saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:For purposes of this thread, is poverty unavoidable in an industrialized, first-world country or can poverty be completely eradicated in an industrialized, first-world country?
It depends on how poverty is defined.
Say the poverty line, an amount of income "insufficient to meet minimal food and other basic needs."
1. Can this be eliminated in an industrial country?
2. If not, what is an acceptable level of poverty at which point one can say all reasonable action has been taken?
1. Yes, but probably only in the short-term and with great cost to everyone else.
An example that comes to mind is lowering the requirements for access to half-way homes, soup kitchens, etc., and follow-up with a lot of subsidies to these organizations while making them tax-exempt and then tax everyone else to cover it. Whatever basic needs are, similar methods could likely be used.
2. If not (because of the long-run problems), then that answer depends at the individual level. Poverty and basic needs are subjectively determined. We can say "food and healthcare" are basic needs, but that doesn't precisely define those two goods. Food could be venison every saturday with a lovely Merlot; healthcare could be a witch doctor. So, the level of acceptance depends on the individual. Any answer that says "
society deems so and so to be unacceptable" is (inadvertently) lying. Our unit of analysis must be the individual in order for it to hold true.
Regarding that point where all reasonable action has been taken: this is determined most efficiently by market prices (e.g. from exchanges which don't involve coercion). You decide how much money, time, etc. you wish to give to whoever for whatever. You alone know your opportunity costs and the expected value of your expenditures, and the amount given. This is unknown to an outside observer. The acceptability too depends on your opportunity cost (i.e. what else you could spent your money on), and the benefits you expect to gain at the time of the decision. After the exchange, the amount given may have been worth it, or not, so you'll eventually adjust accordingly.
The price is a reflection of your preferred level of acceptability. (Note: a nominal price of $10,000 itself is not a full reflection of your preferences, but it's a very good indicator. There's transaction costs, and unknowable variables like your expected value minus the opportunity cost at the time of the exchange).
When I see your question, this comes to mind:Compare your opportunity costs for a trade-off of your income between charity and all other goods (AOG):
(A) you could give 98% of all your income to charity, or (B) give 10% to charity.
Which is the acceptable choice for an individual? How do you know? (by using my above explanation)
Which one is acceptable for everyone? How do you know? (You can't because value is subjective. Basing one's conclusion on interpersonal comparisons of utility will render that conclusion false.)
