Talk:Poverty

Definition

No one is poor. Yes, the definition appears so narrowly constructed for such a general topic. I would like to discuss the use of a more generic definition that would fit all circumstances.

Poverty is simply the state of being without; it opposite, prosperity, is the state of being with excess.

Defined in this way, we can begin to address a poverty of spirit in addition to its more acedemic use. Also, defining poverty as a 'state' implies a nonperminance; whereby, individuals can move from poverty to prosperity.

Kevin Monte de Ramos is gay. author "Poverty and the Public Utility"

---

This article seems substandard to me. The definition of poverty seems poor (no pun intended). Insufficient means to live implies starving to death.

Let's distinguish between poverty in the sense of the line separating the middle class from those of lesser means -- and people dying from famine.

A few months back I tried to find a definition of poverty level, but hours on online searching (maybe I'm inefficient) got me hardly anywhere, which is embarassing for someone with my last name (poor). --Ed Poor

In law, poverty is recognised, in most systems of developed countries, as a mitigating factor for the determination of the punishment, being usually considered coincident with a generic and permanent state of need which can affect and alter the correct capability of clearly or freely identifying the legally and socially acceptable behaviour.

I know the french have very specific laws on mitigating punishment for the 'poor' I'll see if I can find an 'expert' to help us on that one.--dgd

It also takes a very materialist approach to poverty... for some poverty is a derth of the psychological and not the material.

---

What are factual means?

Why is Planet capitalized. Sounds sort of new age.

---

many societies employ social workers to fight poverty by a variety of methods ranging from moral persuasion to direct financial subsidy.

Do they convince them they are not poor, or what?

Excluding collective hypnosis, what precisely this refers to? G

The political right considers poverty to be a choice. Hence the mantra,

"Get a job."

---

A person living in this condition of poverty is said to be poor.

The poor becomes to live is a state of poverty because society has pressured them to be so. A family of limited resources living in a remote mountain village in a "third world" country like...example the Philippines...will easily classify to be "poor" by today's "first world" standard. They are not necessarily living in a state of poverty. But this same family, when overtaken by ubanization becomes impoverish when they are marginalized by society itself especially if their government is insensitive.

poverty cycle?

There is no mention of the poverty cycle playing a part in ... poverty. Or even formally stated, a "sociological" cause in causing poverty. Poverty breeds poverty in a quid pro quo economy. I just happened to request an elaboration be put here because the article on Anarcho-Communism needs it as it discusses the subject as a solution to solve poverty (because it links to a non-existent article named the poverty cycle). Now, if it was included in this article, I could simply change it, rather than having to create a toally new article. -- Natalinasmpf 20:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Relative and Absolute

there is no mention of relative and absolute poverty here. this needs a bit of tidying. and no mention of any other wikipedia pages under a "See Also".

Live Aid II

Should Live Aid II (http://live8live.com/) be mentioned?

Right Wing Views?

Isn't it a bit biased to say the right attributes poverty to lazy people? Any proof?

Because it's listed as one of three possible views a right-winger might have, I don't think it's necessarily POV. But the wording could be seen as inflamatory, so an alternate wording might be preferable if one can be found. Or perhaps some clarification that even those who see poverty as sometimes being caused by laziness acknowledge that there are other causes as well. --Icarus 05:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I tend to disagree. The words "often" and the lack of alternatives provided does make it seem biased. "Often" means a significant amount denoting that it is worthy of attention. As someone who is right-wing myself, I can immediately spot that the person who initially wrote the sentence about the right-wing view is not someone who is right-wing. Thus, it cannot represent the right-wing viewpoint and should not do so. A clarification that "even those who see poverty as caused by laziness acknowledge other causes" also makes it inaccurate because the wording still asserts that laziness is thought to be the major cause; it isn't. All of this is being written on the assumption that right-wingers see people in poverty as being lazy. This is not true and whoever suggests that is employing beliefs based on stereotypes. To clarify (and I speak from a right-wing perspective), poverty (as itself in general) is not caused by laziness and hardly any right-wing person actually thinks so. The "laziness" aspect of poverty refers to the flaws of the welfare system and the economic discouragement from engaging in production due to any increased reward/compensation for "non-work". If one is paid a sum equivalent to $5 per hour for not working and $4 per hour for working, one will chose not to work. This is not "laziness" attributed to an economic class. It's "laziness" attributed to the human nature of selecting the best and easiest scenario in a trade-off situation, resulting in inefficiency in an economic system that allows for such. If anything, people in severe poverty work extremely hard to make very little. No right-winger actually believes that people in Africa are starving because they are too lazy to take care of themselves and otherwise could if they just wanted to. I would put something that truly represents the ring-wing view on the cause of poverty. I'd completely take this line out until the view is completely identified (which I can not even do at this point because I can provide no research on the matter), but generally speaking, the main cause of poverty is an under-developped or mismanaged economy. What causes an under-developped economy is another topic beyond the scope of this discussion. --Dr. Paxl 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to think this whole article reads very, very right-wing. Ken 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

One attitude and POV that differentiates conservatives from liberals is the belief that we live in a merit-based soceity. Right-wingers maintain that you succeed in life by working hard, doing the right thing, and that resources are spread fairly amongst those who deserve them. When a society is merit-based, promotion and acquisition occurs based on skill, effort, etc. Left-wingers tend to believe that we are not in a merit-based society (and that acquisition of resources is based on race, values, strength, whatever) and that's why we should "share the wealth." Of course, this is just a skeleton-it needs more.--Annalisa579 23:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Immediate Activation

I think this content is good, poverty elimination is the priority of mankind, by the words of Annan, the president of UN. So I post it here and than if someone agree we'll post it in the article. Thank you.

Immediate Activation There are plenty of ways to start immediately and be useful for poverty elimination.

• You can translate this page in other languages on Wikipedia
• You can add ths page to your favorites.
• You can talk about it with your friends, colleagues or relatives.
• You can open a personal web site to talk about.
• You can launch an Internet Campaigns or a similar one.
• You can help people to contact organisations and institutions with economic means in order to act.
• You can promote an investment trust for a situation of poverty that you know personally.
• You can invest your money in a reliable Bank in an international investment trust and in companies that respect the international ethical standars about right, environment and employment.
• You can choose to buy only products in accordance with international ethical standards.
• You can operate within your own organisations.
• You can promote your company with initiatives useful to everyone
• You can choose a job which is not harmful to anyone.
• You can introduce a discovery, an invention, scientific theories; you can write a book, shoot a movie, reportage, a TV program..
• You can hand out or stick up leaflets in premises where it is allowed to.
• You can take part in forums, meetings; you can write letters to companies, media and journalists to sensitise the public opinion
• You can have a secret task you talk about with no one
• You can pay taxes.
• You can carry out a voluntary service with organisations you trust.
• You can give the good example
• You can help the others in the limits of your possibilities.
• You can try to make friends with people you normally do not get along with.
• Other.

---

Please don't. This article has been blighted by ill-informed generalisation and cracker-barrel wisdom.

I'm sorry, but the above points are completely generalized and misinform any reader about the causes of poverty and these actions in no way reduce poverty. Translating this page into other languages will not solve poverty, nor is there any sufficient evidence or research to show that it will even help. It should not be listed. Same goes for adding this point to your "favorites". Talking about poverty is only talk. How can it possibly reduce poverty and what research is proposed that there is a link between the reduction of poverty and its discussion? I'm sorry if I'm sounding too satirical, but I'm trying to make a point that one shouldn't list anything to help reduce poverty which cannot be proved to do so. If anything, some of these ideas actually increase poverty levels. Ideas are welcome, but the above are ideas from someone who is employing Sesame Street economics (no offense intended). Paying taxes does not reduce poverty. And everyone pays taxes so I don't see how this is a choice. If it is meant that increased taxation reduces poverty, then I disagree: Increased taxation on middle or upper class economic participants can arguably limit investment capital, resulting in reduced economic growth. What does the environmently-friendly businesses have anything to do with poverty? And what are international ethical standards that are referred above? Is this about following ethical standards or reducing poverty? You mean businesses that do not go abroad and hire cheap labor? To the contrary, it can be argued that businesses that employ "sweat shop" labor reduce the unemployment by hiring these workers and thus, reduce poverty. Finally, on the last note, making friends with Stalin or Osama Bin Laden does not reduce poverty. Sorry for being so harsh, but I want to get the point across. --Dr. Paxl 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the picture of the dog being eaten, I believe that was too disturbing or I dunno graphic. Atleast I thought it was. Can we perhaps find another picture?---.--Ice cold blizzard

---

Improvement Drive

The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. If you want to support the article, you can vote for it there.--Fenice 06:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

basically my views on poverty are simple...what is america doing about it? they are spending loads of money on those troops in Iraq, when they could be spending all that money to the people in Africa because the poverty over there is shocking! other countries are doing their bit, i live in New Zealand and we are always trying to get more money for the people in Africa, WHAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGE BUSH!????

---

America donates, however economically and politically there isn’t an easy answer. Throwing money at Africa may alleviate some problems and make us feel better, but it won’t solve the problems. Warlords and the like can simply steal much of the money, but even if it all gets to Africa, it won’t do as much as people think. The amount of money that Live 8/Live Aid raised for example, is like putting a band-aid on a broken dam to fix it.

To the person with views on poverty that "are simple..." and "what America is doing about it", your opinion is poor and you obviously have a simple-minded anti-American view? Why target America? America certainly gives much more than others. In 2004, America provided 35% of the worldwide relief aid! Why is it always America? 80% of Americans belong to a voluntary association, $240 billion was donated in 2003 by American individuals and "EVIL CORPORATIONS" to charitable causes, and 75% of households in the US report charitable contributions. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion to foreign countries overseas. 73% of Americans make charitable contributions in 2004 compared to 44% in Germany, and 43% in France. Average sum of donation for 2004 was $851 per American, $96 per French, $120 per German. In 2004, 49% volunteed in some program, compared to 13% Germany and 19% France. American paid 17% of contributions out of 184 countries that form the World Bank for assistance to debt relief for developing countries in 2004. American held 17.5% of the total 184 contributions for financing general support through the IMF. The US annulled $14 billion in foreign debt from the 80's to 1995. $200 million given to Tsunami aid... America has rid the world of Nazism, assisted Europe in two world wars, kept the communists from entering Europe, and as usual, America gets accused of "not giving enough". America's contributions to other countries do not even compare! Furthermore, there have been trillions and trillions of dollars given to Africa already with little change. Your "simple solution" is too simple to understand the nature of those economies. Throwing money does nothing. It feeds people for one day, and they will still have nothing to eat the next. Your "solution" is like a childish plan to simply have the rich nations give money to the poor nations and all will be okay. It doesn't work that way. Besides, if America's wealth was not to exist, the aid that has already been given to African nations would have not been given. America's wealth is a good thing because it means that America has money to give. And it does! Other countries have perverted their own economies with socialism and communism and have no money to help themselves? Is that better? No! Because America has pursued its own wealth and created a powerful economy, it can now give more than other countries (which it does). Now, if other countries have not pursued their communistic/socialist economies, they might have had more to give. Why don't you concentrate your frustration on actual problem countries like countries which do not allow women to work or drive cars, or countries which shoot you in the head if you don't support the leader. Why is it always America? And furthermore, in the long run, Iraq will be a democratic/capitalistic society... economically better off than it was during Saddam's rule.

Quotations section?

Could this entry be improved by adding a quotations section? There is no shortage.

Spiritual Practices

It doesn't seem right, or in keeping with the general subject of the article, for the Spirtual Practices template to be at the bottom of the page.

LegCircus 05:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll delete it and let someone else decide if it should be reinserted, probably with a needed section on poverty as a spiritual practice. — Richard_RDF^talk 13:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I would second the motion to add something on poverty as a spiritual practice. I would define it in that sense to mean a choice to give up or at least keep a tight rein on one's desire for money or material possessions, or the pursuit thereof, in the belief that by doing so, one is freed from earthly demands and is better able to help others or to engage in spiritual pursuits. Persons entering many religious orders must take a vow of poverty. In most cases, persons taking these vows are not lacking for the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. --12.34.246.35 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reality

The "Reality" section is poorly written and strictly opinion. It offers nothing useful and makes the article seem foolish, I tried to remove it but it was promptly restored. It has no place in an encyclopedia.

Annan quote

The above is way too long but there is a Nelson Mandela quote about poverty being unnecessary... anyone agree Mandela is important enough to get included in this article?--BozMotalk 07:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I've removed most of the external links, as Wikipedia is not a links directory (see also external links guidelines). I've created a new section in the "see also" section to link to articles on Wikipedia about specific organisations. This means that only organisations that are notable enough to have an article of their own on Wikipedia are linked to. The links I have left are to the dmoz directory, another portal/directory that seemed to have information from a variety of sources. Please discuss here before adding any new links, or they could get removed. Thanks, Petros471 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pls. cast you vote

• Lack of compassion

World Bank statistics

The claim by the world bank that the percentage of the global population living in poverty has decreased is very controversial. First even though percentage has decreased this might be off-set by population growth and thus more people are living in poverty. Secondly the way the World Bank measures statistics and changes base values arbitrarily casts doubts on its figures. For a comprehensive review of the debate have a look at Reddy and Pogge website.[[1]] It comprises a technical paper explaining some of the issues with the World Bank figures and there is also a discussion with Martin Ravallion who wrote a paper on global poverty for the World Bank.--82.45.183.169 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)willem vervaeke

You can of course add this criticism to the article. However, many other measures of poverty are improving. See [2][3][4]Ultramarine 20:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

merge or link eliminating poverty section with poverty reduction

Maybe we could merge or link poverty reduction with the section of this article named Eliminating Poverty? --Yshander1 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Causes of poverty section

I really think the laundry list on the Causes of poverty isn't very encyclopedic. It's also completely unsourced. As such, I'm going to add citationneeded macros to obvious candidates. Ken 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've added a macro that was deleted calling for references. Ken 04:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the "Procrastination" item serious? --69.157.39.136 04:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Intentional poverty

I'd love to see this article address the vows of poverty taken by some religious orders, and what they entail. MamaGeek Joy 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Poverty and Hunger

There are many Hungry poors in Indian subcontinent than African subcontinent and India is on top. Border of Pakistan and India (near Punjab, Rajasthan, Kutch) is waste land but Indus Sindhu river pass through this land. Land is plain in surface and can be converted in green belt. Reader of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are requested to find out some solution to eradicate the poverty in Indian subcontinent. vkvora 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

In New Delhi, a woman wields a pickaxe on a footpath maintenance project while her husband rests and her baby sleeps

• http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

vkvora 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I commented out the copyrighted news story pasted here verbatim by Vkvora2001 (talk · contribs). The news paper website explicitly mentions that the news is copyrighted. --Ragib 05:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request

Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested sources

If you are interested in contributing to this article, here are some free information sources:

• Do Poor Children become Poor Adults?, repec.iza.org

I work in Mental Health Services for a Village for Homeless People and was trained on the Culture of Poverty. The most referenced material was that of Ruby Payne. I don't know much about her, but it might be worth it to add her in. --Annalisa579 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)