poverty how do we define it ... what to do ?

[ecuworrier]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/04/children-lilving-poverty-uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/11/guardian-weekend-readers-letters

i came to the online letters page by accident and started to read the article it refers to a bit of a theme of the day this....  bullying cos you don't come from a fancy house...

i say i started reading... i couldn't read it all .....   poverty defined as lying cos you can't afford to go on holiday?   .... pathetic? no i couldn't read it cos the pain of the shame of poverty and lost and absent opportunities this affords in a modern britain perhpas in a more complex way than previous

i was moved by the first letter writer charging up to paint the bedroom of the kid.....   should we be moved into action to provide stuff that is out of reach for stuff the rest of folks takes for granted?...  or do we half the time completely miss the point...

if we do what is it we just don't get or just do not want to?


kids aren't the only onexs suffereing in poverty by the way

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[tranchiebabe]

One person's poverty could be another's riches.

[AndyHB]

In a way, ecu, you have opened a topic that has been around for centuries, and to which there are innumerable answers.  However, we need to decide whether we are trying to define absolute or relative poverty.

Wikipedia explains absolute poverty thus:

Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day (but note that a person or family with access to subsistence resources, e.g. subsistence farmers, may have a low cash income without a correspondingly low standard of living - they are not living "on" their cash income but using it as a top up). It estimates that "in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day." A dollar a day, in nations that do not use the dollar as currency, does not translate to living a day on the amount of local currency as determined by the exchange rate. Rather, it is determined by the PPP - purchasing power parity, which would look at how much local currency is needed to buy the same things that a dollar could buy in the United States. Usually, this would translate to less local currency than the exchange rate in poorer countries as the United States is a more expensive country.

Relative poverty in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.  It is really an index of income inequality, as opposed to 'poverty'.  The problem then is getting a valid and realistic income scale.  After all, whose job is more important to the overall health of the nation - a doctor, a bank manager or a dustman?

[EliB]

One person's poverty could be another's riches.

I agree! It's a relative concept....! I've not been working for a while, and as a result am permanently skint! Am I living in poverty compared to some of my friends who have good jobs? Yes! Am I living in poverty compared to some kids in third world countries? No!!! But financialy I'm still really struggling, so who's to say what "poverty" is....

[JJ]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[ecuworrier]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

would you like to expand on this... this as a model was a bit mindblowing and helpful  when first introduced by a psychobabble person doing some group training many years ago... nowadays i'm not convinced of it's value other than that it says that if certain conditions are met gives you a platform to achieve a whole pile of other stuff it seems that it is a personal thing of course terribly important to the person who has it all anyway.... for example  it does not seperate the person with personal goals destructive to those around them from the person who wants to enhance life........   but it kindov says which is basic biology that if you don't have all the basics you will die....  it also does not take out the relativeness of injustice of a person or persons within any political or social setting..... but dunno if it has ever  been a political toy.... or could helpfully be just cos in democracy theirs a rather short sell by date...   what do you think?


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[JJ]

What's a psychobabble person?

I see it a relatively useful tool for looking at the basic needs of a human in a sort of semi scientific way.  It's useless to try and teach or help a person if the basic metabolic needs are not met, so a level of poverty where food and shelter are not available seems to be absolute, and we should ensure that all able to eat before they learn to dance.

It does separate out the person whose goals are destructive because it includes respect for self and others in one of its stages thus ensuring that the hierarchy is benign.   I think the assumption is that self development is going to be healthiest when it recommends love and belonging after stage 1 and 2.

[EliB]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Wow! Thanks for this nostagia JJ! Brought back memories (good/bad, not sure! lol) of a Business Admin HNC course from a million years ago....

I still think it's a useful model - unless A is met, then B isn't going to make much difference...and C is far off the scale - at THAT point but each level is to be aimed for (at least that's kind of how it was explained to us way back in the dark ages!!)

[ecuworrier]

What's a psychobabble person?

I see it a relatively useful tool for looking at the basic needs of a human in a sort of semi scientific way.  It's useless to try and teach or help a person if the basic metabolic needs are not met, so a level of poverty where food and shelter are not available seems to be absolute, and we should ensure that all able to eat before they learn to dance.

It does separate out the person whose goals are destructive because it includes respect for self and others in one of its stages thus ensuring that the hierarchy is benign.   I think the assumption is that self development is going to be healthiest when it recommends love and belonging after stage 1 and 2.

how does a model separate out folks who act out destructive goals jj?  surely in order for at least some of the famous individuals to act out theri fantasies they have to have the lower tiers in a semblance of working well... the elimination of unwanted 'factors'  is part of a form of self actualisation process ... that certain social formats are helpful  only underlines they are hard to beat..  ?

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[JJ]

I don't understand what you are saying in your reply ecu.

The pyramid (if that is what it is, seeing as it's two dimensional on the page!) is a model for optimum development of a healthy individual  As I said before - respect for self and others is a feature of it and therefore this would indicate that it doesn't work for an abusive person.  It breaks down even if they have enough food and shelter, which many do.  Levelling up towards optimum functioning means being a good person, not a selfish and disrespectful and abusive one.

[ecuworrier]

I don't understand what you are saying in your reply ecu.

The pyramid (if that is what it is, seeing as it's two dimensional on the page!) is a model for optimum development of a healthy individual  As I said before - respect for self and others is a feature of it and therefore this would indicate that it doesn't work for an abusive person.  It breaks down even if they have enough food and shelter, which many do.  Levelling up towards optimum functioning means being a good person, not a selfish and disrespectful and abusive one.

Bless you ! but if personal aspiration and self actualisation is is the ultimate goal then ....   is this not as much a goal as a consequence.... and by previous observations by you on other lines as to the real life turn out of the human who is really just as they are then the mechanics of the model surely as much apply to a bad person as a good person..

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[ecuworrier]

RANDOM TEXT NEEDS EDITING

on a recent radio programme.... a man was discussing a 40 year study of Whitehall employees and their health prospects ....   and stress.... he got the shock of his life and spent two years trying to disprove his findings before giving in...   he made what was an ultimately shocking and very interesting observation that for me has really interesting and quite shocking implications ....   

he initially thought that the higher up a person is in the management heirarchy the more pressure and stress they are under and therefore the more at risk their health is... i think he may have mentioned that they are given more pay to compensate for the pressure .....   the people he found who were more likely to have theri careers and lives curtailed by heartattakcs and the like were the middle layers of management.....   having spent some time pondering these unexpected results he was muttering about the amount of control people have of theri lives... he further made the general observation...  that the higher up a person was in the heirarchicla ladder the more control they had (doesn't mean they make the best plans /ideas ... there was talk of self esteem)  that the lower ranked the person was all things being equal the less their life chances .....   i think it was veering towards a debate abut social pressures and esteem that those lower ranked weren't used to being in control ...and that this might influence other decisions one made in one's life... which is kindov along the vague lines of a maslow model


i was interested in ythis cos in the modern world of increased longevity... we've been working hard at stuff we have been busy building some pretty complex heirarchies that in simple community arrangements might be far simpler.....   yes some heriarchy and not necessarily that benevolent .... but alternatives quite complex adding layers at the top .... increasing longevity for those able to 'rise to the top one way or another'  whilst the bottom layers are at risk of illness and heartdisease and death similar to the world over.... governed by the vialbility of life that perhaps is pretty similar the world over... ie the bits missing will result in death.... 


kindof that with all the evidence of longevity increases in western life the relative success of

i did like his comments within a context of valuation and who should be paid more for what based on the pressure put on them.... 

you know what i am very interested in this ....

[JJ]

I think we are at cross purposes with this Maslow's pyramid thing ecu.

The model is a model for the perfect development of an ideal human being with all her organs and faculties working at optimum level........And not for the result of lifelong development of every human whether damaged or under-developed or not.  Self-actualisation is a term for the ultimate development possible for a human and not for the end result of a life of striving for personal goals whatever they are.
It's a model, not a description.

An illustrative example might be something like a knitting pattern.  The knitted product is not the pattern, and it's likely no end product will match the pattern exactly.  A bad person is not self actualised otherwise they wouldn't be bad.