But the economical and social situations are different in rich countries. In a poor country many people are poor, usually because there is something keeping them poor, be it war, famine, government oppression, societal oppression, or something else. In such a country this argument works: you have to make begging so economically unattractive that few people would do it because they could make more with less effort by overcoming whatever problems are making them poor. Not to mention that if too many people become beggars the begging industry might collapse because there would be too few people producing things for the beggars to buy.
In a rich country, there is a strong social stigma attached to begging. Some cultures make exceptions for beggars with particular obvious reasons for begging (injured war veterans, orphans, etc.), but to my knowledge no rich society considers it acceptable for a person who could earn a living by other means to beg. And, being humans and not “economic men”, the people in those societies feel that pressure and will go to extreme measures to avoid begging, including resorting to theft (albeit a career choice made possible by having a large population with enough money to have things worth stealing). So in a rich society it probably actually doesn’t hurt to give money to beggars, and may even help because it might make begging attractive enough to overcome the social stigma that pushes some people to commit crimes.
That’s my armchair social analysis. It feels like it’s at least a shadow of reality, though, if not more.
Poverty is the default condition of most of humanity for most of history. It would be more accurate to say they have a lack of the conditions for becoming wealthy. Not to say that war, oppression, etc don’t prevent the necessary conditions from forming.
It’s also an absolute term. I believe <2USD/day is a common figure, with <1USD/day for Extreme poverty.
Relative poverty is by definition intractable. That is not the case with absolute poverty.
Is there another term that can be used to differentiate the two with a single word, as opposed to these adjectives?
It’s a moving target. As soon as you’ve “solved poverty”, “absolute poverty” will be defined as <4USD/day. It’s probably best to specify the threshold you mean, if you’re thinking of a particular threshold. This will also make it less confusing to readers a thousand years from now.
What counts as a threshold if not monetary values?
Lack of access to things like running water and antibiotics is a mark of poverty in 2009. The pharoahs of course had neither thing because they didn’t exist, but this does not mean they were poor.
Readers a thousand year from now will inevitably regard all of us as incredibly poor, if they are reading this at all.
The pharoahs of course had neither thing because they didn’t exist, but this does not mean they were poor.
The pharaohs may have been richer than Egyptian peasants in strictly monetary terms, but they were definitely poor in an absolute sense. Since poverty is the default human condition, this shouldn’t be surprising.
What counts as a threshold if not monetary values?
I was not suggesting using something other than monetary values as a threshold (though they are of course something of a placeholder). Rather, I’m suggesting that you specify exactly what threshold you mean when you use one. Rather than “absolute poverty” you could say “living on <2USD a day”, or perhaps define “poverty” stipulatively as “living on <2USD a day”.
But the economical and social situations are different in rich countries. In a poor country many people are poor, usually because there is something keeping them poor, be it war, famine, government oppression, societal oppression, or something else. In such a country this argument works: you have to make begging so economically unattractive that few people would do it because they could make more with less effort by overcoming whatever problems are making them poor. Not to mention that if too many people become beggars the begging industry might collapse because there would be too few people producing things for the beggars to buy.
In a rich country, there is a strong social stigma attached to begging. Some cultures make exceptions for beggars with particular obvious reasons for begging (injured war veterans, orphans, etc.), but to my knowledge no rich society considers it acceptable for a person who could earn a living by other means to beg. And, being humans and not “economic men”, the people in those societies feel that pressure and will go to extreme measures to avoid begging, including resorting to theft (albeit a career choice made possible by having a large population with enough money to have things worth stealing). So in a rich society it probably actually doesn’t hurt to give money to beggars, and may even help because it might make begging attractive enough to overcome the social stigma that pushes some people to commit crimes.
That’s my armchair social analysis. It feels like it’s at least a shadow of reality, though, if not more.
...”Making them poor?”
Poverty is the default condition of most of humanity for most of history. It would be more accurate to say they have a lack of the conditions for becoming wealthy. Not to say that war, oppression, etc don’t prevent the necessary conditions from forming.
Only if poverty is very poorly-defined. Poverty is a relative term.
It’s also an absolute term. I believe <2USD/day is a common figure, with <1USD/day for Extreme poverty.
Relative poverty is by definition intractable. That is not the case with absolute poverty. Is there another term that can be used to differentiate the two with a single word, as opposed to these adjectives?
It’s a moving target. As soon as you’ve “solved poverty”, “absolute poverty” will be defined as <4USD/day. It’s probably best to specify the threshold you mean, if you’re thinking of a particular threshold. This will also make it less confusing to readers a thousand years from now.
What counts as a threshold if not monetary values?
Lack of access to things like running water and antibiotics is a mark of poverty in 2009. The pharoahs of course had neither thing because they didn’t exist, but this does not mean they were poor.
Readers a thousand year from now will inevitably regard all of us as incredibly poor, if they are reading this at all.
The pharaohs may have been richer than Egyptian peasants in strictly monetary terms, but they were definitely poor in an absolute sense. Since poverty is the default human condition, this shouldn’t be surprising.
I was not suggesting using something other than monetary values as a threshold (though they are of course something of a placeholder). Rather, I’m suggesting that you specify exactly what threshold you mean when you use one. Rather than “absolute poverty” you could say “living on <2USD a day”, or perhaps define “poverty” stipulatively as “living on <2USD a day”.