>Not to mention the whole keeping your eggs in one basket issue.

Babylon 5 had a quote that I find relevant to that.

"No. We have to stay here and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."
Sinclair, Infection

The more we go on this the more I think we're talking the same thing just down parrellel roads with it. Your talking basic root level resource supply first, and I'm aiming for that but also to try and rectify some of what I see as the reason why those basic supplies may not be available simultaneously. An all for one deal.

Either way it is a serious issue that too many people are ignoring.

I think we are, yes. I've found it to be very common - with most people, I find that what starts out as an argument ends up as agreeing-in-principle, if not in detail. The key factor is that at some point, the people in the argument sit down and nut out definitions.

[protege]

Protege: Yeah I hear what you're talking about. Once a person goes down that slippery slope from having to beign a have not its hard to get back up.

They've had a hard time lately...mainly because they got in debt up to their eyeballs then. Sure, they live in a nice area, had multiple cars, etc., but that was about it. Where we live, you almost *need* a car, if you're going outside the borough. There's bus service, but it's been cut back because of the transit authority's cash problems, not to mention the service is slow, and usually unpredictable. For example, to get to work, I'd have to take 2 buses...and if the first one is late, I miss the transfer. It's just easier to drive.

Anyway, cash is still tight for my parents. They still have my fathers school loans to deal with, the cars, taxes, etc. They have to be *very* careful as they try to get out of the mess. In fact, they nearly lost the house when their property taxes came due last year. How? Turns out a mistake was made, and they couldn't afford to pay them. (I don't know about other areas, but here, if you fail to pay your property taxes, your house gets seized, and sold at auction.) I couldn't help them directly, but I did pull some strings to get it taken care of. Grandma had some extra cash, and gave my mother part of her inheritance early.

When I presented the check to my mother, she was upset...as if it *confirmed* that they were losers. She was in tears when I told her the real reason. I told her that even though I'd moved out by then, that was *still* my home, and it was painful to see her struggle. She cried at that point. As much as I hated to do that, she understood why I did it. As many disagreements as I had with my parents over the years, it would have sucked to see them homeless.

Another thing...I hear ya on older machinery. Having an older car more-or-less makes you a mechanic. Take my MG, for example. It still uses twin SU carbs, no computers, etc. As such, very few mechanics can handle it. If I break down somewhere, I'd be SOL if I didn't *understand* how it all worked. I remember once my father and I were out somewhere, and the damn thing wouldn't start. We pushed it down a slight grade, got it started, and drove home. Turns out one of the batteries was failing.

Also, I didn't get that car for the "pose" factor. I took it on in 2004, simply because I think of it as a member of the family--we've had it about 28 years. When I got it, it was a total mess--Dad never drove it, and left it to rot in the garage. Even though it was free, it hasn't been cheap getting it running, and it'll never be worth what I've spent (so far) on it. Am I complaining? Of course not. I took it over because of the memories attached to it. The fact that it's a sports car is an added bonus Some of you know that I bought a Corolla last June. That car is totally opposite the MG--if it breaks down, I simply *can't* fix it! I understand how it all works in *theory,* but since it's all computerized, I'd have to send it out.