Poverty: a relative concept

Friend: How's your spouse? Economist: Relative to what? (An Unknown Pundit)

This quip reflects a tendency among economists to measure almost everything relative to some alternative. Poverty, which is a lack of wealth or material comfort, is no exception. Everyone might agree that anyone without the physical means to sustain normal life is absolutely impoverished, but beyond that definition, poverty seems a relative concept deter­mined by time and place. For example, many Americans below our official poverty line have amenities enjoyed only by the wealthy in less developed coun­tries and seem prosperous relative to beggars and slum dwellers in some countries.

Consider how standards of liv­ing have changed over the cen­turies. The average lifespan of Europeans who survived childhood 1,000 years ago was less than 45 years. People in developed economies now typically live into their 70s because of advances in nutrition and medicine. Polio, cholera, smallpox, diphtheria, and leprosy are now extinct or quite rare in developed economies. Canning and refrigeration make it possible to store food for long periods, and the growth of com­merce has enriched diets through­out the world. Even the nobility of medieval times did not have access to things that many Americans who are classified as poverty-stricken take for granted: aspirin, fast-food restaurants, tele­phones, running water, automo­biles, electric lighting, indoor plumbing, garbage collection, paved roads, public education and transportation, antibiotics, grocery stores, "painless" dentistry, televi­sion, and central heating for their homes; this list could be extended for several pages.

Some Americans at society's bottom rungs—the homeless—do lead miserable lives, but for those in a position to receive food stamps and transfer payments, life on the dole is at least physically tolerable in most advanced economies. Suppose that you had to choose between (a) the physical comforts of a typical U.S. family relying on welfare for all its income in 1995 and (b) the standard of living enjoyed by noble members of King Arthur's court. If you ignore the trappings of power enjoyed by feudal nobility, we sus­pect that you would be reluctant to trade the range of choices avail­able to most poor Americans for life in a damp and drafty castle. This does not mean that poor Americans have a soft life. There is no doubt that the most destitute people in our society are often homeless, cold, and hungry. Our point, instead, is that poverty is in part determined by cultural norms, of which material comforts are only one dimension. Wealth and income ultimately provide their holders with freedom, power, and deference from others. Poor people have relatively less power and fewer choices over their lives. 2269 digits

---

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10