Poverty - relative vs. absolute

[John Dibble]

Poverty is an issue a lot of people care about, but there are at least two kinds of poverty that come up in debates on the subject: relative and absolute. To understand these, you must first understand that economies are not zero-sum games - they can grow and shrink over time. If all the wealth in a nation was put into the context of a pie, everyone would have a slice. However, everyone's slice is not the same size.

Relative poverty is about comparison of the pieces - if someone has a very small piece of the pie compared to the average, that person is relatively in poverty compared to the rest of the population. Conversely, someone with a large piece of the pie relative to the average is considered wealthy. The common form of a solution presented to this kind of poverty is redistributing from the wealthy to the poor, either by voluntary contributions as charity or through taxation and government action.

Absolute poverty is more about the size of the pie and absolute 'quality of life' than anything else. When the economic pie grows, be it through new business ventures or advancing of technology, most people's slice grows with it, including those who would be considered poor - the poor affected by this growth are still relatively in poverty compared to others, but some would consider them 'less poor' than they were before because their quality of life has gone up. Examples of this are the increase in prevelance of things like air conditioning and other such goods that were formerly only affordable by those who were considered well-off in poor households.



My personal opinion is that absolute is more important - there will always be people who have less than others, but if those on the bottom rung of the ladder can more often than not still meet their needs regardless of their economic condition things are doing alright. I would much rather be poor in a first world country(even if there were no social programs) like the U.S. than in a third world country like Ethiopia because our poor people here have it much easier compared to the poor there.

[Beet]

Ordinarily I'd say absolute poverty since absolute poverty implies relative poverty-- the absolutely poor are also relatively poor.

However from the perspective of the government, which is funded by U.S. taxpayers, I would say that government has a first obligation to look after the poor in its own borders, and if that means 'relative' poverty, then we need to look at that 'relative' poverty as a more pressing problem. That does not preclude also contributing to international efforts to alleviate poverty in other countries.

[Gabu]

Depends on how broad of a scope we take.  In North America, the poorest of the poor are likely richer than most Africans, so if we only considered absolute poverty across the globe, that would preclude us from helping anyone in our own country until Africa became as prosperous as North America.

On the other hand, I am much more concerned about the poorest of the poor countrywide than about the poorest of the poor in a super-wealthy neighborhood where the median income is, say, $100,000.

I don't think that we should simply ignore the plight of African countries, but I do think that one should help one's countryman before one helps others outside of a country's borders.  Any given government has an obligation to its citizens.  Therefore, I would rank relative poverty above absolute poverty with the caveat that when considering relative poverty, one must ensure that enough people are included in consideration.

[Emsworth]

The government should not attempt to address either form of poverty.

[Gabu]

The government should attempt to address either form of poverty.

I think you left a word out there, unless you're reconsidering libertarianism.

The question was not about the government, however, but society as a whole.  An similar question would be, say, whether you would prefer to donate your money to relief work in Africa or to some service in your own country.

[Emsworth]

I think you left a word out there, unless you're reconsidering libertarianism.

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not think that one is more important than the other: each individual should be left to decide for himself. I personally have no real preference between the two.

[MasterJedi]

Absolute is worse, and that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

[opebo]

The government should not attempt to address either form of poverty.

It already addresses both forms Emsworth - it created, perpetuates, and enforces poverty. 

[minionofmidas]

The government should not attempt to address either form of poverty.

Yes, the government should get out of the business of making the country safe for big business.

[Emsworth]

It already addresses both forms Emsworth - it created, perpetuates, and enforces poverty. 

Certainly, the government perpetuates poverty. By adopting a laissez-faire policy, however, the government can avoid this problem. If the government merely removes itself from the economic picture completely, then relative poverty might increase, but absolute poverty will be significantly reduced.

[opebo]

It already addresses both forms Emsworth - it created, perpetuates, and enforces poverty. 

Certainly, the government perpetuates poverty. By adopting a laissez-faire policy, however, the government can avoid this problem. If the government merely removes itself from the economic picture completely, then relative poverty might increase, but absolute poverty will be significantly reduced.

No it wouldn't. 

The policy I referred to which creates poverty is the misnamed 'laissez-faire' policy.

[Emsworth]

... that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

I never said that I don't care about poverty. I merely said that the government should not attempt to address the issue, because when the government gets involved, things normally get worse. The conclusion that I don't care about the poor is inaccurate; I believe that their long-term well-being (and the long-term well-being of society as a whole) can be improved if government is less involved.

[ilikeverin]

I think you left a word out there, unless you're reconsidering libertarianism.

A Freudian slip, perhaps.

One could only hope

[David S]

Absolute poverty is of most concern.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

... that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

I never said that I don't care about poverty. I merely said that the government should not attempt to address the issue, because when the government gets involved, things normally get worse. The conclusion that I don't care about the poor is inaccurate; I believe that their long-term well-being (and the long-term well-being of society as a whole) can be improved if government is less involved.

Total BS.

[dazzleman]

Absolute poverty is more important to address.

It is also a lot easier to define.  Relative poverty is very amorphous.  Relative to some of the people I work with, I am financially challenged.  It's ridiculous, of course, but the definition of relative poverty could be bent and distorted for political reasons.

[Gabu]

Absolute poverty is more important to address.

It is also a lot easier to define.  Relative poverty is very amorphous.  Relative to some of the people I work with, I am financially challenged.  It's ridiculous, of course, but the definition of relative poverty could be bent and distorted for political reasons.

The only problem is that absolute poverty is very, well, absolute.  If America address only absolute poverty, then they would not be allowed to address anything in America, as essentially 100% of Africa has less money than any American.

If you restrict yourself to America, then you're now in the realm of relative poverty, in that you're constraining yourself to examine only wealth differences in one country.

[A18]

Any measure of poverty is arbitrary. The best way to help the 'poor,' however defined, is by putting them to work doing productive things, and to repeal taxes on the formation of capital (particularly capital gains, but also the death tax).

[John Dibble]

... that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

I never said that I don't care about poverty. I merely said that the government should not attempt to address the issue, because when the government gets involved, things normally get worse. The conclusion that I don't care about the poor is inaccurate; I believe that their long-term well-being (and the long-term well-being of society as a whole) can be improved if government is less involved.

Total BS.

Flawless debating skills and use of logic and evidence as usual, jfern.

[Gabu]

... that's just kind of apauling Emsworth. Most people, inlcuding me will see that as I don't care it's not my problem.

I never said that I don't care about poverty. I merely said that the government should not attempt to address the issue, because when the government gets involved, things normally get worse. The conclusion that I don't care about the poor is inaccurate; I believe that their long-term well-being (and the long-term well-being of society as a whole) can be improved if government is less involved.

Total BS.

Flawless debating skills and use of logic and evidence as usual, jfern.

stfu republican apologist

kthx

[John Dibble]

stfu republican apologist

kthx

LOL! Saving jfern the effort?

[Gabu]

stfu republican apologist

kthx

LOL! Saving jfern the effort?

Well, yeah.  It's hard work coming up with arguments as good as jfern's.  I thought I'd give him a break.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree with the concepts of absolute and relative poverty; actual absolute poverty would have to involve having absolutely nothing or the term has no real meaning at all, and taken to it's logical conclusion, relative poverty means that a man making $1million in some gated neighbourhood where the average income is $5million is somehow "poor". Up to a point both concepts are actually very demeaning to the people apparently included in each catagory. Telling someone that has something that they have nothing is just rude as is telling some poor bastard in St Denis, Bootle or the Bronx that thier poverty is merely "relative". Not that it matters because "poors" aren't real people. They probably smell as well, right?

</rant>

[opebo]

"poors" ... probably smell as well, right?

Actually it is possible to generalize that they are more likely to smell than rich, Al, due to the severe physical deprivations they suffer. 

For example, in the USA, much of the country is horrifically hot for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the year - poors may not have air conditioning, the air conditioning in their cars may be broken, or they may even be lacking a car and attempting to walk!  This leads to terrible odours that are caused by perspiration. 

[Democratic Hawk]

The government should not attempt to address either form of poverty.

You're all heart Emsworth. Hope you never fall on hard times. Unfortunately, not all private citizens feel obliged to help the poor

As for being relative or absolute. It's relative on an inter-level (i.e. between societies) but absolute on an intra-level (i.e. within societies)

Dave