That's why I downvoted, in case you wonder.
What were you trying to say? That somehow people who enjoy poverty, however miniscule that population may be, would somehow be adversely affected by having spending power of any kind? As opposed to the damage that is done to all the innumerable people who are impoverished without almost any path out?
It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument. It doesn't pass even the most basic logic test. Not to mention, it seems to lack any empathy towards others.
Now if you go and throw money at them they might not even be able to do anything with that.
So, maybe that definition is not a good one. Poverty is not equal to having little money. It is more related to education, having one's basic needs fulfilled and opportunity (to travel, to build a house, etc).
Also Money does not come alone. It comes with the corresponding culture. And while at first people are happy about all the new things they can get, in the end they are quite frustrated because their own identity, culture and values are suddenly non existant in their environment. So yeah, increasing one's spending power can indirectly be harmful, even if you don't make anything off it.
You are right, that I may have explained that in more detail up front. But I think it's possible to see that in the first comment. It's just that many people start reading a text with a strong opinion in mind before they even start, which leads them to complete wholes in argumentation with assumptions which are very far off. I did at no point say anything about actions that should be taken, like not giving people money who need it. I was simply adding another point of view.
> It's a juvenile, poorly thought out argument.
If someone doesn't say that and you consider it a poor argument, why do you assume that was someone's opinion. Is that logical? Is it funny looking back after reading this longer text, how I was actually adding a point of view with empathy for people not considered by this definition of empathy instead of not having some for people who really need more money?
There was a documentation about people living together in an apartment. They were maybe 10 people living together in one small apartment, eating not what they buy but what they can gather from super market garbage cans. They all had families and some had education and opportunity to work but they choose to live this way because of their political point of view. That's how they survived in Berlin on quite a small budget.
Is that a live I would choose? No. But it doesn't mean others don't choose that life.
What about the idea of poverty not being about money?
Lack of ability to imagine another's experience.
Naivete regarding power relationships, especially ones you participate in without knowing it.
Basic fallacy of assuming people are different than you when convenient.
No attempt, however lame, to support your off-the-cuff remark with anything.
Lack of introspection and self evaluation.
Stupid post, downvoted.
Actually assuming that it's impossible to enjoy life without money is a very western centric opinion. You don't necessarily need to buy food, you can grow food, you can hunt food, you can search for food in garbage bins or you can even steal it.
For what it worth, I do have a friend in that situation and she seem to enjoy it.
Now, I agree that GP's comment is pretty stupid: the fact that some people can enjoy living in that situation shouldn't be an excuse to let the other starve.
Let me show as example how your comment would look as a value addition to the discussion:
"I'm still not getting your point
What sources are you referring to? [instead of "no evidence"]
What does it look like for such a person who lives on ~$1.50 a day but being happy about their life? [instead of "Lack of ability..."]
Would an increase in income not help these people as well to maintain their individuality/culture against stronger outside forces? [instead of "... power relations..."]
How would your life change on that kind of money a day?"
Can't put anything for the last three lines.
Wouldn't that have offered you the chance to learn something you didn't know yet, namely about people who can live without ~$1.50 a day and still be happy? Wouldn't that have increased the chance to discuss how poverty should be defined differently, maybe on a more complex level?
I suppose that's why others are reacting so strongly to you. You're latching onto some odd hobo hipster ideal - but reality does not come close to your ideal.
Your "some people choose a life of poverty/beggary and have a good time with that" thing is just plain silly.