Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- poverty [2025/11/11 21:51] – ultracomfy
+++ poverty [2025/12/01 20:49] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
   - Mental Destitution: The financial destitution must be acutely distressing and impair the individual's ability to participate in day-to-day life, cognitively and emotionally, with insufficient coping skills to manage the effects.
-The latter is important, because extended poverty will gradually take a toll on the affected and push them into developing maladapted coping strategies - often shame, isolation, addiction, self-harm, financial recklessness and so on - the things stress does to you; not to mention the various health risks of chronic exposure to stressors and the reduced quality of food.
+The latter is important, because extended poverty will gradually take a toll on the affected and push them into developing maladapted coping strategies - often shame, isolation, addiction, self-harm, financial recklessness and so on - the things stress does to you; not to mention the various health risks of chronic exposure to stressors and the reduced quality of life.
+Legally speaking, poverty is chronic meanslessness and has little to do with any emotional or cognitive aspect. You can be poor before living in poverty. Practically, though, poverty is much more than just being unable to afford a minimum quality of life. Personally I will use the term interchangeably, but it is important to know that there is a difference between poverty and //poverty//.
 ====== Systemic Poverty ======
 Poverty is the result of systems at every level. Nation, community, individual. At a national level, capitalism, natural resources, poor planning or just plain fiscal dependency on other countries can enable or cause the proliferation of widespread poverty. The classic example here are large parts of Africa, which fight primarily over natural resources and is systemically exploited by wealthier nations for those resources and cheap labor, with a government being semi-complicit in that process by not making use of the (mostly) human resources present.
-Communities, if they're not systemically destined into poverty (like black people in Jim Crow America, or even today for a large part), can make poverty a problem through failure proper integration, individual harmonization and the lack of providing incentive. Turkish and arabic immigrants into Germany are systemically left behind by the structure of the community, making immigrants very vulnerable to poverty.
+Communities, if they're not systemically destined into poverty (like black people in Jim Crow America, or even today for a large part), can make poverty a problem through failure of proper integration, individual harmonization and the lack of providing incentive. Turkish and arabic immigrants into Germany are systemically left behind by the structure of the community, making immigrants very vulnerable to poverty. Lack of extended services like mental health institutions or family support can lead to poverty as well.
+Individually, all above levels can trickle down to cause poverty for an inidividual person. Additionally, individual misfortunes, personality, genetics and the full range of environmental factors can result in poverty, even for an individual living in an otherwise functional community and properly established nation.
+====== Dealing with Poverty ======
+Now, if it were for me then we, as a society, would abandon the concept of possessions((Which is different that forfeiting all [[Claim]]s on a thing!)) and distribute all global resources evenly/according to people's needs. I think that the system the way we have it right now enables extreme, global suffering that is not needed (ie. immoral). I think that we, especially as those with power and influence (ie. being from wealthier nations) are obliged to tear the mechanisms that uphold such injustices. I think that each and every one of us hold partial responsibility for people suffering lives of pain merely because they were too unlucky to get born where they were born. The only reason I cannot turn that into a claim against the whole of our society is because no //one individual person// is responsible for it, so it would be unfair to expect individual people to give up their possessions. What we need instead is a coordinated movement so that //everyone// gives up their possessions, as //then// it would be fair. That way we could guarantee quality of life for everyone or, at the very least, eliminate the rampant unfairness plaguing the current world order.
+Until then, however, everyone should be conscientious of the privilege that they have. Having this privilege is inherently unfair and should not be worn proudly. The richer and more privileged you are, the bigger your part in the suffering of other people. This does, virtue of me living in a very wealthy nation, extend to me, hence why I will keep it lowkey and be proactive in making it clear that, yes, my quality of life is unfair.
+===== How not to do it =====
+Now, some businesspeople may see an opportunity in this. Every once in a while there may be some "heartwarming stories" about business owners lowering themselves to living and working like one of their employees for a bit, and then being "changed" by that experience. Experiencing the struggles and problems of their workers somehow made them see more clearly, and they improve the labor rights and quality of work situation for their employees. These are exclusively PR stunts.
-Address how people outside of poverty are kind of responsible for people with it, but that no one individual person is really responsible for it. How much can an individual be expected to care for people of lesser luck?
+The owner of a business is not able to experience the actual struggles and problems of their workers if they know that after their set time they will be returning to a life of riches. Frankly, if I had to work at Amazon for a year in return for becoming the richest man in the world afterwards, that is a deal I would very happily take. It needs to be very clear that poverty is a largely //mental// process. And while Bezos would be celebrated for his virtues, he would have never actually experienced anything like what his workers actually experience. Poverty is about worrying, the lack of a perspective, not knowing if you'll ever be able to live properly, and the fight against the increasing sense of resignation, the feeling that you should just give up.
-Bezos for a year living like an amazon worker, then character arc and changing company to be nicer for workers
+And, in the case of business owners, they know what they are doing. They know what happens to their workers and they actively campaign against labor rights initiatives. A business owner will know with exact precision what they are putting their workers through. Signing off on that is a decision, not an accident.
-People would love him
-Wouldnt be the same
-"If you were given the deal to live in absolute poverty like an amazon worker for a year, but at the end you become the richest man in the world, I am sure you would take that deal"
-Bezos wouldnt actually live like someone in poverty because poverty is a very mental process. Poverty is about worrying, the lack of a perspective, not knowing if you'll ever be able to live properly, and the fight against the increasing sense of resignation, the feeling that you should just give up