Poverty is a ridiculous concept.
Jun. 10th, 2011 | 03:19 pm
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.
Absolute poverty or destitution refers to being unable to afford basic human needs.
The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of INCOME deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country. ("A minimum income level below which a person is officially considered to lack adequate subsistence and to be living in poverty." TheFreeDictionary)
India's official poverty level, on the other hand, is split according to rural vs. urban thresholds. For urban dwellers, the poverty line is defined as living on less than 538.60 rupees (approximately USD $12) per month, whereas for rural dwellers, it is defined as living on less than 356.35 rupees per month (approximately USD $7.50).[15] By this measure, only 27.5% of Indians live in poverty, whereas by the World Bank standard of $1.25 per day, 42% of Indians live in poverty – this is the third highest rate in South Asia after Bangladesh and Bhutan (who's HDI is 0.619 (medium);) ).
A traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is food (including water), shelter, and clothing.
Many modern lists emphasize the minimum level of consumption of 'basic needs' of not just food, water, and shelter, but also sanitation, education, and healthcare. Different agencies use different lists. (wikipedia)
What the needs are for? Maintaining a tolerable life. Safety.
On a side note...
I believe the list is: food, water, shelter, education, clothing.
Why is clothing last? Because in territories with favorable climatic conditions clothing is not actually necessary for "maintaining a tolerable life".
Why is education (which is a very broad term) in it? Because an educated individual can:
- recognize (more easily) values beyond the material ones, and therefore be content with what he/she has, and
- be introduced to different views and therefore recognize them.
Thus, besides providing knowledge that can be used to improve the living conditions of an individual, education prevents conflict. And lack of conflict creates safety - just as important to "maintaining a tolerable life" as anything else on the list.
But back to the point!
Food, water, shelter, education, clothing.
How do you put a price on them? All of them are available to, for example, aboriginal tribes for free. What is necessary to obtain all of this? Access to "healthy" ecosystems and peaceful interaction. Land. But there is a minimum of land (depending on location) required to sustain a human individually. We have exceeded it.
Poverty only exists where the population is too dense and creates a need for resource management. Poverty only exists, where there is a community which is as large as to require money as "proof" that an individual is part of it, and deserves a peace of the resources that the society manages.
May I deduct that population growth will inevitably increase poverty? :D
All this is well known. But the point was that if there is a community, that can ensure it's members a tolerable life (some kibbutz, tribes, etc.) without money, will it's poverty threshold be 0? And it would still be considered as poor. And poor=bad. But what does Bhutan teach us about happiness? ;)
And just an interesting fact to ponder about:
"The poverty threshold is useful as an economic tool with which to measure such people and consider socioeconomic reforms such as welfare and unemployment insurance to reduce poverty." This is the threshold for an entire country...What could be wrong with this?
Absolute poverty or destitution refers to being unable to afford basic human needs.
The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of INCOME deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country. ("A minimum income level below which a person is officially considered to lack adequate subsistence and to be living in poverty." TheFreeDictionary)
India's official poverty level, on the other hand, is split according to rural vs. urban thresholds. For urban dwellers, the poverty line is defined as living on less than 538.60 rupees (approximately USD $12) per month, whereas for rural dwellers, it is defined as living on less than 356.35 rupees per month (approximately USD $7.50).[15] By this measure, only 27.5% of Indians live in poverty, whereas by the World Bank standard of $1.25 per day, 42% of Indians live in poverty – this is the third highest rate in South Asia after Bangladesh and Bhutan (who's HDI is 0.619 (medium);) ).
A traditional list of immediate "basic needs" is food (including water), shelter, and clothing.
Many modern lists emphasize the minimum level of consumption of 'basic needs' of not just food, water, and shelter, but also sanitation, education, and healthcare. Different agencies use different lists. (wikipedia)
What the needs are for? Maintaining a tolerable life. Safety.
On a side note...
I believe the list is: food, water, shelter, education, clothing.
Why is clothing last? Because in territories with favorable climatic conditions clothing is not actually necessary for "maintaining a tolerable life".
Why is education (which is a very broad term) in it? Because an educated individual can:
- recognize (more easily) values beyond the material ones, and therefore be content with what he/she has, and
- be introduced to different views and therefore recognize them.
Thus, besides providing knowledge that can be used to improve the living conditions of an individual, education prevents conflict. And lack of conflict creates safety - just as important to "maintaining a tolerable life" as anything else on the list.
But back to the point!
Food, water, shelter, education, clothing.
How do you put a price on them? All of them are available to, for example, aboriginal tribes for free. What is necessary to obtain all of this? Access to "healthy" ecosystems and peaceful interaction. Land. But there is a minimum of land (depending on location) required to sustain a human individually. We have exceeded it.
Poverty only exists where the population is too dense and creates a need for resource management. Poverty only exists, where there is a community which is as large as to require money as "proof" that an individual is part of it, and deserves a peace of the resources that the society manages.
May I deduct that population growth will inevitably increase poverty? :D
All this is well known. But the point was that if there is a community, that can ensure it's members a tolerable life (some kibbutz, tribes, etc.) without money, will it's poverty threshold be 0? And it would still be considered as poor. And poor=bad. But what does Bhutan teach us about happiness? ;)
And just an interesting fact to ponder about:
"The poverty threshold is useful as an economic tool with which to measure such people and consider socioeconomic reforms such as welfare and unemployment insurance to reduce poverty." This is the threshold for an entire country...What could be wrong with this?