Personally I don't believe there is and that therefore such advocacy groups have a fundamentally flawed argument. I would agree with Firefly that poverty should be defined as a certain level of living standard and not level of incomeI have often wondered about this. If poverty is having less than,say, 70% of the average wage, and poverty is always relative, we can never solve the poverty problem.
If the "poor" continue to earn/receive the same amount but those in jobs earn more, then relative poverty will increase. The richer a society gets, the more poverty there will be. Unless the social welfare rate is set at 90% of the average wage. In which case no one will bother working.
Is there no absolute measure of poverty?
Brendan
I always understood absolute poverty to mean that basic food and shelter were not enjoyed. We have lots of people in relative poverty in this country with running water, electricity and ample supply to good, fresh food. To say that such people are poor in IMO is a stretch.
Absolutely right, and it is government actions that are making equal opportunities increasingly a myth. And just to clarify, equal opportunity does not mean government helping a certain group of people attain their goals, it means not putting any hurdles in the way of anybody striving to achieve a certain goal.Social Justice Ireland seems to want government policy directed towards an equality of outcome agenda rather than an equality of opportunity agenda. This is fundamentally unjust and morally wrong.
Page 60 - Percentage of the population reporting other types of deprivation by year
Deprication indicator - "Unable to afford a satellite dish":
Overall % (all individuals) ~ 9.4%
Amongst those at risk of poverty (as defined by the report) ~ 13.9%
So the report wants us to believe that all these people are at risk of poverty but 86.1% can afford a satellite dish?
Page 60 - Percentage of the population reporting other types of deprivation by year
Deprication indicator - "Unable to afford a satellite dish":
Overall % (all individuals) ~ 9.4%
Amongst those at risk of poverty (as defined by the report) ~ 13.9%
So the report wants us to believe that all these people are at risk of poverty but 86.1% can afford a satellite dish?
And as the cost of financing a certain minimum standard of living is different by country and even by region within a country I believe there is no way to quantify poverty by using fractions of averages.
A strange report! 300 pages with no executive summary or conclusions. If it states that 700K people are living in poverty I couldn't see it. All graphs, etc appear to be copied from other sources.
No continue on reading and Post a summary of the key findings with commentary whe your finished
Fundamentally, poverty is about absolute deprivation.
That is clearly not the end of the story, however. On the World Bank standard, no one in North America or western Europe is poor. And very few people in these continents do not have enough to eat.
We might observe that obesity is a disease not of the rich but of the poor. In making such a statement, we endorse the notion that poverty is relative, not absolute. That principle is enshrined in the UK definition, which rises with the general standard of living.
...
You might therefore be poor if you lack access to antibiotics or Facebook, even though in this respect you are no worse off than the Sun King or John D Rockefeller, and in other respects are considerably better off than most people in the world.
Very good points made, reminds me of a cartoon I saw years ago with a depiction of a poor African child saying he wanted to go to America because even poor people in America were fat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?