Why have the poors been poor through out history...

Though, the "poor" in america seem "rich" because of their indirect exploitation of the poorer rest of the world

As a side note, if you go to Beverly Hills and see men in suits, they're the worker bees.

The men in shorts, socks, sandals and t-shirts are the rich men.

Tyrone never did anything to Kunte Kinte, no.

Though, mind the fact that the "poor" in america seem "rich" because of their indirect exploitation of the poorer rest of the world.
>t. posted from my bangladeshi slave laptop

Would you rather live in relative poverty as an African king that rules over the life and death of ten thousand naked savages or enjoy the comfort of a lower class western life?

African kang no doubt.

The latter. The former never ends well.

The latter, obviously
>refrigerators
>internet
>unlimited vidya, movies, books
>air conditioning
>travel
>healthcare
>no toxic disease and hordes of ghouls/CIA agents at my doorstep to violently depose me

depends to be fair, as an Indian I need a lot of rupees to maintain my lifestyle of 1 apartment, an internet and electricity connexion which is always subpar to what a burgerlander gets for flipping burgers at minimum wage.

Well I am not sure if lower class western life as in the question is comparable to India.

if you're looking for one single answer, you're not gonna get it, simple as that.

Whether it's because someone couldn't afford further schooling, had no personal drive to advance further, felt fulfilled a certain point and stopped, had a company they worked for go under and got laid off, there's too many causes in what makes people rich or poor.

it pretty much is. A lot of what western countries take for granted as bare minimum needs are luxuries in india, and we have a schizophrenic government apparatus that needs to be purged with fire.

Get one with a loo.

But relative terms dont really matter that much. When you have people who can starve and freeze to death while surrounded by a world of excess, relativity isnt an issue being considered.

I'd rather live self-sufficiently, hunting and growing plants and making my own tools until the jarl sails into the fjord on his longship and says "get in loser we're raiding England". We could sack a few towns, become wealthy, and eventually be granted land in exchange for peace. This becoming a Lord. My sons would be educated by Greeks and Monks, but would still worship the Allfather. Good times, 800-900, eh?

Enjoy your tapeworm, 50% child mortality and shitty food.

So why are there still large amounts of "poor" people in the first world?

Our poors are overfed let there remain perspective

>genetics

What you wanted to say is some people developed normally some developed in dysfunctional families or suffered brain damage - that's what you meant, thus their quality of life is lower.

Actually, average IQ is always set as 100

Well you're not wrong that a huge proportion of wealth is inherited. A very small amount indeed of new rich are self-made in the mythical "bootstrap" sense.

The big innovation of the 19th and 20th century was a middle class, which promised a good average life with several amenities and so on. It was never expected that anyone would get rich unless they had a particular cunning, a genius idea, and the right backers at the right time.

Small prices to pay for freedom.

There's actually several poor people to a single rich person.

50% of the world's wealth is owned by about 83 ppl, or 13 major families.

2.8 billion ppl currently live below the Western agreed poverty line.

So for every ultra rich person, there's 40 million poor

Let that sink in

Poor want status.

Rich have status.

youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg

If there exists a meaningful single answer at all then it is unstable equilibrium

guy on the left
>lack confidence
>needs to assert that he has some
guy on the right
>doesn't care about how other people look at him

Poverty is a relatively new phenomenon, having originated with capitalism and other economic systems after the renaissance in the XIV century.

Poverty is systemic; the poor, and the rich, are the result of the economic system in which they operate.

>Poverty is a relatively new phenomenon

Did you not read the rest of the sentence, moron?

Extreme poverty has been by far the most common condition for everyone until recently. In the west at least it now barely exists

>Extreme poverty has been by far the most common condition for everyone until recently

False.

Extreme poverty is an artificial, and relatively new phenomenon intrinsic to capital-centered economic systems like capitalism, or communism.

In prerenaissance societies there was no poverty, nor richness, as we consider them today. Social class was detremined by status based on aristocratic standards, not on money, or power; money, and power were contingent to the status of a person, or group, not conversely as today.

Hahahaha that is hilarious!

How so?

>In prerenaissance societies there was no poverty, nor richness, as we consider them today.
Key emphasis being "as we consider them today".

If you're a relativist who describes poverty as, for instance "the poorest 10%", then yes of course there will always exist the same number of poor people in the world.

However, if you define poverty as wanting in food and shelter, then literally no one is poor today in the West. A poor person today is less poor, in absolute terms, than kings living a few centuries ago.

Also,
>falling for the marx meme

>Key emphasis being "as we consider them today".

Not really, since I made the difference obvious by explaining it.

>If you're a relativist who describes poverty as, for instance "the poorest 10%", then yes of course there will always exist the same number of poor people in the world.
>However, if you define poverty as wanting in food and shelter, then literally no one is poor today in the West.

By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.

By "richness" it is meant a persistent abundance of basic goods.

Note that by "lack" it is meant total absence, and/or scarcity, and by "abundance" it is meant not excess, but total presence, or constant supply.

It is only later, with the corrupt systems that arose after the middle ages, that the socioeconomic equilibrium of societies became unstable and extreme, the definitions of "rich", and "poor", becoming perverted also.

>A poor person today is less poor, in absolute terms, than kings living a few centuries ago.

You're fucking retarded.

>>falling for the marx meme

???

>t-theres no such thing as genetics, everyone is the same height, and has the same intelligence! - t. tumblrwhale

>By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.
And no one in the western world lacks of basic goods. Thanks for agreeing with me.

>You're fucking retarded.
For stating a fact?

>???
How dishonest.

>And no one in the western world lacks of basic goods.

Just go away, retard.

>I-I'll call him a retard, that'll show him
"""poor""" people today have iPhones and the latest air jordans.

Well apparently they needed the word before the 14th century.

>1125-75; Middle English poverte < Old French < Latin paupertāt- (stem of paupertās) small means, moderate circumstances. See pauper,

>poor (adj.)
>c. 1200, "lacking money or resources, destitute; needy, indigent; small, scanty," from Old French povre "poor, wretched, dispossessed; inadequate; weak, thin" (Modern French pauvre), from Latin pauper "poor, not wealthy," from pre-Latin *pau-paros "producing little; getting little," a compound from the roots of paucus "little" (see paucity) and parare "to produce, bring forth" (see pare).

You're so far into your own ignorant and conceited bubble that you don't even know the difference between being poor, or being rich.

> that you don't even know the difference between being poor, or being rich.
I do, I go by the same definition as you do :
>By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.

Completely agree with this.

I then added that no one in the western world lacks in basic supplies. You then proceeded to chimp out.

You're an idiot, and a willful ignoramus.

Is this marxist history?

What does Marx have to do with this?

It's a buzzword I see every so often on his and I have no idea how it factors into this.

Do you have any argument beyond "ur dum"?

Or are you such a literal fucktard that your puny brain can't muster anything beyond incoherent insults?

>Exploitation

Why would they work building laptops if they had a better alternative?
The poorest and most marginalised groups in these societies are the one who benefit the most from factories moving over. Bangladeshi girls can now earn an income themselves meaning that they are no longer dependent of male family members who abuse them etc. The factory owner doesn't care if you are low caste, so long as you can do your job he will pay you. These wages are going up.

>Poor

Not compared to those on the streets in Bamako etc

>Poverty
>Originated with capitalism

Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty than any system before or contemporary to it.

>Marxists

Do you even know what a Marxist is?