Does poverty need to exist?

Does poverty need to exist?

Poverty is a relative term. It's meaningless when discussing developed economies.

True poverty is absolute deprivation like you see in India or the Philippines, and in that case you can say that, in a post scarcity economy, that level of poverty would and should be nonexistent.

Define what you mean by the circumstance of poverty. It either has to do with people on the margins of society, either through economic circumstances, decline or lack of an industry for example, mental illness, or some form of personal decision. The question is whether or not the public at large has an obligation to help these people regardless of the underlying circumstances, and to also help them in a manner that actually works and is tailor made for those same circumstances.

I personally do not see it as something the government should be expected or even should be involved with, whether or not the public and citizens hold a separate personal responsible is up to the civic culture of that society.

Does relative poverty need to exist?

Relative poverty will always exist, just to gauge how the economy is going. Hence the word "relative".

>goods require work to produce
>people who do more work get more goods
>some people want to do more work than others

I can't see a way around income inequality as long as these three axioms are true.

Not everyone who works harder makes more money, user.

If income inequality existed in the same proportion as workload inequality, it wouldn't be a problem.
But it exists in the same proportion as inequality in negotiating power.

Poverty does exist in developed countries. Some people there can't afford a good roof over their heads.
You're absolutely poor if you can't be comfy.
But what you're saying is absurd because you can't separate European and north American economies from Asian ones. Really poor industrial workers didn't disappear from developed economies, just from rich countries.

If you have talent, and you work extremely hard in a profitable field, it's pretty hard not to make a decent amount of dough.

Sure, college is expensive, but you can go GI Bill, get a scholarship, do a 2 and 2 program at a community college, or just work up to it after some time in the trades.

Really, the equation is work + talent + capital + luck.

If you're working hard in an industrialized country and you're still poor, it's probably because you're spending your labor inefficiently.

Poverty by definition never existed prior to class society in the Neolithic and early agricultural era.

You could obviously say they lived in poverty relative to us but within stone age societies either everyone had or everyone did not - and at that point people started dying and the fittest and strongest would survive, but that isnt really poverty.

There is no evidence that open hedonism was tolerated to the expense and detriment of others, as we have today.

Of course not. A tiny fraction of the world's wealth, if redistributed properly, could vanish poverty. Not only that but doing so would greatly stimulate the world economy by building a more robust middle class.

The bigger problem with poverty is not so much the poor's lack of wealth, but the structural deprivations in education, job security, and disparity of opportunity and social networks. That is much harder to fix by just throwing money at the problem and requires extensive infrastructural and community developments in poverty sticken areas.

Best example are public defenders

>Of course not. A tiny fraction of the world's wealth, if redistributed properly, could vanish poverty
>Wealth distribution
>working
>ever

>kids in Congo and the Philippines should go to community college and get a job in IT

We are talking about poverty, which the US has very little of even in the lowest strata of society. There is no better place to be poor person, as you highlighted perfectly in your post.

Talk about the countries that provide the US with its imports and raw goods and see if poverty is such a laugh there.

>The rich giving up anything
>Ever

FTFY

Nothing "needs to" exist.

Extreme poverty is the natural state of man. It is through capitalism that 99% of us are able to live in luxury, even those of us who are poor.

The reply chain was talking about relative inequality in industrialized countries.

In places like the Congo or the Phillippines, it's mostly that everyone is corrupt as shit, and it smothers economic growth.

>relative inequality in industrialized countries
We live in a global economy, you cant consider the equity of an industrialised country without the poverty that enables it elsewhere in the world.

>it's mostly that everyone is corrupt as shit
Corruption is there, but most developed countries are also extraordinarily corrupt and continue to prosper. Corruption is far too simple an explanation.

In the last few centuries most of the world has had to catch up with the Western standards of development and industry, which evolved in relatively small liberal republic/democractic nations in Europe. This was no problem for relatively developed, ordered nations with strong traditions like Japan and China but it is a real shock for the rest of the world.

Eliminating poverty in a developed nation is not terribly hard as the likes of the Scandinavian countries show.

Poverty was the original state of human ancestors who had literally nothing when born into the world. Only through civilization and inheritance did poverty become less widespread. It's an inevitability and you are fortunate to not be living in poverty.

Poverty doesnt need to exist. We produce enough today to feed the earth 7 times. However people are so proud, especially the ones who stand by to defend it, that we do not allow others to have it because its a luxury, as well as water. the markets would go down the drain. It does not need to exist but it exists because we feel pride. The pride to say i have and you don't. Which is actually people rebuking their low self esteems. And these hungry people are killing themselves they have no land for food. However no one ever fights for the poor, only the wealthy, thats how a couple of rich people got israel.

that second one is false there are now plenty of options for passive streams of income, the most accessible being the owner ship of land and housing that can be turned in to rental properties also the ownership in part or in whole of business either through direct management or stock in corporation by lucking into a family with property and business one need never work a day in their life like donald j trump.

you must take by force what is due to you spent sweat and the blood of your enemies drag the wealthy screaming from their ivory towers and leave them raped and broken in the gutter. One only has to raise arms to take what is needed in life this is the anarchy i pray for a new dark age of hyper brutality. Man doesn't deserve to put on the air of civilization all will die, why not die in glory

>he thinks that investment isn't a form of productive labor
>he thinks that having a financial system which incentivizes investment is bad
>he thinks that parents shouldn't have the right to give some of the fruits of their labor to their children

To me situation plays a massive role in determining life outcomes.
The expectations placed on a person early in life have massive influence.
If a person is always told that their education is worthless and they'll never amount to anything, they can hardly be expected to try.

No, but sometimes yes.

In what sense?

Like, if you asked me specifically I would say no it doesn't, because poverty doesn't provide anything useful to me or people in general. Even greedy people don't 'need' poverty since they are indifferent to the circumstances of others, poverty is just a byproduct of their actions instead of a necessary component.