I think this is a good change, but maybe would be better to leave the old standard alone in real terms and then make a new category? "the poor will always be with you"
"the poor will always be with you"
Sure, someday soon the global definition of extreme poverty will allow for clean water, adequate nutrition, clothing, and safe housing. Isn't this why we're doing... gestures around this?
If you look back in 200 years, poor people starving to death was simply an accepted fact of life. Today, poor people get fat. Do their lives suck? Absolutely! Just look at the craziness around housing. But in terms of resources per person available to the poor? Very few of us realize how good we've got it.
The extreme poverty line has remained essentially the same (adjusted for inflation) for a few decades. Projecting backwards in time, most people in every country used to be in extreme poverty. We are on track to eliminating extreme poverty within our lifetimes. They've adjusted the poverty line upwards. But just watch, life keeps on improving.
That is not "fat" in the same way that someone with cirrhosis isn't fat, that is diseased
>The name, introduced by Williams in 1935, was derived from the Ga language of coastal Ghana, translated as "the sickness the baby gets when the new baby comes"
Christ that's sad.
But poor people do in great numbers in many countries. For example there are many obese Americans on food stamps.
Thanks to social services, the number of Americans who are in extreme poverty is approximately zero. When I compare to history, I far prefer this state of affairs to what used to be the norm.
I wish I could make myself have such confidence in any government entity as much as you seem to have in US social services
All of their own fault. I recently saw a youtube compilation of tiktok clips of Americans on food stamps making videos flaunting their overfull supermarket shopping carts and it was all name brand junk food made up of refined carbs, fats and sugars, and to no ones surprise, they were all obese. No vegetables, no fruits, no leafy greens, no legumes, but all junk food which costs more than the healthy stuff. Who's fault is that? At what point is personal accountability supposed to kick in?
If you can afford a roof over your head, a car, and entire shopping carts full of name brand junk food(which is more expensive than healthy food) to make yourself obese, you are anything but poor, you are just stupid and glutenous.
Edit: I see the downvotes, but notice nobody is saying that I am wrong? ;) So then we agree that I'm right.
Which part was "incendiary"?
>you’re saying like the simplest thing
The truth is often simple, people are just too scared to confront it. So they call it "incendiary".
>Is it, perhaps, the cheapest way to get something tasty?
Healthy food is also tasty and cheaper than highly processed junk food. But it's easier to blame externalities than take accountability.
>Maybe there are underlying social problems, and that’s more interesting to discuss than “poor people are stupid and gluttonous.”
Why aren't poor people in poorer countries fat despite suffering even bigger social issue like war, slavery, rapes and famine?
>Why aren't poor people in poorer countries fat despite suffering even bigger social issue like war, slavery, rapes and famine?
Famine
People on food stamps have a lot of free time.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/most-working-age-snap-particip...
>Over half of individuals who were participating in SNAP in a typical month in mid-2012 were working in that month.
Let’s be generous and say that the other half have a lot of free time (they don’t, many are searching for a job while taking care of a family), and that the tiktok you saw only showed that other half. The parts of my comment you didn’t respond to may still be the explanation, rather than the sheer gluttony of the poor or something.
Do you think a banana is 10 dollars too? Grains and bread are cheaper. Rotisserie chickens sold as loss leaders are a cheap source of meat. But fruits and vegetables?
Those are more expensive per calorie than junk food. Especially when you take into account spoilage
> Edit: I see the downvotes, but notice nobody is saying that I am wrong? ;) So then we agree that I'm right.
No we do not agree. You’re incorrect and vindictive about it
or 4.19 million, if you wanted to spend 2 minutes and look up [the source](https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/poverty-explorer?tab=li...) actually listed in the main article