Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[giblets]

And that's not moving the poverty demarcation point?! That's not increasing his standard of living?!

The free education is for everyone, not just people who are considered to be in poverty. Lack of access to education isn't being included in the definition of poverty, it's just being pointed out that it's a barrier for those who would like to climb out of poverty and stop relying on free stuff from the government to meet their basic needs.

[Jon Miller]

I am not "increasing the poverty line as the standard of living for the middle class/wealthy rises". The middle class/wealthy have had health care/education available for over 60 years.

My definition of poverty is independent of the standard of living of the middle class/wealthy.

So yes, I fail to see how your posts are relevant.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The free education is for everyone, not just people who are considered to be in poverty.

As an example, exactly.

In such a situation, providing education to the poor has nothing to do with standard of living.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

Wut?

Apolyton Twilight Zone at its finest.

So poor people wouldn't be richer with subsidized healthcare and education just because everyone else would have it? Wut?

[Jon Miller]

How do we define poverty? Poverty in 1900 meant a lifestyle entirely different than in 2000 and will mean something entirely different in 2100. Poverty is always relative to what the rest of the people have (be it, the median or the very rich). It is not an objective demarcation.

Inequality can remain high while the poverty level rises so the poor can have better and better lifestyles over time, just not better lifestyles relative to other members of the society.

I would think improvements over time is the goal of any attempt at social betterment, not necessarily leveling people's statuses. Would be silly to level everyone today to 2100's poverty level.

To quote you.

Once more, saying that people should be able to acquire an education and should have access to health care has nothing to do with what you posted here.

It is not a 'relative' definition in the sense that 20 years ago no one had iphones and now everyone has one (and so someone is in poverty if they don't have an iphone... I am not saying that).

My definition is different than yours.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Wut?

Apolyton Twilight Zone at its finest.

So poor people wouldn't be richer with subsidized healthcare and education just because everyone else would have it? Wut?

You were saying that it is just an increase of poverty level as median/wealthy/middle class standard of living increases.

It can have nothing to do with the standard of living increasing if for example we make all health care/education free.

If shelter, food, health care, and education were all freely available, then those in poverty could have 0 income and 0 funds to spend and the middle class/wealthy could have an increase in funds of 1000% and go from driving VW bugs to driving flying cars and yet the poverty line would still stay the same in my definition. (obviously since shelter, food, health care, and education were freely available, no one would be in poverty, despite people being at 0 income)

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

But you're saying inability to afford education and healthcare means poverty!``

[Al B. Sure!]

If shelter, food, health care, and education were all freely available, then those in poverty could have 0 income and 0 funds to spend and the middle class/wealthy could have an increase in funds of 1000% and go from driving VW bugs to driving flying cars and yet the poverty line would still stay the same in my definition.

JM

How is the value of shelter, food, health care, education, etc. NOT considered their income/funds to spend?!

America has a major poverty problem. 99.9% of Americans are impoverished. They don't have a single Euro!

[Jon Miller]

But you're saying inability to afford education and healthcare means poverty!``

Yep.

Health care is easily defensible. I think that education is too.

The requirement to pay for education and health care is possibly part of the problem (although I understand that it is possible to set things up in a market fashion and it is possible that this is preferible. Obviously in this case higher transfer payments are required which do not necessarily go to health/education/food/shelter.)

JM

[giblets]

Wut?

Apolyton Twilight Zone at its finest.

So poor people wouldn't be richer with subsidized healthcare and education just because everyone else would have it? Wut?

Sure they'd have more. But the only situation where you'd need a "definition of poverty" is one where you only offer a benefit to certain people who are considered the most needy. If you offer subsidized healthcare and education to everyone this has nothing to do with any "definition of poverty".

[Jon Miller]

Poverty is obviously not having enough to survive.

How can you not survive? You can not survive by not having enough food to eat. Or shelter to protect you from the heat/cold/rain/etc. Or by not having health care.

I would also say that poverty is not having a reasonable opportunity to advance your material status. What is required for that now? The ability to acquire an education, which is getting more and more out of reach for the poor (those in poverty). A reasonable level of opportunity is not available to the poor (those in poverty) when only those who can get full ride scholarships in high school are able to get an education.

Poverty is also lacking reasonable opportunity.

JM

[DaShi]

2) you can view diminishing marginal utility to be a fundamental problem, but I view it simply as an opportunity.

If life hands you increasingly worse lemons, make increasing stronger hard lemonade.

[KrazyHorse]

Let's recapitulate again

1) Most social issues are not all that bad since we get iPhones
2) Poverty and inequality are not the same, so let's argue for ages about a semantic distinction

You're an idiot.

[KrazyHorse]

The percentage of US families below the poverty threshold, an absolute definition of poverty, has not decreased since the 1970's.

It os absolute relative to the Cpi...which has serious problems when applied to the left tail of the income distribution. Further, it ignores many other demographic changes which increase measured poverty despite increasingly good outcomes for all underlying groups. It ignores all in-kind transfers (such as food stamps and section 8 assistance). Finally, it ignores the utility the poor have gained through reducing work effort.

[KrazyHorse]

If life hands you increasingly worse lemons, make increasing stronger hard lemonade.

I think you misunderstand what I meant by that...