Poverty is often defined by the lowest quintile. By that definition there is always poverty. That's bullshit.
We should measure a society by how the poorest live and by the heights achieved. If the problems of the poor are about obesity and not hunger, we're doing really well.
If you have a society where the capable have an incentive to create, and do, you're doing well. If they're considering making a tax shelter or moving, you have problems.
That creative force is what makes it so people on the bottom worry about obesity and not hunger. Incentives for unequal distribution of goods raise the general level of wealth.
A public policy should care a lot more about general wellbeing than emotional wellbeing.
If the problems of the poor are about obesity, because all they can afford to eat is HFCS-laden industrially processed food that's just cheap calories, that definitely does not mean we are doing really well.
That's not a problem of affordability, but of education. Vegetables, beans, and rice are cheaper than processed food.
That's just a guess though. I don't know why poor people eat junk. Perception of cheapness might be a big part of it. Decadent flavors and bright, colorful packaging also help, I'm sure.
The food topic is really just a metaphor. I could give a similar example with education. If you the problem is the dropout rate of school, and not that your kids need to work on your farm to make ends meet, you're doing OK.
Clearly my standard is a bit extreme in western contexts, but not so much with respect to the rest of the world or recent history.
We should measure a society by how the poorest live and by the heights achieved. If the problems of the poor are about obesity and not hunger, we're doing really well.
If you have a society where the capable have an incentive to create, and do, you're doing well. If they're considering making a tax shelter or moving, you have problems.
That creative force is what makes it so people on the bottom worry about obesity and not hunger. Incentives for unequal distribution of goods raise the general level of wealth.
A public policy should care a lot more about general wellbeing than emotional wellbeing.