gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 15
th, 2011 at 12:51pm:
iconoclast wrote on Feb 15
th, 2011 at 10:38am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 15
th, 2011 at 8:22am:
iconoclast wrote on Feb 14
th, 2011 at 2:48pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 14
th, 2011 at 1:35pm:
Quote:That a very large % of crime and social dysfunctionality is not a function of absolute level of of resource access (i.e. poverty).
My claim is that a considerable % of violent, deviant and dysfunctional behaviour is a result of an individual's pereceived RELATIVE position in society and not just a lack of resources.
"Relative position" in society is how 'poverty' is determined....
There is no real 'absolute' level of resource access....
Different countries, and societies have different levels of 'resource access' and different poverty levels....
Then under such a definition, Saudi arabia which provides generously
to its citizens from oil income, still has poverty.
Would a society with 100K median income still have poor people?i.e. in your defintion poverty is unfairness in resource allocation and not a measure of an individual's absolute ability to survive based on the resources they are allocated.
Yes, a society with a 100k median income would still have poor people....
The cost of living is relative to the median income....the more the 'average' person earns, the more things cost...
I don't believe this is true in an absolute sense. In an absolute sense it costs me much less these days to have the basics of life as a % of my income. e.g. a 2nd hand fridge, washing machine, microwave, bed, vacuum cleaner etc are unbelievably cheap. These good were much more expensive 30 yrs ago (if they existed).
There are several causal factors: more efficient manufacturing and cheap foreign labour but the consequence is that everyone even on 20K p.a. has an absolute level of living higher than a person in the 1950s who scrubbed floors, boiled clothes and slaved over a stove.
That more depends on whether or not you define 'standard of living' by how many appliances you own....
I define it as how hours you need to work to live comfortable..
As an example, in 1950 my father earned about $11 to $15 dollars a week (converted from pounds of course)......Whn my parents married, they bought a house for about 2000 pounds ($4000.00), my mother stopped working, and on a single wage they managed to meet the mortgage, the bills (rates, power, water etc) live well, eat well and still take holidays twice a year (or more) and raise children....
All this on a weekly wage less than the current hourly rate....
Very good points but clearly what has shifted is standards. My history is similar but the houses i lived in would be unacceptable today. Or regarded as almost slums.
Then rise in house prices is clearly just another speculative bubble which throws in a huge confound. Houses should really be 50% cheaper to reflect historical trends.
Also, 2 cars is a new norm. I have never had a new car in my life.
If we factored out this growth in expectation- which is not really important in terms of basic survival- then I'm sure that the cost of food, appliances and even base model cars, has fallen as a % of household income. Well, that's my guess anyway.
Two incomes appear necessary to meet highly inflated housing
costs, the need for newness, bigger houses and new "standards"
of living such as private medical insurance, income protection insurance, dental costs, airconditioning etc.
I'm not sure these things are part of real poverty and indeed I'm convinced the real cost of the basics has fallen dramatically as a % of h/hold income.
I well remember my grandmother who also stayed home, shaving
soap scraps to make detergent, soaking chocos in sugar water to make "canned" pears and the rice water used as starch for ironing.
Forum
Pages: 
