Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pablissimo
Absolute poverty is still a relative term if you're going to go on about 'less than $1 a day', and relative poverty is an equally arbitrarily defined state.
Edit:
If you're going to talk about relative poverty then it's a moving set of goal-posts whose position relates entirely to what you call 'relatively poor', which is itself a definition based upon what's cool/socially accepted at the time. No matter what you try, that measure's going to be arbitrary and therefore the easiest way of abolishing relative poverty is to redefine relative poverty. Job done.
Absolute poverty is pretty stupid. You're still at the same situation as before in that 'poor' is a relative adjective, so talking about 'absolute poverty' is not so far removed from talking about 'absolute chocolateiness'. The best you'll do is decide that 'absolute poverty' as a phrase is meaningless, redefine the phrase with some arbitrary meaning such as 'an economic inability to fulfil ones basic needs', argue about what one's basic needs really are and then go to bed drunk and angrier than you did when you started.
|
Abolsute poverty can be defined in the way DDA as already mentioned. There is also the fact that by considering purchasing power of a dollar* you can generate more meaningful statistics, if that is not an oxymoron.
So if we agree that there are certain physical objects that human beings need to survive (i.e. housing, food etc) then surely there are concrete areas to focus on and that applied resources could move everybody up to a higher level of living. True, this would then be the lowest level of poverty, but as long as we keep focused then it should be seen as progress.
Relative poverty is another matter and this can be reduced but never abolished within the capitalist system. Although if we were to consider such an issue then we would have to consider the impact of globalisation.
The extent of globalisation is largely a myth and is a process that began at least before WW1, to put it into some kind of meangingful context. To governments, it makes more sense to sterss the inevitability of globalisation and the resulting cuts in workers rights as well as the privitisation of the welfare state. Margaret Thatcher was correct when she said 'There is no alternative', although she should have added that the reason for this was because she was unwilling to provide another one. This is a process that continues to this very day, ironically served to the public as proving' greater choice'.
Despite the scepticism of relative poverty as not being able to afford the latest Nikes or not having Sky TV, there are more serious issues such as the people living in relative poverty tend to live several years less than those who do not. This is not a situation which should be disregarded as ingratitude to our super-productive overlords.
*enough to rent Texan's mother and still have change for 99 penny sweets