sociology- what is absolute poverty? how is it measured? what is relative poverty?
349403
Absolute poverty refers to the ability of the person or family to get the basic necessities of life, such as shelter, food, clean water, clothes, medicine.  It is measured based upon the ability to purchase or otherwise garner these things regardless of the relative wealth in the neighborhood, province, country, or world.  Relative poverty refers to the purchasing power a person or family has relative to the people in the same society.  For example, a family living in a very small but clean house, who must walk or ride a bus to travel, who can get enough food to maintain normal weight and activity, but no more than that, and who can buy decent clothes, but only if they are used, would be considered to be fairly well off in many African countries, but would be living in relative poverty if they resided in San Francisco, or Tokyo.  The idea of relative poverty is politically charged, since it can be used to argue for a change in political and social structure by showing the large disparity in wealth, and using the emotionally loaded word "poverty" to describe people who, in real terms, may live quite well.  If absolute poverty were the scale, than very few people in the Western world could be considered to live in poverty, because almost everyone there has access to safe water, plenty of food, decent clothing, etc.  This measure would undermine an argument for social change, and tend to minimize the effects of great disparities in wealth and power inside the same country. Using absolute poverty as a scale, it would be easy to say "Nobody in France (or any other Western country) lives in poverty, so we don't need to have policies to distribute wealth to the poorer classes".  On the other hand, if one were to use an extreme form of relative poverty, one could easily claim that 10%, 25%, etc of people in France lived in relative poverty, and thus make a strong argument for massive redistribution of wealth.  Which measure you choose would depend on your own political beliefs.  However, measures of absolute poverty are very effective in showing just how immensely wealthy the western world is, in that one of our greatest health problems is that our poorest people are becoming obese.  Relative poverty is useful in showing the amount of disparity in distribution of wealth, which is important in its own right because it can generate incredible social tension.
443991
it means that nothing is absolute. what ever you say is comparative. for example if we say my house is in north it means it is in north from the house which is more in south. however if we go more towards the north pole then my house will be in south. similarly if we are saying that it is hot that means we are comparing with the thing which is a bit cold and it will be cold if we compare it with more hot object. like India is a developed country in south Asia but is a developing country in the world. you may be rich but you are poorer than the world's richest person.
571442
There is actually a conservative theory that says welfare promotes poverty.  And screw socialism.
290127
you need to be more specific , i don't know if this will will help . i found a lot on the ten state survey but like i said you need to state exactly what you are looking for. sorry.\n\nPoverty and Nutrition Risk\nAn underlying premise of the WIC program (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) is that low-income predisposes women, infants, and children to poor nutrition status and health outcomes. By using both an income standard of up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level and nutrition risk criteria in determining eligibility for participation in the WIC program, the WIC program attempts to target scarce program resources to those individuals with limited economic resources who are at the highest risk of poor outcomes. Before reviewing (in subsequent chapters) the scientific evidence relating to the nutrition risk criteria used to establish eligibility for participation in the WIC program, this chapter presents evidence of low-income, or poverty, as a predisposing nutrition risk factor for women, infants, and children.\n\nDefinition of Poverty\nConsiderable controversy exists over how to define and measure poverty. A recent expert panel defined poverty as ''economic deprivation," reflecting inadequate economic resources for the consumption of basic goods and services (NRC, 1995). Poverty standards are generally called absolute measures and are based on the assumption that there is some objective minimum level of either income or consumption such that if economic resources are less than this minimum standard, individuals and families do not have adequate resources to satisfy their basic needs (Ruggles, 1990). Families and individuals are classified as being in poverty if their incomes are less than official poverty thresholds. The poverty measure was initially constructed by determining the cost of a nutritionally adequate low-cost food plan (then the Economy Food Plan, now the
1130563
We have created a value out of possession.  There is nothing great about being rich...  Real Richie's are always made through some swindle breaching the system getting things out of turn.  Individuals who really work hard for a better life are few and do not normally make it among the really rich.\n\nRichies is largely to do with inheritance, possessing social capital, use of cunning and sometimes being plain lucky.\n\nWhile poverty is to do with circusmtances.  While there may be some druggies who may refuse to work for their living, greatest number of the poor in the world are engaged in an exploitative relationship... a form of subsistence slavery out of which there is no escape.  Its grossly unfair to term half of the world population which is surviving under impossible conditions as lazy and less dignified than those who make it easy because of inherited privilege and then claim to be smart.
242668
in the us yes you can it is based on the poverty level. So how many people are in the house and how much you make. Like a family of three if they make less than 22,000 a year can get food stamps and or TANF.  TANF is cash money for your family but it is temporary there is a certain number of years in your LIFE TIME that you can receive it.  If you use it all up and you a poor later on in life sry
775017
The technical definition is the middle 50% of the spectrum of wealth.  the poorist 25% of the population and the wealthiest 25% of the population are not considered middle-class.  Average household income is usually between $30,000 and $80,000 per year (depending on location-New York & LA are more expensive than Sioux Falls, SD).
918960
Anthropologists tend to classify different societies according to the degree to which different groups within a society have unequal access to advantages such as resources, prestige or power. (Useful definitions.) Virtually all societies have developed some degree of inequality among their people through the process of social stratification-the division of members of a society into strata (or levels) with unequal wealth, prestige or power. Differences lie in how societies treat the inequalities. Some may downplay them so they become transparent and insignificant (egalitarian societies) while others will accent inequalities (ranked and class-based societies). Three different types of societies can generally recognized: egalitarian societies, ranked societies and class-based societies.\n\nEgalitarian societal members tend to treat each other as equals. Wealth differences are few as is the amount of power available to any individual or group. The people possess norms that emphasize sharing and ideals of interpersonal equality. This is not to say that stratification is non-existent in these societies. In comparison with nonegalitarian societies, however, stratification is relatively insignificant. Even when someone like a bigman is present, prestige is important and linked to redistribution. However, the bigman gives more than he receives as his role as a redistributor is defined. If he hordes or possesses too much, he will lose the recognition as a bigman. In effect, he is a member of society as an equal who has a defined role that carries prestige but not wealth and recognition but not status. (See reading on egalitarian hierarchies.)\n\nIn ranked societies people are divided into hierarchically ordered groups that differ in terms of prestige, but not significantly in terms of access to resources or power. Within this context it is possible to identify persons we can label as chiefs whose inherited position and prestige is often linked to the redistribution of goods.\n\nIn class-based societies people are divided into hierarchically ordered groups that differ in terms of access not only to prestige, but also to resources and power. Western capitalist societies have distinct classes (e.g. upper class, middle class, poor), but mobility amongst the classes sometimes occurs through activities such as education, marriage or hard work. For similar reasons to those mentioned above, it is not appropriate to describe the Net as a class-based society.\n\nEconomics\nCultures can be characterized, in part, by the type of economic systems that they support. Three forms of economic exchange systems are typically recognized by anthropologists: reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange.\n\nReciprocity is the simplest form of economic exchange. It involves giving a product or service to another person in the expectation of receiving something of similar value in return. Reciprocal transactions are economic exchanges, but they are also personalized; they take place between people who have a bond, and they serve to strengthen these ties.\n\nIn a redistributive economy goods or labor are accumulated by a specific person, or at a particular place, and are subsequently redistributed back throughout the society. Such economies are found in all societies, to some extent, but they are "an important mechanism only in societies that have political hierarchies-that is, chiefs and other specialized officials and agencies" (Ember and Ember, 1990, p. 129).\n\nMarket exchange economies are associated with capitalist societies. In such economies producers send or take their goods to a marketplace where they are bid for by purchasers. The main feature of market exchanges is that goods and services are bought and sold at money prices determined by the impersonal forces of supply and demand.\n\nThere is one aspect of human economic systems that we should recognize. There are societies where it is more important to give everything away rather than a
857
Out of 291 million people, fully 12.7% (or 37 million) live below the poverty line.\n\nThis is 9.7% lower than in 1959, the first year such a measurement was available.\n\nThe poverty thresholds (income) used vary based on the size of the family unit. For instance, a family of 4 had a poverty line of $19,307 in 2004, while a family of 8 was $32,641.
266152
Elaborate further. It may be the measure of charity but it is sort of infinite as it is God Himself so your question is not so clear to me.
903283
Many people are prejudiced against people they perceive to be poor. At least you got to see how it feels to be on the receiving end of that, and hopefully you will help and be friends with those who are deserving instead of blaming them for their circumstances. No disrespect meant by my comment--we all learn something new (hopefully) every day.
383327
How does one answer a question like this?  Are you expecting someone to say yeah its a good thing and I believe wholeheartedly in the institution of poverty as a means of making our middleclass feel good about themselves?
252775
Here is info on 2006 national poverty guidelines.\n$13,200 a year or below would be the poverty level of a 2 person household.\n\nhttp://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml\n\nWish I was in Denver, lol. I love Colorado!
550689
poverty and injustice
546377
Racism is closely associated with poverty which is one of the main factors involving crime..\n\nSlavery is the child of Racism.  When slavery was abolished by Lincoln, blacks were free but could rarely find jobs due to white people pitching a biatch or threatening to boycott. So these black people were forced into slums which is our present day ghettos/projects.  With no money and many of the men not present in the home due to lynchings and whatnot, poverty thrived in the female-fronted household.  Lack of education and skills, along with opportunity, created a phenomenon of generational poverty in which several generations of black families were poor.  \n\nLiving in poverty created hopelessness.  People without hope have no stake in the future and live for the present.  They struggle just to pay the rent, put food on the table and live.  Illegal activities such as drug traffiking, prostitution and gangs give these people quick money to take care of their families and they end up becoming numb to the destruction it causes.  \n\nThis is how, ultimately, racism is a direct cause of crime. Not all crimes, but crimes in the inner cities and predominately minority inhabited areas, or areas where people live at or below the poverty level.
10576
poverty...which is the root of all evil
661104
"Community-based ecconomics" is class-economics. You move into a neighborhood you can afford and your associates earn approximately the same as you do.\n\nCapitalism is when the elite members of a society control all the money and futures of companies and products that their wisdom persuades them to invest in.\n\nSocialism is best left to be enjoyed by the elderly and frail whom can not contribute to their society and can be sustained by a modest monthly stipend to pay for rents and a quota of food.