You can’t “solve” poverty, the distribution will always be there, it’s statistical mechanics and probability at work.
Hang on, isn’t that conflating (1) raising the minimum of the income/wealth/welfare distribution and (2) eliminating the variance of the income/wealth/welfare distribution? Poverty could still be basically solved by the first route (and arguably isbeingsolved) even if the second route isn’t realistic.
The papers you linked do indeed show the reduction in poverty, but it’s nowhere close to being “solved”, given the number of poor people in the first world (admittedly relatively more in US than in Sweden).
Hang on, isn’t that conflating (1) raising the minimum of the income/wealth/welfare distribution and (2) eliminating the variance of the income/wealth/welfare distribution? Poverty could still be basically solved by the first route (and arguably is being solved) even if the second route isn’t realistic.
The papers you linked do indeed show the reduction in poverty, but it’s nowhere close to being “solved”, given the number of poor people in the first world (admittedly relatively more in US than in Sweden).
Depends on your definition of poverty. A lot of people define it as some lower quantile of income or wealth distribution.
Fair point. I’d automatically assumed S_A was thinking of poverty in absolute terms but I didn’t see him say so explicitly.