effective opposition

Now _that_ is irrelevant. for the term 'poverty' to be taken seriously
in the context you used, it, it must be understandable as some sort of
absolute, as Burnt is saying.

 

That sounds pretty outrageous, are you sure the other three don't have
jobs or some independent wealth ?

I've found myself seriously considering whether the cost of running my
car is worth it for the convenience and I've got a pretty good salary [1].

[1] Just what is a big salary ?
url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8151355.stm

 

So when it leads to things you don't like, you call it `social
engineering' and when it leads to things you like, you call it
`inheritance provisions'.

 

Other way round: poverty only makes sense as a relative
concept. Otherwise, we would be saying that nobody is poor because
Louis XVI didn't have a Gameboy.

 

Taken seriously by what subset of the population?

TOG has already mentioned 2 NGOs who use the relative poverty definition in
their literature when speaking about child poverty in the UK.

 

Err no, I don't know how you can in any way construe that from what I've
said.

Real improvement can *only* be made by improving the commercial and
corporate environment and therefor the working experience (and availability
of). Anything else is folly.

Which is not to say there are no things which must be addressed by social
engineering. Of course there are many things. Employment and income are
not however included.

A good example of the other. I'd vote for a suspension of house building
except for that designed and priced to be available to the average working
Joe(y). Land being subject to compulsory purchase at an appropriate price,
where necessary and in locations as necessary.. And a mandated volume of
housing coming through. And same for Housing Associations. For say the next
15 years. Builders would (have to) respond appropriately. And in fact the
(modular) concrete technology already exists, but the market only wants to
build £400k+ houses.

 

The great unwashed, of course. The people you were speaking to. Hence
my comment about ;context'.

Irrelevant again.

 

That's more a weakness on their side. The concept of relative poverty
exists and is a factor in the policies made by various levels of
government. The great unwashed, as you refer to them, need to get used to
this political reality as apparently, for one of them at least, there isn't
the motivation to get involved to bring about the changes they covet.

 

Yes. TOG is not sure whether their definitions really stack up. It
strikes me as being akin to people classifying religious hatred as
'racism', when it's actually something rather different.

 

Take a look at the real world -
Anything more than shelter, sanitation, clean water, adequate clothing
and adequate food is something to aspire and work for, anything below
this standard is poverty.

The so-called "poor" in the UK and in Europe generally have never
had it so good.

 

What do you mean by `adequate' and why do you think of poverty as
being purely material?

 

TOG, Steve & Ace sitting in a tree, with crn.

Who'd have thought?

 

Not I. And you're wrong anyway, if you think I agree with crn's point.
But I do specifically take issue with your assertion that 25% of the
population (or children, or whatever) live in 'poverty'. It's clearly
a nonsense, and the fact that government and NGOs misuse the term
doesn't justify you doing so too.

Real poverty _does_ exist, and needs to be addressed, but expanding
the definition in this way serves only to divert attention from those
really in need.

 

There are maybe a few tens of thousands in the UK in REAL poverty,
often sleeping rough or in squats. Most of these have substance abuse
and/or mental health issues. This small but important group is not
receiving the help needed. Money that is currently buying 40 inch
televisions for the workshy should be used to target these people
with proper treatment, targeted education, and in some cases
proper long term residential care for the mentally ill who were
thrown out of residential mental care in the name of "care in the
community".

 

I'd suspect there are rather more than this, actually.

 

Well you can chop it up as fine as you might like but my argument was
grounded and the differentiation is clear enough. And there needs to be
clear division.