Asharq Al-awsat English https://aawsat.com/english Middle-east and International News and Opinion from Asharq Al-awsat Newspaper http://feedly.com/icon.svg

Rich Societies and Poverty

Rich Societies and Poverty

Saturday, 1 December, 2018 - 05:45
What does it mean to be poor? Currently there are two basic ways to define poverty. To get a better measure of who needs help — and a better sense of how to provide it — society needs a third definition.

The first definition is absolute poverty — essentially, material destitution. Human beings need food, water and shelter, and if we can’t afford these things, life is pretty miserable. In the US, the federal government has poverty guidelines that are based on food consumption: If you make less than about three times the minimum amount people need to spend on food each year, you’re poor.

By this measure, a single adult living on $12,140 or less is considered poor as of 2018. For a family of four, the figure is $25,100. There is also a Supplemental Poverty Measure that includes not just food but clothing, shelter and utilities. Thanks in part to increased government assistance, US poverty according to this measure has fallen, especially for children.

Critics of the federal poverty guidelines argue that these numbers are too low, thanks to growing inequality. Moreover, as a country grows richer, hunger becomes less common, so using it as measure of poverty becomes less useful. When the middle class is defined by having “a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard”, then simply having a chicken would seem to indicate that you’re not poor.

This is where the second measure — relative poverty — comes in. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development defines poverty this way: If you earn less than half of the median income, you’re poor. By this measure, the US is doing a bit worse than other rich countries.

But this, too, feels unsatisfying.

Intuitively, then, it seems that a third definition of poverty is necessary — one that measures more than just material well-being but also takes into account economic growth.

Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security. Psychologist Abraham Maslow believed that safety ranked second only to food and shelter as a basic human need. Someone who has food and a roof over their head today, but doesn’t know whether they will tomorrow, should be considered poor.

Imagine a 55-year-old single woman with diabetes working a part-time job making close to minimum wage. Thanks to government assistance, her total income is $15,000 a year. But if she loses her job or has a medical emergency, she will probably become homeless. That in turn will make it very hard to get a new job, or to pay for her future health-care needs. In short, her situation is very precarious.

This kind of insecurity causes extreme stress. And this precariousness exists along several dimensions.

A reasonable, common-sense definition of poverty should include not just an absolute measure of material deprivation and a relative gauge of a person’s situation compared to the rest of society. It should also strive to measure how secure people feel — in their homes, their health, and their jobs.

This new measure might well show that poverty in the US is worse than the current statistics say. But an accurate view of a problem is the first step toward addressing it. And eliminating poverty should be a priority of any wealthy society.

Bloomberg View

Other opinion articles

Editor Picks

Multimedia