NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a term which is overused and underdefined. Everyone talks about "the poor", but nobody says who they are? I want to know.

I created this poll not using income numbers because currency is not a global constant.

Please select the options which you feel most closely defines "poor". You may select more than one. Please explain and/or qualify your answer and why you feel as you do.

Feel free to debate the poll opions - but alas - they cannot be changed and the number of options I can give is limited.

edit - also - assume option one means they CAN afford everything except what is excluded in that option...


.

Poor is both an absolute and a relative concept.

Poor is both an absolute and a relative concept.

That is a copout.

Poor is both an absolute and a relative concept.

only if you're a liberal. Who cares about relative? I don't care if someone is poor relative to bill gates, they could still have every necessity of life cared for. Using poor in such terms would render it meaningless.

To me its an absolute, a standard of living at which you cannot afford to live in adequate housing, or you cannot afford food, or pay for heating, even though you have no luxury items.

I love how cable is always the 'go to' to villianize poor. "Why, if you didn't spend that $30 a month, all your bills would be paid, health insurance covered, Mercedes owned, house paid for, and children in private schools!!!"

Sometimes the hole is deep enough that $30 isn't going to make a difference one way or another, and if your life is a constant stream of suck maybe there's one comfort you afford yourself just to keep the crap at bay for half an hour.

It has to be judged against the average income for a nation. A poor person or a person in poverty is defined by the government.

your asking a rather vague question considering thats most of the human population no?

I'd say:

lack of disposable income (which is why they need government support when bills rise, with pensions, sending kids\themselves to college)

which is broad at best when it doesn't include scenarios but thats the shortest answer

To me its an absolute, a standard of living at which you cannot afford to live in adequate housing, or you cannot afford food, or pay for heating, even though you have no luxury items.

thats poverty

Poor to me means 'barely getting by', on the edge of starvation and/or homelessness if just one paycheck is missed due to a lost job.

Living paycheck to paycheck while working 40 hours a week and don't have anything left over to save because the necessities have eaten the whole paycheck up.

Poor to me means, that you can't have luxuries like a cable/satellite, internet/computer, a higher education, health insurance...

Poor means you have highly limited options on where you can live, where you can work, and where/what you can eat.

Poor means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, especially depending on the nation you live in.

I love how cable is always the 'go to' to villianize poor. "Why, if you didn't spend that $30 a month, all your bills would be paid, health insurance covered, Mercedes owned, house paid for, and children in private schools!!!"

*salutes BBC*

its a necessity of modern sociaty particularly if you have children imho (though not having one doesn't make you a bad parent)

It has to be judged against the average income for a nation. A poor person or a person in poverty is defined by the government.

poverty involves not being able to fulfill basic human needs

That is a copout.

No it's not (I'm loving this standard of debate)

only if you're a liberal. Who cares about relative? I don't care if someone is poor relative to bill gates, they could still have every necessity of life cared for. Using poor in such terms would render it meaningless.

It renders it meaningless if we're confusing the terms absolute and relative. If we're able to look at both seperately then one meaning or criteria won't affect the other.

poverty involves not being able to fulfill basic human needs
QFT, although I'de like to refine that to: Not being able or having a hard time in fulfilling basic human needs.
The difference is though, that not all country's have the exact same needs. For instance, electricity is highly reconned as a basic human need here in the developed world, or gas, or a phone. But ofcourse, that wasn't alwayse the case. The world changes, so does the exact definiton of poverty.

In my opinion, poor is barely getting by. Living life paycheck to paycheck, not having luxuries like an Internet connection or cable television. If you've got enough money to be able to be able to miss a few paychecks and still be living happily in a home with good meals, you aren't poor in my opinion, unless you like overusing the word to bring attention/pity to yourself.

No it's not (I'm loving this standard of debate)



Then 'rich' and 'middle class' would also have to be 'relative'. that nonsense not only obfuscates and cheapens these terms it also renders senseless statements such as "end global poverty"

Then 'rich' and 'middle class' would also have to be 'relative'.

Middle class is relative to an extent. What do you think the 'middle' refers to? And rich can be a relative distiction as well.

that nonsense not only obfuscates and cheapens these terms it also renders senseless statements such as "end global poverty"

As I said in the very post you're replying to: "It renders it meaningless if we're confusing the terms absolute and relative. If we're able to look at both seperately then one meaning or criteria won't affect the other."

only if you're a liberal. Who cares about relative? I don't care if someone is poor relative to bill gates, they could still have every necessity of life cared for. Using poor in such terms would render it meaningless.

To me its an absolute, a standard of living at which you cannot afford to live in adequate housing, or you cannot afford food, or pay for heating, even though you have no luxury items.

How much money is required for that standard of living differs vastly between areas. Thus, "poor" is somewhat relative.

How much money is required for that standard of living differs vastly between areas. Thus, "poor" is somewhat relative.

The OP specifically said to ignore income levels because they don't properly transfer into a standard of living. So, they aren't really relative unless you're talking about income levels- look at the poll, just conditions, not how much money you make.

Also, to Sirmomo1

From Dictionary.com:
pov·er·ty Audio Help /ˈpɒvərti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pov-er-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.
2. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.: poverty of the soil.
3. scantiness; insufficiency: Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poverty

The difference is though, that not all country's have the exact same needs. For instance, electricity is highly reconned as a basic human need here in the developed world, or gas, or a phone. But ofcourse, that wasn't alwayse the case.

1) electricity powers: sanitation, heating (a Necessity for an area without wood/books) and technically water

so thats: cleanliness (need), warmth, clean water

2) Gas: heating, knocking people out

3) Phone: ordering fast food (without nutrition millions of students would die);)

mostly needs and as you will see as soon as the savages of poverty-topia reach middle class they buy these things unless your nomadic (in which case you have your needs fulfilled though resource management etc)

The world changes, so does the exact definiton of poverty.

Dictionary:
The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.

http://www.answers.com/poverty&r=67

But a poor person in the US is often rich compared to a poor person in Ethiopia.

As I said in the very post you're replying to: "It renders it meaningless if we're confusing the terms absolute and relative. If we're able to look at both seperately then one meaning or criteria won't affect the other."

So your point, essentially, is that the definition of poor is clearer when it have more than one meaning. Ummm, no. phail. Relative terms are ripe for abuse and manipulation.

I've known far too many people who call someone else poor because their high school daughter doesn't drive a Mustang or BMW convertible. Poor I suppose you could say is anyone who has to worry about their financial situation on a day to day basis (as opposed to just tax season or the like).

But a poor person in the US is often rich compared to a poor person in Ethiopia.

So then you are saying that poverty, as experienced globally, does not exist in the US? Are you saying then that US poverty is an illusion? (or at least the majority of it)

The OP specifically said to ignore income levels because they don't properly transfer into a standard of living. So, they aren't really relative unless you're talking about income levels- look at the poll, just conditions, not how much money you make.

income level =/= prices (think how much you pay for corn in the US compared to me importing it in Europe)


1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.
2. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.: poverty of the soil.
3. scantiness; insufficiency: Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies.

bolded answer

I've known far too many people who call someone else poor because their high school daughter doesn't drive a Mustang or BMW convertible.

ewww what part of town are you from?

So your point, essentially, is that the definition of poor is clearer when it have more than one meaning. Ummm, no. phail. Relative terms are ripe for abuse and manipulation.

Agreed, unless we want to specify and say "relative to B, A is poor"

As to middle class vs. Upper class vs. poor

You sort of messed up upper and middle belong with lower, if your country is really impoverished all three could be poor.

income level =/= prices (think how much you pay for corn in the US compared to me importing it in Europe)

I'm not sure what your point is unless that was a roundabout way to agree with me..?
I was saying pretty much what you were which is things don't cost the same everywhere, therefore putting two people income into dollars and comparing them if the live 5,000 miles away isn't the best comparison.



bolded answer



only a poor person would make that observation ;)

I think you missed the point which was that sirmomo said that my definition of someone who is poor is equivalent to poverty, i simply wanted to point out that this was indeed the case because poverty and being poor are the same thing.

poor is needing government assistance in order to get by.

or not being able to get by even with government assistance.

So your point, essentially, is that the definition of poor is clearer when it have more than one meaning. Ummm, no. phail.

I thought we were talking about what is the right way to approach the topic. You can have one definition and be clear but have an incomplete understanding. That strikes me as kind of like getting the wrong answer to 12 + 12 because single digits are simpler.

Relative terms are ripe for abuse and manipulation.

So are statistics. But if statistics can enhance our understanding of an issue, we should use them.

I have been what I consider genuinely poor at one period of my life. When I say genuinely poor I mean I could not feed my children, had no job, had to seek assistance for food, heating and housing. The shame involved in it all didn't come close to the fear of not being able to survive. The pure frustration.

Poor isn't about not having cable tv, it is about not having electricity or water. And it is a scary as hell place to be.

I think of the movie The Pursuit of Happyness, the scene where Will Smith is homeless and is hold up in a public bathroom with his suitcase and his son and he is crying. I so completely understood the emotion of that scene. That is poor, and I have been there...it is horrid.

I will say I guess it felt so horrid because I knew what it was to not be poor. So it hurt terribly. If I had been born into such poverty and didn't know the difference it probably would have affected me completely differently.

I was saying pretty much what you were which is things don't cost the same everywhere, therefore putting two people income into dollars and comparing them if the live 5,000 miles away isn't the best comparison.

here is what you originally quoted:

How much money is required for that standard of living differs vastly between areas. Thus, "poor" is somewhat relative.

your reply:

The OP specifically said to ignore income levels because they don't properly transfer into a standard of living. So, they aren't really relative unless you're talking about income levels- look at the poll, just conditions, not how much money you make.


I think you missed the point which was that sirmomo said that my definition of someone who is poor is equivalent to poverty, i simply wanted to point out that this was indeed the case because poverty and being poor are the same thing.

re-read my bolded part and you will find they are not

I will say I guess it felt so horrid because I knew what it was to not be poor. So it hurt terribly. If I had been born into such poverty and didn't know the difference it probably would have affected me completely differently.

Also, if you had been born in a very poor country and nobody around you had much more than you had, I imagine it would have affected you differently too.

I'm not saying that people in, say, Kibera or Soweto are happy, but it must be a different experience to be poor where everyone is poor vs. being poor in a rich country.

here is what you originally quoted:



your reply:


Yea... I must have missed where you said money, but i specifically stated they are not relative as long as we talk about anything but money, way to selectively bold things and ignore the words next to them that modify them ie.

. So, they aren't really relative unless you're talking about income levels- look at the poll, just conditions, not how much money you make.

re-read my bolded part and you will find they are not

hmm maybe you need to re read it the definitions under 1 are as follows

1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

not sure what you mean... it literally said that poverty is the condition of being poor, just because there are additional definitions that describe it exactly as i did in my other response doesn't invalidate what i said, it just confirms it further.

Unless im missing something but all you bolded was "means of support" which in whole would read:

The state or condition of having little or no means of support

Unless im missing something but all you bolded was "means of support" which in whole would read:

The state of condition of having little or no means of support

which would also be acceptable :) (but lack sufficient context for a dictionary )

Poor is both an absolute and a relative concept.

Poor is purely a relative concept. You are poor in relation to someone who is not.

poverty involves not being able to fulfill basic human needs

Exactly, this is where the "defined" part comes in.

only if you're a liberal. Who cares about relative? I don't care if someone is poor relative to bill gates, they could still have every necessity of life cared for. Using poor in such terms would render it meaningless.

To me its an absolute, a standard of living at which you cannot afford to live in adequate housing, or you cannot afford food, or pay for heating, even though you have no luxury items.

But that is a relative concept too.

For many years even the rich in this country would wear the same outfit every day and only change their undergarments. Now only the homeless don't change their clothes every day.

Today there are many places in the world where people live with their parents well into adulthood. When men get married they even move their wives into their parents houses. In much of the west such a condition is considered tragically poor. Men will live in dirty broken-down, cold, leaky studio apartments rather than continue to live in a spacious house with food and laundry services provided by their parents.

In America if you want to claim you are not poor you must have enough money that you can have all of the following things if you want them.

* A residence with at least one bedroom for each member of the family over the age of 12 and appropriate furniture in each (your dinner table is not a cable spool and your bed is not a mattress on top of another mattress.)
* That residence is not overgrown with weeds outside, nor leaking, smelling, crawling etc. inside.
* Nutritious meals every day. i.e. not bologna, mac 'n cheese, ramen noodles, or McDonald's. (you don't have to eat them, but if the reason you're a grown adult eating mac n' cheese for dinner is that you can't afford meat and vegetables, then you're poor.)
* Preventative health care. You can go to the doctor to keep from getting sick instead of to keep from dying when you do get sick.
* From month to month you have, on average, more money in your bank account than the months before or you have a house full of stupid crap you regret buying.
* Independent transportation. Not necessarily your own car, in some cities mass transit makes having your own car an extravagance. But if you need friends and family to get you to work, you're poor.

All of the above, and nothing more, qualifies you lower-middle/working class. If a single-income married couple with children has all of that plus toys for the kids, it may qualify as middle class.

Poor is purely a relative concept. You are poor in relation to someone who is not.

No. Poorer is a relative concept. If you're eating ramen noodles, cooked over a hotplate in a leaky studio apartment with walls so thin that you're a little worried that the angry drunk next door might throw his crying wife through your wall, then you're not rich compared the the homeless guy outside. You're poor. He's poorer.

Poor. Poorer. Rich. Richer. All are relative terms. There is no objective measurement for poor.

Poor is when without luxuries (cable, cell phone, car etc.) your income is insufficient to meet your daily needs (shelter, food, clothing). I have been poor, I have been without food and shelter. I have also been near poor, where I could afford rent in a bad neighborhood, a clunker of a car and food 25/30 days of the month, but it took every last cent and if I missed even a day of work... things went unpaid.

If someone is poor, they are either:

1. Not able to feed themselves or their family (Three square meals as you put it)

OR

2. Being in debt over four times their yearly salary (Not including taxes,living cost,etc,)

So then you are saying that poverty, as experienced globally, does not exist in the US? Are you saying then that US poverty is an illusion? (or at least the majority of it)

I think he's saying that poverty is relative to local economy and country. A wage of a US dollar in the US per month would see you starving inside of a week. A US dollar a month in Ethopia would feed you pretty well. Although if you were paid a single Birr (Ethopian dollar) a month in Ethopia, you'd starve as well.

But that is a relative concept too.

For many years even the rich in this country would wear the same outfit every day and only change their undergarments. Now only the homeless don't change their clothes every day.

Today there are many places in the world where people live with their parents well into adulthood. When men get married they even move their wives into their parents houses. In much of the west such a condition is considered tragically poor. Men will live in dirty broken-down, cold, leaky studio apartments rather than continue to live in a spacious house with food and laundry services provided by their parents.

In America if you want to claim you are not poor you must have enough money that you can have all of the following things if you want them.

* A residence with at least one bedroom for each member of the family over the age of 12 and appropriate furniture in each (your dinner table is not a cable spool and your bed is not a mattress on top of another mattress.)
* That residence is not overgrown with weeds outside, nor leaking, smelling, crawling etc. inside.
* Nutritious meals every day. i.e. not bologna, mac 'n cheese, ramen noodles, or McDonald's. (you don't have to eat them, but if the reason you're a grown adult eating mac n' cheese for dinner is that you can't afford meat and vegetables, then you're poor.)
* Preventative health care. You can go to the doctor to keep from getting sick instead of to keep from dying when you do get sick.
* From month to month you have, on average, more money in your bank account than the months before or you have a house full of stupid crap you regret buying.
* Independent transportation. Not necessarily your own car, in some cities mass transit makes having your own car an extravagance. But if you need friends and family to get you to work, you're poor.

All of the above, and nothing more, qualifies you lower-middle/working class. If a single-income married couple with children has all of that plus toys for the kids, it may qualify as middle class.

hum...

I don't see how that proves that its relative. YOU might consider that being on the border of poor, or think that that is how most people view it in the west. All you've proven is that people's opinions of what makes someone poor is relative. It seems to me that the definition of a word shouldn't change based on where you go, a dog should be a dog if I'm in Africa or in the US. If its not a dog in Africa, then don't call it one in the US.

EDIT: I think you just called me homeless btw

It seems to me that the definition of a word shouldn't change based on where you go

when the word describes a social position, it most certainly should. it cannot do otherwise.

your asking a rather vague question considering thats most of the human population no?

I'd say:

lack of disposable income (which is why they need government support when bills rise, with pensions, sending kids\themselves to college)

which is broad at best when it doesn't include scenarios but thats the shortest answer



thats poverty

Thats the one, 'lack of disposable income' although I would say that applies to me, and I aint really poor. So lets add not enough income to cloth, or feed themelves and dependants in a reasonable manor.

I would say absolute poverty is not being able to afford any of the following - enough food, shelter, clean drinking water, health care or education.

Part of the problem with poverty is that it becomes a trap people cannot escape because they cannot afford the education to get a job, or they are too ill to work because of their living conditions, cannot afford the transport to get to a better job etc.

I would say absolute poverty is not being able to afford any of the following - enough food, shelter, clean drinking water, health care or education.

Part of the problem with poverty is that it becomes a trap people cannot escape because they cannot afford the education to get a job, or they are too ill to work because of their living conditions, cannot afford the transport to get to a better job etc.

Yep yep, and of course there is always the danger of life being so unbearble that what little cash they have goes towars beer and drugs.

Relative - half of median wage or below.
Absolute - eh fuck all money full stop.

i feel that anybody who actually owns their own home (rather than the bank) is fucking rich. or old.

the bank owning your home and you paying mortgage payments for the honour of living in it, is normal.

rented accomodation =/= poor though. you can get some damn nice, very expensive flats round here.

council house does have connotations of being poor, however. but i'm not 100% sure of that these days.

so, i guess, poor boils down to the necessities. food, clothes, utilities, more than where you live or what you drive.


edit: but "being in poverty" strikes me as being worse off than just "poor"

"SHANTIES" is the plural of "shanty". Don't use an apostrophe to make a plural noun! [/rant]

I love how cable is always the 'go to' to villianize poor. "Why, if you didn't spend that $30 a month, all your bills would be paid, health insurance covered, Mercedes owned, house paid for, and children in private schools!!!"

Sometimes the hole is deep enough that $30 isn't going to make a difference one way or another, and if your life is a constant stream of suck maybe there's one comfort you afford yourself just to keep the crap at bay for half an hour.

But paying $30/month for a luxury item is indicative of overall poor financial planning and suggests other needless spending that seres no purpose. If you're wasting $30 (actually more like $50 here), what else are you wasting money on?

Poor is a relative concept, despite peoples objections in this thread. It's relative to the countries 'poor line', in this sense, the west's average 'poor', is probably quite rich compared to somewhere like Zimbabwe.

"SHANTIES" is the plural of "shanty". Don't use an apostrophe to make a plural noun! [/rant]



But paying $30/month for a luxury item is indicative of overall poor financial planning and suggests other needless spending that seres no purpose. If you're wasting $30 (actually more like $50 here), what else are you wasting money on?
If you're paying 'more like $50' your cable provider is crappy. My basic cable bill was just shy of $30.

And as I've already said, that $30 isn't going to dig you out of that hole, and it might be the one thing that makes day to day existence in that hole bearable.