Poverty rules
I have touched on the subject of poverty before. There are rules for what poverty means. One definition is anyone who earns less that 60% of the median income of household headed by someone of working age.
So the question that crossed my mind was would there always be poverty and what did that mean.
Well firstly, its a relative issue. If the lowest earner in the UK was a millionaire and the median was a billionaire then the millionaire would be deemed to be in poverty. So what we generally consider to be poor and the term poverty are two different things. But poverty is also a cultural issue. What one person considers poor may not be the same as another culture. If poor means lack of money then certain cultures will be deemed poor but this is not the same as we think about it. Poor must be set in context. Someone who lives in a tribal community in a rain forest may have no cash but they are happy and healthy but have no money. So poverty must only have relevance where money itself has meaning. Obvious right? To be poor must mean that you have no way to access finances needed to achieve a lifestyle relative to the culture you live in.
This is why when we think of poor people in the UK they seem to have money, food, free health care etc. Then we look at starving Africans and consider them poor. And yet there is a huge gap in access to everything poor have in the UK.
But back to the maths. So if you earn 60% or less of the median income you are considered to be in poverty. The stats say that this is 23% of the working population. The interesting thing about the median is that it is not skewed by the billionaires. The median will be the middle earning if we lined up all the earnings in a row. This is where imaging this gets tough. What is it to have nobody in poverty. What it will mean is that majority of the people have to earn a very similar amount. The tighter the grouping the less will fall into poverty.
Its an interesting by product in that if everyone earned the same then there would be no poverty technically. But if we all earned two pounds per hour then we would consider ourselves poor.
The reality seems to be that the measure is one simply used to compare countries and not one that is of practical use to determine quality of life which I would have thought is the most important. Quality of life has meaning and could encompass a wider set of values than just money. Culture, education, health, money and relationships must all contribute to a good life. A one dimensional view does not seem to cut the mustard as they say
So the question that crossed my mind was would there always be poverty and what did that mean.
Well firstly, its a relative issue. If the lowest earner in the UK was a millionaire and the median was a billionaire then the millionaire would be deemed to be in poverty. So what we generally consider to be poor and the term poverty are two different things. But poverty is also a cultural issue. What one person considers poor may not be the same as another culture. If poor means lack of money then certain cultures will be deemed poor but this is not the same as we think about it. Poor must be set in context. Someone who lives in a tribal community in a rain forest may have no cash but they are happy and healthy but have no money. So poverty must only have relevance where money itself has meaning. Obvious right? To be poor must mean that you have no way to access finances needed to achieve a lifestyle relative to the culture you live in.
This is why when we think of poor people in the UK they seem to have money, food, free health care etc. Then we look at starving Africans and consider them poor. And yet there is a huge gap in access to everything poor have in the UK.
But back to the maths. So if you earn 60% or less of the median income you are considered to be in poverty. The stats say that this is 23% of the working population. The interesting thing about the median is that it is not skewed by the billionaires. The median will be the middle earning if we lined up all the earnings in a row. This is where imaging this gets tough. What is it to have nobody in poverty. What it will mean is that majority of the people have to earn a very similar amount. The tighter the grouping the less will fall into poverty.
Its an interesting by product in that if everyone earned the same then there would be no poverty technically. But if we all earned two pounds per hour then we would consider ourselves poor.
The reality seems to be that the measure is one simply used to compare countries and not one that is of practical use to determine quality of life which I would have thought is the most important. Quality of life has meaning and could encompass a wider set of values than just money. Culture, education, health, money and relationships must all contribute to a good life. A one dimensional view does not seem to cut the mustard as they say
posted by So long and thanks for all the fish at
8:57 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home