If the poor get poorer why do they have more stuff than ever before? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14972500
Because the liberal arguments are based upon the past. They accomplished their goals and have nothing to do, but pretend they haven’t. This requires them creating a current fantasy world that envisions the past is the present. We are not as poor and we are not as racist, but they know admitting success makes them obsolete.
#14972533
Pants-of-dog wrote:Two comments:

1. Poor is a relative term.

2. It is not about how much stuff you have, but how well you can manipulate social situations with your wealth. The poor cannot do this even if they have a second hand LCD TV.


Are you suggesting the poor have less opportunity of social/economic mobility today?
#14972601
SolarCross wrote:If the poor get poorer why do they have more stuff than ever before?


Who says they have more stuff than ever before? They have more of some things and less of others. They have more junk than ever before but they have far less space than they did before urbanization. They're definitely getting poorer in terms of their share of total global wealth. By sheer numbers there's way more poor people than ever before and there's a greater percentage of people living in poverty than ever before.
#14972603
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. It is not about how much stuff you have


It is absolutely about how much stuff you have, that's all it's about. Poverty is lack of wealth(material resources), that's all it is.
#14972616
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... -years-ago

The ultimate determination of poverty is starvation. There are fewer starving today than 25 years ago despite population increase. The only way you can argue poverty is worse is by changing the definition of what it means to be poor.
#14972626
Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems arbitrary.

Why should this be the sole criteria?


I didn’t say it was the sole one. It is the one least likely to be manipulated by changing the definition. It is not subject to as much dispute. Starving or not starving is fairly evident. It is not immune to distortion, just less so imo.
#14972637
One Degree wrote:I didn’t say it was the sole one. It is the one least likely to be manipulated by changing the definition. It is not subject to as much dispute. Starving or not starving is fairly evident. It is not immune to distortion, just less so imo.


So there is no inherent reason to regard starvation as a better critieria than anything else. Okay.
#14972641
Pants-of-dog wrote:So there is no inherent reason to regard starvation as a better critieria than anything else. Okay.


Nope. Fewer people starving seems like the best evidence of reduced poverty. Do you have a better one?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 19

MistyTiger, I've always liked talking to you. Do […]

EU-BREXIT

Honda decided to close Swindon, Nissan partly ret[…]

@Hindsite Nothing you said is an argument. Wha[…]

Very Serious People

Why not? I'm intrigued by this notion, actually. […]