Would abolishment of poverty lead to abolishment of wealth?

Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
I'm aware wealth and poverty aren't absolute concepts, that they are to a large degree defined in relation to each other, but taking our today standards of povertyand wealth, is it possible to still have wealthy people while at the same time not having poor people anymore?
 
Joined Nov 2012
233 Posts | 0+
In a quince, where the seeds are few and almost si
That depends on what you mean by "poverty" I guess.
Wealth is, of course, the measure of value. Poverty is sometimes referred to as the lack of value (most famously in Matthew 5: "Blessed are the poor in spirit."). In that sense, no. Absolute wealth - abundance of value would eliminate poverty.

However usually poverty refers to absence of money or monetary worth. In that sense, poverty (lack of money) and wealth (presence of [monetary] value) don't have much in common. I.e. a person can be poor and yet still be wealthy. E.g. An person in America could be homeless, and yet own expensive real estate in Europe. She would be poor and wealthy.

Is it possible to eliminate poverty and still have rich people? (This might have been the question you intended.) Yes. In the United States, for example, nobody is poor (compared with 10th century Bantu people) and yet there are rich people. But even if the lower classes in America live better than 15th century princes in Europe, they might still see themselves as poor.

I hope that was a thorough enough answer. If anything needs clarification, let me know :)
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
...

Is it possible to eliminate poverty and still have rich people? (This might have been the question you intended.)
Apologies, i intended to write wealthiness, as a synonym for richness, which sounds weird to me. You are right that's what i meant with the question!
 
Joined Nov 2010
6,237 Posts | 20+
Indiana
Since poverty and wealth are relative terms, one person simply has less then the other the answer is no.
 
Joined Mar 2009
25,361 Posts | 13+
Texas
I'm aware wealth and poverty aren't absolute concepts, that they are to a large degree defined in relation to each other, but taking our today standards of povertyand wealth, is it possible to still have wealthy people while at the same time not having poor people anymore?

No matter how much a hand-out-dependent-welfare state a nation might become,
there would always be some one crying they are being left out & just have to have
more and someone else has to pay for them.
 
Joined Feb 2011
882 Posts | 0+
The far North
I'm aware wealth and poverty aren't absolute concepts, that they are to a large degree defined in relation to each other, but taking our today standards of povertyand wealth, is it possible to still have wealthy people while at the same time not having poor people anymore?

Define poverty. Starvation, cold and developing world diseases may be (almost) eradicated. Defined in relative terms, of course, the divide itself is both poverty and wealth, and thence the one will be as suppressed or thrive as much as the other.
 
Joined Apr 2008
7,924 Posts | 29+
Hyperborea
Poverty and wealth are comparatives to a mean. If everyone has the mean level of wealth then they don't exist.

Exactly the same as short and tall. If everyone was the same height short and tall wouldn't exist.
 
Joined Oct 2010
11,970 Posts | 30+
Canada
The level of poverty can be reduced while there are still wealthy people, so it stands to reason that poverty can be brought down to a very low level. Some people live on the street because they suffer from mental illness, and, therefore, live in poverty. Cases like this may be too difficult to eliminate, as well as people who borrow money they can't pay back and end up on the street.

So, while poverty may always exist, a society can certainly improve them without eliminating wealth.
 
Joined Mar 2011
3,403 Posts | 0+
just sitting here
It is all relative , unfortunately for me most of my close friends have good jobs , and compared to them i feel poor , however to my neighbours , one of whom is disabled , and the other unemployed , i probably seem relatively well off,

but then both my neighbours live in a country that has a social security system so compare them to some kids in another country collecting bottles from rubbishtips to sell for food to eat . etc . etc .
 
Joined Nov 2012
233 Posts | 0+
In a quince, where the seeds are few and almost si
No matter how much a hand-out-dependent-welfare state a nation might become,
there would always be some one crying they are being left out & just have to have
more and someone else has to pay for them.

The question didn't involve state redistribution. There are ways to eliminate poverty besides welfare. Isn't the idea of capitalism enriching everyone the linchpin of free-market conservative ideology?
 
Joined Dec 2012
36 Posts | 0+
Republic of California
I'm aware wealth and poverty aren't absolute concepts, that they are to a large degree defined in relation to each other, but taking our today standards of povertyand wealth, is it possible to still have wealthy people while at the same time not having poor people anymore?

Most responses compare wealth and poverty to each other. But one could look at them with respect to need. Epicurus said the the basic need of life are easily obtained. So, I think that it is within our technical capability to virtually eliminate poverty. I can't see how doing that would limit wealth (having more than necessary) in any significant way. However, even if technically feasible, I don't see the social will to accomplish it any time soon.
 
Joined May 2012
578 Posts | 3+
Poverty in rich countries is most commonly defined as having less than x% of the average.

If you accept that definition, it isn't possible to reduce poverty without reducing the amount of wealth owned by people who have more than the average.

So doubling the wealth of everybody would change nothing about the poverty rate. It'd only decrease if you achieve an even distribution, no matter at what level.
 
Joined Apr 2010
50,502 Posts | 11,794+
Awesome
Poverty should be made illegal, and the poor people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and made to work for the benefit of society as punishment. That would get rid of poverty at one stroke, and also provide a large supply of organ donors at the same time.
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
Poverty should be made illegal, and the poor people prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and made to work for the benefit of society as punishment. That would get rid of poverty at one stroke, and also provide a large supply of organ donors at the same time.
We've been there several times in our history, or quite near to it. You meant it as a joke, i assume, but surely you realise that the poor have always bore the brunt of any great societal upheaval.
 
Joined Nov 2012
233 Posts | 0+
In a quince, where the seeds are few and almost si
We've been there several times in our history, or quite near to it. You meant it as a joke, i assume, but surely you realise that the poor have always bore the brunt of any great societal upheaval.

I'm not sure if Louis XVI or Nicholas II would agree with you on that ;)
 
Joined Jan 2010
13,690 Posts | 14+
♪♬ ♫♪♩
I'm not sure if Louis XVI or Nicholas II would agree with you on that ;)
Nice!
However, the French revolution followed a famine and Russia... Lots of poor people with nothing to lose there either. I'd say the upheaval becomes visible when the rich start losing their heads, but something was cooking among the poor for a long time before that.
 
Joined Jun 2009
6,987 Posts | 17+
Glorious England
I'm aware wealth and poverty aren't absolute concepts, that they are to a large degree defined in relation to each other, but taking our today standards of povertyand wealth, is it possible to still have wealthy people while at the same time not having poor people anymore?

Whatever replaces the poor will become the new poor.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top