Poverty is usually measured relatively to the perceived average of your environment’s wealth because that is how poverty affects your life.
You can be 100 times as rich as some poor soul in a third world country and still be so poor in your own society that you are constantly struggling, fighting for survival, skipping meals and inheriting that struggle to your kids who are born into them without much chances of getting out.
This could be because the poor soul can maybe life decently within their society off a hundreth of the cost you have (sometimes you even just need to be a good hunter and be able to build some shelter).
The average societal wealth definition of poor used in sociology is not without critics of course, but you can ask yourself if 30 times the income buys 30 times as much rent today and helps you to sustain 30 times as many families (all costs and benefits considered). The income gap between rich and poor is higher today than it ever was under any industrial rule — I wish I’d be able to share your optimism, but considering the average top manager’s salery (including bonuses for failing upwards and fucking shit up) my optimism about the altruistic nature of today’s wealth distribution seems to vanish just a little too quickly..
We’re arguing semantics, but if a working poor in the US has to work 50 hour weeks and 3 jobs (due to low status maybe —- livable income but high costs for transport, rent, debt and healthcare ect) to get food and shelter, that’s still poverty. A farmer in Eastern Europe could have much more freedom over their life while still earning less in absolute terms.
There’s no inherent reason why relative low status has to turn into slavery in practice, that’s a choice made by society.
The question of absolute material wealth is still relevant and interesting, but it is mostly a different question.
I didn’t come up with that definition of poverty, it is the definition used by UNICEF,
UNDP (The United Nations Children's Fund) and the OECD.
And there certainly is discussion about that definition, but other poverty definitions also fail to capture certain aspects of poverty (e.g. the World Bank’s poverty line).
It isn’t status, when bith of your parents work full time and you still don’t get to eat on the last days of the week. That is poverty.
First of all, I don't know why we're discussing the word "poverty". I talked about "30x the income", never mentioned "poverty".
But let's talk about the word.
By the UNICEF/UNDP/etc definition of "poverty", poverty can never be eradicated. There will always be people below average, as any math teacher can explain to you.
In a "Richistan" society comprised only of dollar millionaires and billionaires, the least wealthy millionaires will be living in "poverty".
> It isn’t status, when both of your parents work full time and you still don’t get to eat on the last days of the week. That is poverty.
...but now you've jumped to absolute poverty measures! Those "Richistan poor" could easily dine in fine restaurants every day.
And I invite you to ask yourself why UNICEF uses “my” definition.
I nowhere said that I don’t see that definition without problems or that I wholeheartedly stand behind it. Another definition used by the World Bank is the poverty line, which fails to capture other aspects of poverty (e.g. two parents with full time jobs unable to pay the rent in a rich society).
The definitions of poverty are a huge topic in sociology and economy and if you feel they misrepresent reality, go ahead and make a better one.
You can be 100 times as rich as some poor soul in a third world country and still be so poor in your own society that you are constantly struggling, fighting for survival, skipping meals and inheriting that struggle to your kids who are born into them without much chances of getting out.
This could be because the poor soul can maybe life decently within their society off a hundreth of the cost you have (sometimes you even just need to be a good hunter and be able to build some shelter).
The average societal wealth definition of poor used in sociology is not without critics of course, but you can ask yourself if 30 times the income buys 30 times as much rent today and helps you to sustain 30 times as many families (all costs and benefits considered). The income gap between rich and poor is higher today than it ever was under any industrial rule — I wish I’d be able to share your optimism, but considering the average top manager’s salery (including bonuses for failing upwards and fucking shit up) my optimism about the altruistic nature of today’s wealth distribution seems to vanish just a little too quickly..