General News Think about this when you've got more month than money

I agree that this distribution of wealth is absurd. The distribution of wealth worldwide in general is extremely unreasonable and, in some cases, even inhumane.

However, what classifies as poverty and the expected standard of living for humans has been on a constant rise since human civilization was formed. I'm all for improving the average quality of life for the common individual on this earth, but I have issues surrounding the use of the blanket classification coined 'poverty'. Poverty in the first world is nothing compared to poverty in many other areas, on the global scale. The lower class of the first world would be the economically stable and comfortable of the second world and upper class of the third world. While I agree that the one percent in no way needs the insane amounts of wealth that they have amassed, we have to start recognizing that we will never bring all inhabitants of this world into economic prosperity because humans will never be satisfied as long as there is at least someone better off than them.

I feel that humans as a whole, especially the first world, have to reconsider our priorities. I have difficultly judging the one percent for their financial gluttony, because I have moral difficulty classifying working paycheck to paycheck as true poverty, when only a couple thousand miles away poverty means not being able to have a glass of water. Poverty means not being able to clean oneself or shelter ones child. We all cast away our morals and turn a blind to our neighbors. The only thing about the national upper class is that it's harder to ignore the neighbor that lives next door. It's far easier to ignore the neighbor that lives a couple hundred miles away.

 

Harper is doing this to Canada too,he is supporting the wealthy.And creating the same trend as in America...
Its the major reason I dislike his policies.

 

It certainly isn't an optimal life to live, but my point is that poverty is not a trans-geographical or historical term. What is being classified in countries of the first world as 'poverty' would have not been such a horrific way of life less than a century ago. All social classes of the first world have seen significant grow over the past century, even few decades. There is great fear of the economic stability of the incoming generations because economic satisfaction is no longer classified as feeding a family, paying bills, and providing what is necessary for domestic contentment. Modern economic satisfaction in the first world is about obtaining the lavishes. The gorgeous houses, the two cars, the new clothes, electronics, and accessories when those we have are just fine.

We have always seen large discrepancies between the financial stability of the upper, middle, and lower classes. As long as the global wealth and economy continues grow, that discrepancies will become more drastic, while likely remaining as constant as it has for centuries before. The only difference is the inflation of national and international wealth. Inflation that not only inflates the wealth of the upper class, but the middle and lower classes as well; thus a thousand dollars today means a world of difference than what it did in 1914.

How we treat our international neighbors is extremely significant to this topic, because at the end of the day this is not a question of economic achievement, because regardless of what we believe much the upper class has done something to garner the wealth they have (whether proportionally merited or otherwise). This discussion is a question of morals and whether its right for national wealth to be left as it is and has always been. The national upper class are demonized for their economic gluttony, but those international upper class do exactly the same.

My point is that if we are going to raise the argument of morals and merit in regards to wealth distribution we cannot pick and choose to use it only in the times that benefit us specifically.

 

I don't think poverty is best defined by income. You are in poverty when your wealth is such that you are inherently disadvantaged when compared to the most privileged humans.

At an absolute minimum I would constitute poverty as:
1. Lack of reliable clean drinking water.
2. Lack of access to an abundance of nutritious healthy food that is desirable to eat.
3. Lack of adequate housing that affords enough space for the entire family.
4. Lack of reliable income for sustainable living.
5. Lack of access to reliable and high quality health care and associated services.
6. Lack of access to sanitary living conditions, electricity, and modern plumbing.
7. Unsafe living conditions in a high crime or otherwise dangerous environment.
8. Lack of access to a high quality education both for adults and children.
9. Lack of ability to pursue education opportunities and other life improvements. (Example: You are required to work to feed your children rather than going to college, which would enable you to provide better lives for your children.)
10. Lack of access to a variety of goods and services being offered by various competitors.
11. Lack of public infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure.
12. Lack of access to modern telecommunications and associated technology; in particular cell phones and the internet.
13. Lack of the ability to learn about and participate in the political process.
14. High barriers to entry into the marketplace for entrepreneurs and innovators.

If you are living under one or more of these conditions then you are disadvantaged in some way, and as a result you are living in a form of poverty that is preventing you from achieving your full potential.

Poverty ends not when you have a certain amount of money in your pocket, but when you have the barriers that stand in your way of climbing further up the economic latter removed. This means not only ensuring a base standard of living, but also a base standard of opportunity.

Even lacking something that seems as if it is somehow a privilege, like the internet, is a huge disadvantage. To lack adequate access to the internet means that you've been cut off from an absolutely mind boggling amount of easily accessible human knowledge. You're also cut off from resources, and the ability to easily network with other people. Not to mention you've been shut out of the global marketplace.

Simply ensuring that those in need have their life essentials met: food, water, shelter, and clothing - will ultimately do nothing to better or improve their lives, only sustain them. If to get those things you lack the ability to go out to develop skills, and improve the quality of your life you will remain exactly where you are - at the bottom. And not only will you remain at the bottom, but your children are almost certainly going to remain at the bottom as well. When a child's parents have barriers to opportunity so do their children, and this has an impact on them for the rest of their lives.

In the end, poverty is best understood not in terms of material wealth, but who is disadvantaged due to lack of opportunity for economic prosperity.