Discussion of the Poverty Line

[Accountable]

The Poverty Line:
What is it?
Is it the same for everyone, or completely unique?

By definition, poverty is the condition of being without adequate food, money, etc. In looking up this definition on dictionary.com, I came across this from Encyclopedia Britannica:

poverty
the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Poverty is said to exist when people lack the means to satisfy their basic needs. In this context, the identification of poor people first requires a determination of what constitutes basic needs.
​

That's what I'd like to discuss and see if this "Collidiscope" of views can come close to a consensus of what constitutes basic needs.

Now, I am aware that the various governments have come up with workable definitions so that they can manage their bureaucracies, and some people will be unable to resist throwing them in as if they are fact carved in stone. I'm personally more interested in our own ideas.

 

[hart]

I think the definition of poverty differs from place to place. Someone in America can almost always find a someplace to get a meal and shelter on a very cold nite. If they are mentally ill they may not want to seek it but it is available.

So poverty here may involve being without having enough to eat, or a place to sleep. Being without transportation, resources.

But that is a far cry from someone living in extreme poverty with no guarantee of a meal from day to day, no place to bed from nite to nite, no place to wash up, no clean water to drink from.

It's just like a rich person's definition would vary depending on the environment and economy.

 

[Johnfromokc]

African poverty is far worse than American poverty, and there are many different forms of poverty in between.

In the United States, I would say poverty by our definition would be a single mom attempting to raise a family on our federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour with no health care coverage. Imagine trying to maintain a vehicle to get back and forth to work and child care on minimum wage in addition to rent and food. Some areas of the country will be worse than others as to cost of living.

 

[brieze]

I think poverty is unique and can be tied to pride in some cases.

Example: I'd be considered to be in poverty by an upper class suburban resident. But I'd be wealthy to the average Mexico resident.

Example: Man looses job but refuses welfare or loans from his family.

 

[Accountable]

I have tasted poverty, as defined by the state, but I have never felt impoverished. I've met a person that feels entitled to food stamps because he felt he was working hard enough just going to college classes and studying. I've also met a family (back in the 70's) that was thrilled that their new rental home had indoor plumbing.

Sometimes I think every senior executive or government official should have a part time in a minimum-wage job. Delivering Pizzas or bussing tables would do them a world of good.

 

[Peter Parka]

Poverty is a word bandied about far too much imo. There are no hard and fast rules about what is poverty and what is not. It's a term which is very easy to manipulate by both sides of an argument to prove a point.

 

[Springsteen]

Poverty to me means being unable to afford basic things such as food and clothes. However there again is a distinguishing point to be made, what if a person can't afford food and clothes because he/she prefers to buy beer or drugs? Because then they aren't impoverished as such, they just choose to buy different things.

 

[dkwrtw]

I see poverty as not being able to afford adequate food, clothing, and shelter.

 

[Accountable]

Poverty is a word bandied about far too much imo. There are no hard and fast rules about what is poverty and what is not. It's a term which is very easy to manipulate by both sides of an argument to prove a point.

Which proves my point.
The word has no real definition.

Poverty to me means being unable to afford basic things such as food and clothes. However there again is a distinguishing point to be made, what if a person can't afford food and clothes because he/she prefers to buy beer or drugs? Because then they aren't impoverished as such, they just choose to buy different things.

I see poverty as not being able to afford adequate food, clothing, and shelter.

As Springsteen points out, if someone chooses to spend his money on things other than food, clothing, & shelter, then cries poverty, does (s)he deserve our sympathy?

 

[Accountable]

Is the definition the same for children as it is for adults, or do children need more than simple food, clothing, shelter to say they are not impoverished?

 

[HK]

Perhaps there comes a point where you no longer care that it would better to buy food than beer, and you just do what makes you happiest in a short amount of time because you know long-term happiness isn't around the corner.

 

[Accountable]

Perhaps there comes a point where you no longer care that it would better to buy food than beer, and you just do what makes you happiest in a short amount of time because you know long-term happiness isn't around the corner.

I've known people like that. They usually have clothing on their backs, shelter of a sort (either a box or a charity) and know how to forage for food. They are truly impoverished, and would likely be impoverished if Extreme Makover: Home Edition gave them a furnished house with full closets and a vegetable garden in the back yard.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Is the definition the same for children as it is for adults, or do children need more than simple food, clothing, shelter to say they are not impoverished?

Children need love and nurturing. No doubt an unloved child is inherently impoverished - add in economic impoverishment and the results are tragic.

Out of curiosity, what is your ultimate intent of this thread? We can discuss poverty ad nauseum and not reach consensus. Do you have an ultimate question for which you are seeking an answer?

 

[Springsteen]

There's another point I'll make. And this I believe is more a society problem. Let's say you have a child who goes to School and maybe doesn't have the newest mobile or the newest pair of trainers, or the newest top clothes. And they get bullied by kids who have. The kids might say "Oh your parents are poor". Now, does that mean that family are impoverished? Not to me, it just means their own disposable income doesn't go as far as the other families. But disposable income in some ways might be an entirely different debate, but in others it could be part of the same.

 

[HK]

Out of curiosity, what is your ultimate intent of this thread? We can discuss poverty ad nauseum and not reach consensus. Do you have an ultimate question for which you are seeking an answer?

If you're looking for threads that reach a consensus, you may be in the wrong place

 

[Accountable]

Children need love and nurturing. No doubt an unloved child is inherently impoverished - add in economic impoverishment and the results are tragic.

Out of curiosity, what is your ultimate intent of this thread? We can discuss poverty ad nauseum and not reach consensus. Do you have an ultimate question for which you are seeking an answer?

If you're looking for threads that reach a consensus, you may be in the wrong place

This comment started the thought:

I wouldn't call the poverty line arbitrary, even if I agreed with your other ideologies.

I'm not a big "plan" kinda guy. I like things to develop organically then pull the parts together later. I don't think a total consensus is really realistic, but if we can understand each other then we've moved forward, dontcha think?

Another question that's come to me, Isn't it valid to say that poor in, say, the US is not poor at all, in a global sense?

 

[porterjack]

Studying poverty to try and address what it is, to place a defintion that may or not apply to people simply wastes time and resources and seems to offer hope to some that they might be helped out of poverty or merely offered enough support to buy that which they think they need to survive

The word is nothing more than a study concept with no ultimate meaning

 

[Johnfromokc]

If you're looking for threads that reach a consensus, you may be in the wrong place

I'm not "looking" for consensus - just seeking clarification of intent.

Another question that's come to me, Isn't it valid to say that poor in, say, the US is not poor at all, in a global sense?

Like I said in my first reply:

African poverty is far worse than American poverty, and there are many different forms of poverty in between.

I don't think a total consensus is really realistic, but if we can understand each other then we've moved forward, dontcha think?

OK, just because I used the word "consensus" in my previous post does not mean I'm looking for consensus, simply that we can run this topic round and round ad infinitum and wind up right back where we started.

Generally speaking, thread starters usually have an intent or objective. Am I incorrect in assuming the same of your thread? Reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that you are working toward making the point that there is essentially no poverty in the United States compared to worst case scenario's around the planet.

Anyone who has watched the BBC World News or similar news media understands there is an enormous difference between the poor in the United States, and the poor of other regions of the world like India, Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia etc. I saw poverty first-hand in my international travels. Most people, whether they have traveled abroad or not understand the differences.

Real poverty around the globe:

Here are some Americans having a hard time:

http://64.17.135.19/APF0803/Shames/Shames.html

This is a shanty-town in Los Angeles, right here in the United States:




So what I'm asking here is where are you heading? What is your point?

 

[Accountable]

OK, just because I used the word "consensus" in my previous post does not mean I'm looking for consensus, simply that we can run this topic round and round ad infinitum and wind up right back where we started.

I actually thought I'd used "consensus" in the OP, but I see I rephrased it before submitting. I do that sometimes.

Generally speaking, thread starters usually have an intent or objective. Am I incorrect in assuming the same of your thread? Reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that you are working toward making the point that there is essentially no poverty in the United States compared to worst case scenario's around the planet.

You have good analytical skills. I've posted my opinion several times that we in the US have the richest poor people in the world. That's not the goal of the thread. If there really is a goal at all,I guess it's for us to examine and revise our own opinions. I know my own opinion of poverty doesn't jive with many/most around here, so refinement is probably the best I can hope for.

Anyone who has watched the BBC World News or similar news media understands there is an enormous difference between the poor in the United States, and the poor of other regions of the world like India, Africa, the Middle East, Indonesia etc. I saw poverty first-hand in my international travels. Most people, whether they have traveled abroad or not understand the differences.

Real poverty around the globe:

Here are some Americans having a hard time:

http://64.17.135.19/APF0803/Shames/Shames.html

This is a shanty-town in Los Angeles, right here in the United States:




So what I'm asking here is where are you heading? What is your point?

Yes, those pictures represent undeniable poverty (though it's interesting that the poverty-stricken LA guy could afford a cigarette). I'm guessing we can also agree that people can be substantially above the level of these people pictured and still be universally considered poor.

Where's the line? Should we truly consider someone poor if they live in a permanent dwelling with electricity and indoor plumbing, making enough to pay their bills and put food on the table?

 

[Johnfromokc]

Yes, those pictures represent undeniable poverty (though it's interesting that the poverty-stricken LA guy could afford a cigarette). I'm guessing we can also agree that people can be substantially above the level of these people pictured and still be universally considered poor.

I've witnessed impoverished people in third world countries smoking, drinking, and using drugs. Why is it interesting the guy in LA could get a cigarette?

Where's the line? Should we truly consider someone poor if they live in a permanent dwelling with electricity and indoor plumbing, making enough to pay their bills and put food on the table?

It's your thread and your agenda....you tell us where you would draw the line.