Does Relative Poverty Have Any Meaning?

[Guest Steve Cook]

A pointless statement.

Relative Poverty is a valueless concept. One might as well just stick with words like richer and poorer. It means absolutely nothing in respect of standard of living or threats to health. It's a typical socialist construct to maintain a case for state control.

Where's BoomBoomCrash to rage against it?

Of course it is a pointless statement from a perspective that assumes all humans are capable of making their decisions from a logical standpoint.

But, as I said, humans don't work in that way

Get used to it

I could give you the deeper underlying Darwinian logic behind why humans behave in the way I have described. But, I suspect you wouldn't be prepared to listen.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Bloo Loo]

A pointless statement.

Relative Poverty is a valueless concept. One might as well just stick with words like richer and poorer. It means absolutely nothing in respect of standard of living or threats to health. It's a typical socialist construct to maintain a case for state control.

Where's BoomBoomCrash to rage against it?

bit like "multicultural". it means whatever the listener wants it to mean.

[6538]

I just heard a definition of poverty on Radio 4 (the Today programme) as being earning below two-thirds of the average income.

At first thought, this relative measuring of poverty seemed a bit odd to me -- how can we ever get people out of poverty because if we bring people out of poverty, don't we raise the average income (and the poverty threshold along with it)?

At second thought, I could see ways in which poverty could be eradicated if everyone earned fairly similar salaries, i.e. everyone earns about the average... But that's hardly the world we live in.

So, with a relative measure of poverty in an essentially capitalist economy, how could we ever get rid of so-called poverty?

In a capitalist environment, would it make more sense to try to measure poverty in absolute terms, perhaps via an index-linked income threshold to achieve comfortable survival?

My head started to hurt at this point, so I thought I'd post here and see if anyone else had any thoughts...

It's rubbish because, as you say, it means that some people will always be in poverty. It's a term which has obviously been thought up to keep anti-poverty campaigners in work.

Measuring poverty in relative terms is an insult to those in the world who have to deal with real poverty. Poverty is an absolute, not relative. Millions of people won't have food or shelter tonight and to apply to word "poverty" to someone in UK as well as them is quite frankly obscene.

[Injin]

Of course it is a pointless statement from a perspective that assumes all humans are capable of making their decisions from a logical standpoint.

All humans are rational and logical.

They don't all have decent information.

But, as I said, humans don't work in that way

Get used to it

Completely wrong.

I could give you the deeper underlying Darwinian logic behind why humans behave in the way I have described. But, I suspect you wouldn't be prepared to listen.

It'd be more "big stuff takes our choices away" excuse making Steve.

Might be true at 3, not true at 18.

[Methinkshe]

Of course it is a pointless statement from a perspective that assumes all humans are capable of making their decisions from a logical standpoint.

But, as I said, humans don't work in that way

Get used to it

You appear to have a low opinion of humanity in general coupled to a high opinion of yourself in particular, as is demonstrated by this post of yours (unless you are including yourself, and I didn't get that impression):

We live in a country of bullies, depressives and con-men

This is what you get in a society where material acquisition is prized above all other things.

Fear and greed

Mostly fear

Does this hide an inferiority complex or are you genuinely convinced of your own superiority?

I find your despair and hopelessness concerning humanity very sad.

[Guest Steve Cook]

All humans are rational and logical.

They don't all have decent information.

Completely wrong.

It'd be more "big stuff takes our choices away" excuse making Steve.

Might be true at 3, not true at 18.

Unfortunately, from your perspective, the arguments I present have empirical evidence from across the field of natural history to back them up that is both voluminous and overwhelming whereas yours have only your own ideologically driven wish-fulfilment as their foundation

Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook

[abaxas]

Take for example this.....

Family of 2 - 18k income - fecked

Family of 2 - 18k income but retired on pension - woot party time.

[Guest Steve Cook]

You appear to have a low opinion of humanity in general coupled to a high opinion of yourself in particular, as is demonstrated by this post of yours (unless you are including yourself, and I didn't get that impression):

I include myself in all of the behavioural characteristics of humans. I am human.

Does this hide an inferiority complex or are you genuinely convinced of your own superiority?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You seem to be fixated on issues of superiority and inferiority. Perhaps you could expand on this obsession?

I find your despair and hopelessness concerning humanity very sad.

I do not despair of humanity. Only of the limiting conditions of our existence

[Injin]

Unfortunately, from your perspective, the arguments I present have empirical evidence from across the field of natural history to back them up that is both voluminous and overwhelming whereas yours have only your own ideologically driven wish-fulfilment as their foundation

Piffle.

You've got long words and excuses and that's all.

[kara gee]

As above -- someone who is obese isn't (at least in the nutrition department) presumably suffering from malnutrition. But 'bad food' is often cheaper than 'good food', no?

Bad food may seem cheaper than good food to the lazy. Yes it is cheaper to buy a ready made pizza, than buy all the ingredients to make your own.

But I think in this instance you can;t compare apples with apples.

It is more of a choice of just prefering to buy and eat cheap fatty junk rather than spend the time and energy to cook something healthy and cheap from scratch. Our greed for eating vast quantities of meat exacerbates the health problems too. I for one tend to eat meat once a day. it's pretty gross when you put it into context.

I wonder if poor diet and so-called poverty are inextricably linked? I would have thought Everyone has been exposed to the Jamie Oliver and media awareness campaigns. My thoughts are, lazyness and addiction to saturated fats and sugars, and old habbits die hard. I bet it's really difficult to to permanently change ones eating habbits.

So I don't think this re-education is really working. I'm not sure of another solution other than make crap foods more expensive. Even that I doubt would work, afterall, people will buy fags no matter the cost.

[Teshoo Lama]

Duplicate

Edited June 12, 2009 by Teshoo Lama

[The Spaniard]

Of course it is a pointless statement from a perspective that assumes all humans are capable of making their decisions from a logical standpoint.

But, as I said, humans don't work in that way

Get used to it

I could give you the deeper underlying Darwinian logic behind why humans behave in the way I have described.

This is a reasonable(!) introduction to the field:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inevitable-Illusio...6750&sr=1-1

[Charlie Don't Surf]

According to the current measure of poverty practically everyone I knew when I was growing up lived in extreme poverty.

My idea of poverty and the current official measure seem to differ quite widely

[50sQuiff]

You operate on the erroneous assumption that humans are capable of making lifestyle choices based on immediate logic alone instead of on the basis of a complex interaction between social instincts and environmental demands.

I'm labouring under no such assumption. Instead, I dispute our apparent moral obligation to intervene, rather than leaving people to their 'complex interactions' - namely stuffing themselves with hotdogs and beans until they pop.

[Guest Steve Cook]

This is a reasonable(!) introduction to the field:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inevitable-Illusio...6750&sr=1-1

Yes, this is an interesting book. I would take slight issue with the authors premise that IQ cannot mitigate against irrationality in decision making. Sure enough, if the decision has to be made rapidly, then IQ will not help. However, if there is the time available to reflect on one's decision prior to making it, then there is at least the possibility that a higher IQ can afford the individual the opportunity to step back from their irrational decision. The above can be a double-edged sword, though. A higher IQ might be a cause of prevarication when a fast decision is more preferable.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook

[enrieb]

All humans are rational and logical.

They don't all have decent information.

HAMISH MCTAVISH, Sibley, Bruno, David Smith, Gordon Brown, The BBC, etc...

[kara gee]

I'm labouring under no such assumption. Instead, I dispute our apparent moral obligation to intervene, rather than leaving people to their 'complex interactions' - namely stuffing themselves with hotdogs and beans until they pop.

That would be great wouldn't it? But we can't can we.

We have NHS and a benefits system that assists all. That includes those who get so fat they can no longer work so claim incapacity benefit and mobility benefits. Then have to be cared for by the NHS for their heart problems, blood pressure and other obese related illnesses. Oh and when they 'can't' diet, they get a gastric band costing about £8k a pop.

So unless help is cut-off for over-weight people (which of course it won;t), I think we DO have a moral obligation to intervene. (Especially where kids are concerned).

[Injin]

Yes, this is an interesting book. I would take slight issue with the authors premise that IQ cannot mitigate against irrationality in decision making. Sure enough, if the decision has to be made rapidly, then IQ will not help. However, if there is the time available to reflect on one's decision prior to making it, then there is at least the possibility that a higher IQ can afford the individual the opportunity to step back from their irrational decision. The above can be a double-edged sword, though. A higher IQ might be a cause of prevarication when a fast decision is more preferable.

People don't make irrational decisions.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I'm labouring under no such assumption. Instead, I dispute our apparent moral obligation to intervene, rather than leaving people to their 'complex interactions' - namely stuffing themselves with hotdogs and beans until they pop.

You appear to be taking a different tack here in the sense that you are arguing that the rest of us should not be held morally responsible for the bad decisions of others (irrespective of the cause of those decisions). This is at least philosophically consistent, irrespective of whether or not I agree.

However, in your previous post, you asserted that there is no compulsion in some people to stuff their faces with cheap, high carbohydrate food. The evidence disagrees with you. There are a variety of factors that affect this behavioural tendency.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook

[kingsgate]

Absolute poverty kills the body

Relative poverty kills the mind

It's just the way we're built

Boll0cks!

Relative poverty only "kills the mind" if you spend all your time worrying about how someone else has got more money than you have, or a flashy car, or a big telly, or whatever.

If people spent less time and energy worrying about having unnecessary and pointless things they would be a lot happier, I think.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Boll0cks!

Relative poverty only "kills the mind" if you spend all your time worrying about how someone else has got more money than you have, or a flashy car, or a big telly, or whatever.

If people spent less time and energy worrying about having unnecessary and pointless things they would be a lot happier, I think.

All of the above is "true".

It doesn't change the way that humans are, though.

[The Spaniard]

People don't make irrational decisions.

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help but ask:

When did you decide that, Injin?

[Selling up]

I'm labouring under no such assumption. Instead, I dispute our apparent moral obligation to intervene, rather than leaving people to their 'complex interactions' - namely stuffing themselves with hotdogs and beans until they pop.

Fair enough.

But - at the risk of wandering off topic - you would have to follow this line to the conclusion and end universal healthcare etc.

The problem is that if you agree to your taxes being used to help heart attack victims etc., it immediately becomes clear that in fact you can get better value-for-your-money by using your money to prevent people becoming heart attack victims in the first place.

Spend £5 of your money to stop someone's heart attack or £10 to treat it.

Surprising as it may sound, there is good and plentiful evidence for the cost effectiveness of "nannying" - IE health promotion, behaviour change programmes etc.

I don't like it ideologically either, but given that I believe in universal taxpayer funded healthcare, I accept "nannying" as a rational money-saving activity.

[Injin]

I know I shouldn't, but I can't help but ask:

When did you decide that, Injin?

It's completely obvious, no?

They make poor decisions based on dodgy evidence or lack of knowledge - but rationality is built in.

(Barring physical defects of course.)

[Guest Steve Cook]

People don't make irrational decisions.

I'm sorry

You are going to have to work hard to beat that one......

Edited June 12, 2009 by Steve Cook