I've recently been wondering about the use of 'poverty' and 'inequality' in political discourse. Sometimes it seems as if the two are being conflated for political purposes. I tend to think of poverty as implying a lack of the basic services available in a particular economy. In New Zealand for example, someone who went without sufficient nutrition, access to education, basic healthcare, etc would be someone I would consider in poverty.
However, the ways of measuring poverty are based on the median wage which is really a way of measuring inequality. This may approximate the people living in poverty but it could easily under- or over-estimate the actually number of people doing without adequate shelter, nutrition, and education. This reliance on inequality as a proxy for poverty also sees solutions proposed that focus on the metrics (i.e., raising income levels across the board) rather than on solutions that actually address the main negative effects of poverty which are mostly around poor health outcomes.
In addition, inequality has many negative consequences on a society in itself. For example, gated communities of wealthy individuals cutting themselves off from society decreasing diversity and allowing public services to decay. But these outcomes get lost in conversations about poverty where the inequality metrics can be dismissed as not relevant to the discussion. It might be possible that the conflation of poverty and inequality is convenient for those who wish to nothing about both.
Looking at graphs of wealth distribution, at least from the United States it seems the three classes of poor, middle, and rich could be more accurately drawn as the poor, the rich, and the ultra-rich. Perhaps the so-called middle class scared of losing its status above the poverty line prefers to have that line drawn on the basis of 60% median household income. So no matter how badly they are doing financially, they are at least better off than the bottom 40%. The ultra-rich and political players also benefit by distracting discussion from the harm of vast inequality and redirecting this concern to a discussion on poverty, only to dismiss concerns about poverty being based on faulty metrics.
Perhaps the use of poverty and inequality need to be sharply delineated so that legitimate concerns are not deflected so easily by those who benefit from the current situation. I also want to see a proper measure of poverty in different societies and for it to be talked about more in political discussions and news articles.
The poor complain, they always do, but that's just idle chatter.
Our system brings rewards to all, at least to all who matter.
However, the ways of measuring poverty are based on the median wage which is really a way of measuring inequality. This may approximate the people living in poverty but it could easily under- or over-estimate the actually number of people doing without adequate shelter, nutrition, and education. This reliance on inequality as a proxy for poverty also sees solutions proposed that focus on the metrics (i.e., raising income levels across the board) rather than on solutions that actually address the main negative effects of poverty which are mostly around poor health outcomes.
In addition, inequality has many negative consequences on a society in itself. For example, gated communities of wealthy individuals cutting themselves off from society decreasing diversity and allowing public services to decay. But these outcomes get lost in conversations about poverty where the inequality metrics can be dismissed as not relevant to the discussion. It might be possible that the conflation of poverty and inequality is convenient for those who wish to nothing about both.
Looking at graphs of wealth distribution, at least from the United States it seems the three classes of poor, middle, and rich could be more accurately drawn as the poor, the rich, and the ultra-rich. Perhaps the so-called middle class scared of losing its status above the poverty line prefers to have that line drawn on the basis of 60% median household income. So no matter how badly they are doing financially, they are at least better off than the bottom 40%. The ultra-rich and political players also benefit by distracting discussion from the harm of vast inequality and redirecting this concern to a discussion on poverty, only to dismiss concerns about poverty being based on faulty metrics.
Perhaps the use of poverty and inequality need to be sharply delineated so that legitimate concerns are not deflected so easily by those who benefit from the current situation. I also want to see a proper measure of poverty in different societies and for it to be talked about more in political discussions and news articles.
The poor complain, they always do, but that's just idle chatter.
Our system brings rewards to all, at least to all who matter.