After reading and reflecting upon what Charles Murray has to say, how do you define poverty? Is poverty defined in terms of money or do you define poverty as being unable to live a modest but decent existence?
I would define actual poverty as being unable to live in a modest but decent existance. The idea of living in monetary poverty but still "living richly" [as in fullness of life] has always facenated me.
I'm not what you mean by decent existance. There are 3 billion people in the world living on less than 2 dollars a day. Poverty is also relative. What we consider impoverished in America is VERY different than what South America, Africa and third world countries view poverty.
I would have to agree with Brian. I would define poverty as unable to live a modest but decent life. There is, however, a difference between living "simply" and living in "poverty."
Poverty is as Amanda suggested relative. Different cultures and countries define poverty differently. In relation to how the upper class people in society live today, poverty might be determined in terms of money. However, many people have much more than they actually need. Poverty should really be determined by ones access to necessities and natural rights such as clean water, adequate living conditions, education, and food. Thus, I agree with Brian that poverty should be in reference to ones ability to live a decent existance.
I agree with everyone who said that poverty is not necessarily only concerned with money. Poverty concerns those who are living in unacceptable conditions and do not have the means to improve their lifestyle.
I never really thought about poverty as being unable to live in a modest but decent existence. Usually I just think of being poor as unable to afford little luxuries besides food and shelter. As the author said, that really is an American view.
I agree with Brian and Amy. I believe even if you don't have enough money to provide for certain things in life that you can still be happy. As long as people are happy with their lives they have everything they need. I also agree with Amanda's comment that the idea of poverty is different for every culture.
I agree with Amanda, poverty is different in different countries. An example that I have personal experienced is the life here and in Mexico, where I lived for 14 years, people in Mexico are more poor than poor people in the US and they seem to be happier than poor people in the US or even rich people. This is because they focus more on values and their family than in making money and even though they work really hard they will never make that much money because of the economic situation in Mexico. I agree with Brian in the sense that people can be poor and still be happy and have a decent life. I think is worse to be poor in values, love and spirit than poor economically. Money comes and goes and people can find ways to overcome the poverty but people who are morally poor will suffer lot and will never be happy.
I think poverty is always a number, as in the literal amount of money, wealth, (or in some cases means to get necessities like food and shelter) a person has. Even if someone manages to make the best of little to no income and bad circumstances and still lives a 'rich' and fulfilling life, which Brian talked about, I don't think that changes their status as technically impoverished. They just have a better attitude and perspective on their situation.
10 comments:
I would define actual poverty as being unable to live in a modest but decent existance. The idea of living in monetary poverty but still "living richly" [as in fullness of life] has always facenated me.
I'm not what you mean by decent existance. There are 3 billion people in the world living on less than 2 dollars a day. Poverty is also relative. What we consider impoverished in America is VERY different than what South America, Africa and third world countries view poverty.
I would have to agree with Brian. I would define poverty as unable to live a modest but decent life. There is, however, a difference between living "simply" and living in "poverty."
Poverty is as Amanda suggested relative. Different cultures and countries define poverty differently. In relation to how the upper class people in society live today, poverty might be determined in terms of money. However, many people have much more than they actually need. Poverty should really be determined by ones access to necessities and natural rights such as clean water, adequate living conditions, education, and food. Thus, I agree with Brian that poverty should be in reference to ones ability to live a decent existance.
Those who have less than me live in poverty and those who have more than me live in luxury.
I pity the poor and envy the rich.
I agree with everyone who said that poverty is not necessarily only concerned with money. Poverty concerns those who are living in unacceptable conditions and do not have the means to improve their lifestyle.
I never really thought about poverty as being unable to live in a modest but decent existence. Usually I just think of being poor as unable to afford little luxuries besides food and shelter. As the author said, that really is an American view.
I agree with Brian and Amy. I believe even if you don't have enough money to provide for certain things in life that you can still be happy. As long as people are happy with their lives they have everything they need. I also agree with Amanda's comment that the idea of poverty is different for every culture.
I agree with Amanda, poverty is different in different countries. An example that I have personal experienced is the life here and in Mexico, where I lived for 14 years, people in Mexico are more poor than poor people in the US and they seem to be happier than poor people in the US or even rich people. This is because they focus more on values and their family than in making money and even though they work really hard they will never make that much money because of the economic situation in Mexico. I agree with Brian in the sense that people can be poor and still be happy and have a decent life. I think is worse to be poor in values, love and spirit than poor economically. Money comes and goes and people can find ways to overcome the poverty but people who are morally poor will suffer lot and will never be happy.
I think poverty is always a number, as in the literal amount of money, wealth, (or in some cases means to get necessities like food and shelter) a person has. Even if someone manages to make the best of little to no income and bad circumstances and still lives a 'rich' and fulfilling life, which Brian talked about, I don't think that changes their status as technically impoverished. They just have a better attitude and perspective on their situation.
Post a Comment