I live below the poverty line, but I'd hardly say I live in poverty :-S

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, I just did some checking, and I found that the Australian Poverty Line in December last year (the latest data availible) for a single person is $374.11aud.

Now, as a full time student (infact, studying an 'overload'), all my units combined total 40 hours per a week, and on top of that I have assignments to do etc. etc.

I don't get any government benefeits or financial assistance, and I'm not working, so basically I'm eating up my bank balance. To last to the end of the year, I can't spend more than $220 per a week. I live in a old share house with 6 other people, but we all have our on rooms and it's clean. The rent is $103 per week each. I tend to eat a lot of rice, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables, and small amounts of meat. My food budget is about $8 a day, somedays less, rarely more. That's $56 a week. Basically, that basically means I spend $159 to survive and not be homeless, and it leaves $61 for clothing, petrol, and other non essential possessions or luxuries. I usually have money left over even :-S

Now, I hardly think I live in poverty. think if I was living on $371.11 a week I could live a life of luxury. I get sick of hearing about people bitching about how it's getting so expensive to live, because really I don't think it is :-S

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?

[Cybergasm]

Well, I just did some checking, and I found that the Australian Poverty Line in December last year (the latest data availible) for a single person is $374.11aud.

Now, as a full time student (infact, studying an 'overload'), all my units combined total 40 hours per a week, and on top of that I have assignments to do etc. etc.

I don't get any government benefeits or financial assistance, and I'm not working, so basically I'm eating up my bank balance. To last to the end of the year, I can't spend more than $220 per a week. I live in a old share house with 6 other people, but we all have our on rooms and it's clean. The rent is $103 per week each. I tend to eat a lot of rice, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables, and small amounts of meat. My food budget is about $8 a day, somedays less, rarely more. That's $56 a week. Basically, that basically means I spend $159 to survive and not be homeless, and it leaves $61 for clothing, petrol, and other non essential possessions or luxuries. I usually have money left over even :-S

Now, I hardly think I live in poverty. think if I was living on $371.11 a week I could live a life of luxury. I get sick of hearing about people bitching about how it's getting so expensive to live, because really I don't think it is :-S

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?
Try doing that with no people to split the rent with; do you think you would be able to afford such 'comfort'? Also, how are the utilities in your arrangement, included in rent? Do most rent values include them or do you have to pay separate? Do you pay health care?

I would, personally, label you as lucky as opposed to proof to contradict poverty lines.

[Volumnius Flush]

I am in the bottom 42% of all people living in poverty. I don't feel like I live in poverty, but that is partly due to the fact my guitars and computer combine are worth nearly three thousand dollars. I am also a college student which means I have even less money.

I have just recently totaled my car though, so gas and insurance are no longer worried about. It frees up a little money. And I just recently got a job so I won't be living in "poverty" much longer. I get a paycheck tomorrow so that will help out.

[EinzingerIsGod]

I'm poor right now...really, really poor.

[Charlie Daniels]

Try doing that with no people to split the rent with; do you think you would be able to afford such 'comfort'? Also, how are the utilities in your arrangement, included in rent? Do most rent values include them or do you have to pay separate? Do you pay health care?

I would, personally, label you as lucky as opposed to proof to contradict poverty lines.

Well, if I could split the rent with 5 other people obviously I wouldn't be living there. Besides, I wouldn't class "not being able to afford $600 per week rent of a 6 bedroom house" quite the definition of a poverty stricken student. Maybe it's different in other parts of the world, but here it's quite common for landlords of large houses to rent the bedrooms out individually for ~$100 rather than rent the whole house out. They can take a bigger chip that way.

The utilities come out of my weekly surplus. I don't have healthcare...

How exactly am I lucky? Sure, I think I'm lucky to be alive and in living in the city I do, but no part of myself lifestyle couldn't be replicated by anyone with $220 per a week...

[Jude]

I'm so ****ing broke right now it's awful

the reason for that is college of course which eventually should pay off but still

[Charlie Daniels]

Like, every student here at uni seems to be bitching about how poor they are... but most of them get more money than i do and the reason they need mummy and daddy hands out is because they waste their money on alcohol, renting dvd's, eating out, buying coffee from cafes, going to see bands, buying clothing etc. etc. etc.

[Against Miik!]

Living below the poverty line as a young, single, male, isn't really that hard, although it probably sucks.

[Volumnius Flush]

Living below the poverty line as a young, single, male, isn't really that hard, although it probably sucks.

It isn't that hard but it really does suck.

[Aaron]

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?
Poverty line is a monetary indicator. Really you need to look at income in relation to average cost of living for the country/area/street the person is in.

[Volumnius Flush]

Poverty line is a monetary indicator. Really you need to look at income in relation to average cost of living for the country/area/street the person is in.

Ooh look the guy with the degree in commerce giving an elementary definition of the poverty line!

[Aaron]

Thanks for your input there, you were so helpful.

[Cybergasm]

Well, if I could split the rent with 5 other people obviously I wouldn't be living there. Besides, I wouldn't class "not being able to afford $600 per week rent of a 6 bedroom house" quite the definition of a poverty stricken student. Maybe it's different in other parts of the world, but here it's quite common for landlords of large houses to rent the bedrooms out individually for ~$100 rather than rent the whole house out. They can take a bigger chip that way.

The utilities come out of my weekly surplus. I don't have healthcare...

How exactly am I lucky? Sure, I think I'm lucky to be alive and in living in the city I do, but no part of myself lifestyle couldn't be replicated by anyone with $220 per a week...
I think alot of where your ability to live so comfortably comes from is the fact that you have found such living conditions. I, admittedly, do not know the housing conditions where you live, but here in Chicago if you're on the poverty line just finding a place you can afford is nearly impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if things were very similar there and thus why such an amount was set as the poverty line.

Ultimately you're a student and we generally tend to have less complex needs then the people for whom such programs are tailored.

EDIT: You didn't mention an age set for that poverty line so I assume it applies to all. Do you think you could live the same way when you're 30 and trying to start a family or whatnot?

[siva_chair]

If I had to, I could live with no income.

[Charlie Daniels]

I think alot of where your ability to live so comfortably comes from is the fact that you have found such living conditions. I, admittedly, do not know the housing conditions where you live, but here in Chicago if you're on the poverty line just finding a place you can afford is nearly impossible. I wouldn't be surprised if things were very similar there and thus why such an amount was set as the poverty line.

Ultimately you're a student and we generally tend to have less complex needs then the people for whom such programs are tailored.

EDIT: You didn't mention an age set for that poverty line so I assume it applies to all. Do you think you could live the same way when you're 30 and trying to start a family or whatnot?

The poverty line for a single adult is the figuire I'm comparing it to. For a couple (no children) it's $571.

And what do you mean 'afford'? Rent is 60% of my weekly expense. However, when I was searching for a place I turned down a few places in the same suburb that had cheaper rents on the grounds that the rooms in the houses weren't as clean as the one I got.

I just looked at a website which put the US poverty line at $200usd a week, which is about $215aud. It seems the US poverty line is probably more accurate. I can understand people finding it difficult maintain an education on that... it seems to be pretty similiar to what I live on and I would have trouble cutting back on my already meager spending.

So, perhaps, the real issue is why is the poverty line in Australia 80% higher than the US one? :-S

[Charlie Daniels]

Not that I'm disagreeing, but what makes you say students have less complex needs?

[Aaron]

John, like I said; Australia has a higher standard of living.

[PerpetualBurn]

You live in poverty relative to other Australians. Your level of income is significantly lower than a large portion of the country.

This is obviously different to when we speak of poverty in the sense of famine, lack of clean water, power etc etc.

Anyway, try to start a family in your current position and see how things go.

[marcus_in_absentia]

Sucks being poor man. (Yes broke as ****)

[dei]

I am middle class.

[Aaron]

I am upper-middle class.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I lived in poverty for a while.

My dad was laid off and we (my dad, myself, and my two brothers) were forced to move into a basement of a house where we often didn't have much food and barely able to make rent. He had to take a job as a cashier at a grocery store to support us.

It was bad for a pretty long time, but we're in a better place now. He isn't making a lot more money, but now he's working at the head office of the grocery store and things are looking alright.

And yes, we were on welfare for some time.

[DBoons Ghost]

I lived in poverty for many years. My mom was a housewife and my dad was a laborer and they had 4 kids, including me.

It was tough. It got worse when they got divorced and my housewife mom had to work. We all kinda chipped in. Thank goodness for welfare and WIC and food stamps eh?

It hit me when I was applying for financial aid when I tried to go to college after high school. They actually classify your income level.. and I was like.. ok it's offical! I am lower class white trash. Yay!

The thing is now as my own man that I am, I am in the top 7% of salaries in the US and I sometimes think I was a lot happier when the pressure of earning at this level didn't exist. All the money buys you is headache after headache and stuff that inevitably doesn't really make you any more happy or fulfilled then you were before. A few houses later it's like.. is it really worth it? For my family I say yes. My daughter's future and her legacy is my responsibility. It would have been nice if my parents left me something to start with, as it used to be with the American family. Now? Boy have things changed. People start out with less and less and begin their life in so much debt that all you're working for is paying off that debt. Then maybe you meet someone, buy a house, and just accrue more debt.

I dunno sometimes.

[Akira]

I am upper-middle class.

This, to be honest.

I'm not going to pretend to understand what it's like to live in poverty.

[Sunshine]

My parents started out in poverty.
They were both fresh outta high school, joined the army, met at AIT, hooked up one night, condom broke, got married 3 weeks before I was born.
Usually privates in the army have it good -- they're buyin' nice cars and sound systems and all kinds of gadgets and nice clothes.
But when you take 2 privates and kick 'em outta the barracks 'cause they've got a kid they have to pay for, it's not a fun time.
I don't remember any of it, but my mom tells me all the time.
They used to get more money back in tax returns then they actually paid 'cause they weren't making enough to live.
She never used the foodstamps they sent, though, as a family we didn't eat very much [still don't, really], and she's good at stretching things out so they last a long time.
But she used to go to the thrift store for all her clothes [and mine, possibly, even though many of mine were given by various relatives and my grandma..I was the first granddaughter, the others before me were all boys, and she was DELIGHTED] and all of that.

Now, if my parents weren't in the army, I would've died before the age of 5, because they couldn't've paid the manymanymanymanymanymanymanymany thousands of dollars in hospital visits, medical procedures and medicines I had up until the 4th grade. Free healthcare wins. Without it, there's no way we could've survived.

And now my parents are retired, at the ripe old ages of 39 and 40, with free healthcare for life [for them, not me :(] and full benefits, own 3 houses, still work but nothing that pays particularly well because they don't need it, and send me to college. And my dad flies/drives all over the country to play chess. In fact, both of them just got back from a 5-day vacation in Vegas for a chess tournament.

[ashman]

Well, I just did some checking, and I found that the Australian Poverty Line in December last year (the latest data availible) for a single person is $374.11aud.

Now, as a full time student (infact, studying an 'overload'), all my units combined total 40 hours per a week, and on top of that I have assignments to do etc. etc.

I don't get any government benefeits or financial assistance, and I'm not working, so basically I'm eating up my bank balance. To last to the end of the year, I can't spend more than $220 per a week. I live in a old share house with 6 other people, but we all have our on rooms and it's clean. The rent is $103 per week each. I tend to eat a lot of rice, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables, and small amounts of meat. My food budget is about $8 a day, somedays less, rarely more. That's $56 a week. Basically, that basically means I spend $159 to survive and not be homeless, and it leaves $61 for clothing, petrol, and other non essential possessions or luxuries. I usually have money left over even :-S

Now, I hardly think I live in poverty. think if I was living on $371.11 a week I could live a life of luxury. I get sick of hearing about people bitching about how it's getting so expensive to live, because really I don't think it is :-S

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?


Do you by chance pay any taxes, utility bills or the short?

And I believe that poverty figure for a single person is about someone who lives by themselves.

Also, remember this when it comes to poverty (It's the definitions of poverty that the British Government use)

"There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.

Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together.

Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.

Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as "…a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown".

[TojesDolan]

The estimates the government makes are usually stupid and over the top.

The mexican government allegedly said that inflation is stable as f‪uck and that no one should worry, but the fifty-something products they based their inflation index on were fancy jewelry, luxury vehicles, electric guitars (O_O) and other "non-basic products" like say, rice, tomatoes, potatoes or similar products that people "actually" eat or consume.

So basically government people are dumb as f‪uck and make what they want of their analysis.

[JohnXDoe]

Well, I just did some checking, and I found that the Australian Poverty Line in December last year (the latest data availible) for a single person is $374.11aud.

Now, as a full time student (infact, studying an 'overload'), all my units combined total 40 hours per a week, and on top of that I have assignments to do etc. etc.

I don't get any government benefeits or financial assistance, and I'm not working, so basically I'm eating up my bank balance. To last to the end of the year, I can't spend more than $220 per a week. I live in a old share house with 6 other people, but we all have our on rooms and it's clean. The rent is $103 per week each. I tend to eat a lot of rice, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables, and small amounts of meat. My food budget is about $8 a day, somedays less, rarely more. That's $56 a week. Basically, that basically means I spend $159 to survive and not be homeless, and it leaves $61 for clothing, petrol, and other non essential possessions or luxuries. I usually have money left over even :-S

Now, I hardly think I live in poverty. think if I was living on $371.11 a week I could live a life of luxury. I get sick of hearing about people bitching about how it's getting so expensive to live, because really I don't think it is :-S

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?
well, i don't have much money right now either and i get where you're coming from

i'm going back to school i decided at the beginning of next year.....but i quit my job earlier this year to go back this fall....which isn't going to happen. so i too am "eating" my bank account.

idc i have the rest of my life to make money, save, invest, w/e. i tell you what 'tho...if i didn't own what i have already i could not afford it

its not so bad. i work two part time shifts a day up the street running a small take out pizza / food place. i mean i practically run it now. and ill never go hungry

its a big step down from making upwards of $50,000 a year, but i didn't like what i was doing b4 much, sort of fell into it, and never intended to do it all my life

my life was different then. i had plans with someone, we were going to marry, etc. had bills, an apartment together, a life. now its just me and has been for the last couple years

i knew poverty growing up...and i sort of know it now, i guess. after rent and bills and expenses i am left with precious little extra money to spend every month. proper dating is certainly out of the question if i'm paying (thats proper to me) and any luxeries are few and far between

but i don't mind so much. i look at the american economy collapsing under its own bloated weight and i don't want to be one of the worriers and complainers. we have consumed too much, bought too much, and thought our income was disposable, ad infinitum. now its come back to haunt us. big cars, housing boom, big income...all bust. and we're fat 'cause we eat too much.

we could use some poverty imo

in america you can be poor and have a computer, a roof over your head, clothes on your back, food in your belly, and healthcare free of charge. get an education and have a car....work you way "up" to.....something. thats not very poor if you ask me. by any standard

its harder if you have a family, yes. or if you have financial baggage from your past you are lugging around. but otherwise....if you are single or have a small family or w/e....its all gravy so far as i can see. i live in Los Angeles....one of the most expensive places to live in america....and i get by on very little sometimes....trying to keep my bank balance straight and my meager pay coming in.

i'm grateful for all of it. not much to feel "poor" about....

[Charlie Daniels]

And I get where you are coming from, John. I don't think being poor in Australia (not sure about america, but I'm guessing it's similiar) really is poor and if you're prepared to put in work you can get out of it.

You live in poverty relative to other Australians. Your level of income is significantly lower than a large portion of the country.

This is obviously different to when we speak of poverty in the sense of famine, lack of clean water, power etc etc.

Anyway, try to start a family in your current position and see how things go.
Well, the poverty line for a couple with two children is $702.68aud, so I don't quite get what your point is. Yes, a family living on $220aud per week would be living in poverty. What I'm saying is a single male living on $371aud a week certainly isn't living in 'poverty'

[Charlie Daniels]

Do you by chance pay any taxes, utility bills or the short?

And I believe that poverty figure for a single person is about someone who lives by themselves.
Yes, I pay taxes. I pay phone bills, the electricty etc. etc.

And I do live by myself :-S I'm not sure about definitions in the US, but a share house here is essentially each person rents a single room, and then there is a communal kitchen and bathroom. It's different to living with friends etc.

[jaredong]

well sure you could live just "at" it. I mean if i just work for meals + minimum rent, I'd get by. Though 8 bucks a day would be harsh.

But if i cant save any money at all for the next month, if i get sick I'd never be able to pay for it. If i lose my job I'd go hungry immediately and my housing. Im assuming your job is close by where you live? If you had to travel by car that'd be super expensive, even if you take public transport a month pass is around 60+ bucks at least. If im living paycheck by paycheck, I'd never have the money to start a family or anything without finding way to provide for all the extra bills that comes with a family.

[Danish]

The working class is under attack. We need to organize to build political power, to end poverty and suffering, and to build a society where people aren't deliberately left behind and swept aside like so much garbage.

Everyone deserves dignity, respect, and a decent standard of living. Bootstrapism is a brutal myth.

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, the poverty line for a couple with two children is $702.68aud, so I don't quite get what your point is. Yes, a family living on $220aud per week would be living in poverty. What I'm saying is a single male living on $371aud a week certainly isn't living in 'poverty'

My point is that you are in a country with a generally high standard of living. And that there is more than one sense to the word poverty.

We can think of poverty in the sense of relative to those in your country.

Or we can think of poverty in the sense of barely having the resources to survive.

And for you to say "I live in poverty, but it's not that bad." ignores the distinctions. Because the relative poverty in Australia isn't supposed to be horrific, just lacking in expendable income.

[Cybergasm]

The poverty line for a single adult is the figuire I'm comparing it to. For a couple (no children) it's $571.

And what do you mean 'afford'? Rent is 60% of my weekly expense. However, when I was searching for a place I turned down a few places in the same suburb that had cheaper rents on the grounds that the rooms in the houses weren't as clean as the one I got.

I just looked at a website which put the US poverty line at $200usd a week, which is about $215aud. It seems the US poverty line is probably more accurate. I can understand people finding it difficult maintain an education on that... it seems to be pretty similiar to what I live on and I would have trouble cutting back on my already meager spending.

So, perhaps, the real issue is why is the poverty line in Australia 80% higher than the US one? :-S
MX server sucks, sorry for not being able to respond earlier.

For the 'afford' part, I literally meant a place you can reasonably pay for. If we take your statistics of $800 a month, then figure in the fact that the lowest rent I was able to find when I was apartment hunting for my mom and me was $500, that only leaves about $300 for utilities, food, clothes, etc...

Now, going back to my college student reference, I believe for us $300 is manageable as we only really need Hot Pockets, something resembling a mattress, and, if we were being honest, the internet. For a grown man, I think $300 a month would put him well into the western conception of poverty (read: Western) as his ability to anything but survive would be limited.

Ultimately, though, I would agree that our westernized ideas about what poverty is and what poverty in the conventional sense (read: homeless and starving) is are very different. According to U.S. standards my mom and I are on the poverty line. I, however, would never think this to be true. I can, thankfully, say there is very little missing from my life. Living in such a place, however, does close certain doors as without these considerations I would never be able to go to college because I couldn't afford it (I can now because being considered on the poverty line helps with financial aid), and, in many ways, lack of upward mobility and leisure are the western definitions of poverty.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

It always amazes me how many friends I have who earn more than me and are always broke. Poverty has almost as much to do with how you spend your money as how much of it you actually have, but I disagree with the sentiment that poverty lines are meaningless. You could scrape by on less, but you'll never save up any money for retirement or rough times, eat properly, etc.

[PerpetualBurn]

Poverty has almost as much to do with how you spend your money as how much of it you actually have

No it only has to do with your expendable income.

[Smokey D]

Not necessarily. I get a lot more money than most of my friends but I also spend a lot more on unnecessary things, so by the end of the week I'm poorer.

[PerpetualBurn]

If you waste your money on luxury items you're an idiot, not poverty stricken.

[dinosaurxbrocore]

Well, I just did some checking, and I found that the Australian Poverty Line in December last year (the latest data availible) for a single person is $374.11aud.

Now, as a full time student (infact, studying an 'overload'), all my units combined total 40 hours per a week, and on top of that I have assignments to do etc. etc.

I don't get any government benefeits or financial assistance, and I'm not working, so basically I'm eating up my bank balance. To last to the end of the year, I can't spend more than $220 per a week. I live in a old share house with 6 other people, but we all have our on rooms and it's clean. The rent is $103 per week each. I tend to eat a lot of rice, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables, and small amounts of meat. My food budget is about $8 a day, somedays less, rarely more. That's $56 a week. Basically, that basically means I spend $159 to survive and not be homeless, and it leaves $61 for clothing, petrol, and other non essential possessions or luxuries. I usually have money left over even :-S

Now, I hardly think I live in poverty. think if I was living on $371.11 a week I could live a life of luxury. I get sick of hearing about people bitching about how it's getting so expensive to live, because really I don't think it is :-S

So what's up with this supposed poverty line thing?

nigga u no how much i spent on my nike dunks?

[Futue te Ipsum]

Like, every student here at uni seems to be bitching about how poor they are... but most of them get more money than i do and the reason they need mummy and daddy hands out is because they waste their money on alcohol, renting dvd's, eating out, buying coffee from cafes, going to see bands, buying clothing etc. etc. etc.hey that's not fair

I waste a lot of money living in nice accommodation at a trendy part of my countries most expensive city too

[Aaron]

I'm upper-middle classThis, to be honest.

I'm not going to pretend to understand what it's like to live in poverty.
My parents moved from what people'd refer to upper-middle class to lower-middle class when my brother died, so I don't really understand it either. I mean, there's been weeks where the phone has been disconnected, but we never ran out of water or food I'm happy and lucky to say. Saying that though, I understand what it's like to be surrounded by people more wealthy than you. I was on an academic scholarship at a really selective and snooty school for that period, and it sucked to not be able go parties etc and have people asking why. Not that partying is important, but when you're 12 or 13 it means a lot to you.

[JohnXDoe]

for me poverty is hunger. and lack of shelter. for those who may work hard or not but have shelter and food....even if in the ghetto, i can't consider you poor in america. if you have access to even marginal healthcare, and you most likely do, you aren't really poor. able bodied, working, drug dealer, or hooker. if you're getting by in america, you are not poor. idc how much more everyone else has then you. tough life get over it or do something about it....

even the aged, disabled, mentally ill and sick can live ok here. often times circumstances in their own lives make it more difficult for them. things government can't really do anything about. but i think we do ok by them, if barely. i would like to see us do more

poverty for me is global. its not here in america. its in africa, mexico, and lots of places we don't think about. millions (billions?) live just to eat and work from sun up till sundown and longer and go home to shacks. or very substandard conditions. many get no food at all. we act as if the starving in africa aren't human. "they are african...they starve. thats what africans do"

ok overstatement, but that is poverty to me. we have to eliminate a planet where people have no food or shelter and are made poor through brutal dictatorship. or made to starve. its ridiculous. we all have the right to food and have food made available. and clean water. its what humans NEED to live

so to develop, make friends, and help other nations help themselves....this is how we end poverty imo.

american living standards are ridiculously high. which is a blessing and a curse. because how to sustain it? ambition and the need for money has driven man since forever. and it does still. we need a change....but to what?

its an interesting question for me. i would just like to see a cultural values change. to the point where we invest what we have in energy, education, and healthcare in a real way. science. and put people to work for people in need. am i talking bigger social spending? yeah....but i'm saying we can do it better and do it right.

but poverty here? we are soft, not poor. the "poor" are actually pretty tough here. the "lower classes" i guess, in america. plenty work, go to school, and have families. and yeah they complain and bitch and moan but fuk 'em. they could buy a little food and give it to the local food bank. then maybe they'd realize how much they really have to be grateful for here in the land of the plenty

we're plenty fat i'll tell you that

[Aaron]

I think it's about quality of life, not income. I agree with you regarding most things, but I think there are people who are "poor" in America and Australia.

[PerpetualBurn]

Ok, there's more than one use of the word poverty.

The poverty line in a developed and wealthy country is relative to what is available to a majority of the people in the way of commodities.

Poverty in a more global sense is not having access to what we consider the basics of living.

Henry VIII didn't have electricity or running water, but his life was the luxury of society.

Context matters.

[JohnXDoe]

I think it's about quality of life, not income. I agree with you regarding most things, but I think there are people who are "poor" in America and Australia.

i think its a quality of life thing. i think people are burdened and need help. i think they need better education and healthcare. especially healthcare

like i said, for me poor is homless. sleeping on the street or living in the worst possible conditions

so poor here? i guess in one sense. but in another...when i see what is going on in other countries as a way of life...just extreme poverty....idk? for me it puts things in perspective

[Aaron]

Yeah, there's poor and then there's destitute...

[JohnXDoe]

this is why we need to assure everyone hase at least food and shelter all over the world. we need to define what is a decent way of living. those with less often get crushed under the weight of all us consumers. we take more then we need. if we are to do that we need to somehow provide basics for the rest. or i should say help them provide it for themselves. food and medicine for the world idc if they drive a Rolls or take a bus but that is a thing to work toward

[Smokey D]

If you waste your money on luxury items you're an idiot, not poverty stricken.

Living well means I have less disposable income. I'm not poverty stricken, because I can afford to live well, but consumption choices shape how much moeny you have to spend.

[Dave de Sylvia]

And I get where you are coming from, John. I don't think being poor in Australia (not sure about america, but I'm guessing it's similiar) really is poor and if you're prepared to put in work you can get out of it.


Well, the poverty line for a couple with two children is $702.68aud, so I don't quite get what your point is. Yes, a family living on $220aud per week would be living in poverty. What I'm saying is a single male living on $371aud a week certainly isn't living in 'poverty'
Whereabouts in Australia do you live?

Australia is a big place, so it's very difficult to define a single "poverty line." The poverty line, as defined, is supposed to cover everyone- i.e. people in the richest part of Australia as well as the poorest parts. Somebody in the centre of Sydney or Melbourne will obviously have much higher living costs than somebody in the outback, but there's still only one poverty line. It could well be that you're in one of the places where the cost of living is not so high.

[Charlie Daniels]

I live in the Hobart CBD... but still there's no laws that say where people have to live they can move if they don't like it....

[Mr. Ron]

Upper middle-ish

[Charlie Daniels]

But still, if you live in the city you pay the same (or often less) prices for food, utilities, services etc. etc. the only thing more expensive is rent...

[PerpetualBurn]

Living well means I have less disposable income. I'm not poverty stricken, because I can afford to live well, but consumption choices shape how much moeny you have to spend.

Consumption choices are how you spent your income. Your outgoings do not affect your income, simply how much you have at any given time.

[Smokey D]

Saying choices doesn't affect how much you can buy doesn't make any sense. It's the fundamental principle of economics.

I live in the Hobart CBD... but still there's no laws that say where people have to live they can move if they don't like it....

I'm fairly sure Tasmania is considerably cheaper than the big mainland cities.

[Charlie Daniels]

I'm fairly sure Tasmania is considerably cheaper than the big mainland cities.
How so?

[Smokey D]

Because Melbourne and Sydney are among the most expensive cities in the world.

http://tourtasmania.com/tasfaq/economy/costofliv.html

In absolute terms, the weekly cost of housing in Hobart in 2004 was 33% cheaper than the national average, and nearly half that of Sydney.

The information is slightly out of date, but I think the general idea is still pretty true.

[PerpetualBurn]

Saying choices doesn't affect how much you can buy doesn't make any sense. It's the fundamental principle of economics.


Poverty is a question of what resources are available to you.

If you have £50k then it doesn't matter what you actually freely spend it on, you aren't below the poverty line because of the economic power you have to access a very good standard of living.

[Smokey D]

Poverty is a question of what resources are available to you.

It's a question of asserts and liabilities, really.

And choices. Because poor choices make you poorer.

[Charlie Daniels]

Because Melbourne and Sydney are among the most expensive cities in the world.

http://tourtasmania.com/tasfaq/economy/costofliv.html



The information is slightly out of date, but I think the general idea is still pretty true.
From the very same source:

However, Hobart's consumer price index (CPI) is close to the Australian average, largely due to lower wages. Hobart's CPI is higher than the national average for health and household goods, and lower for food and transportation.

But that said, there is no rule that says people have to live in Melbourne or Sydney. It might be more expensive to get housing there, but what drives the housing prices up is because there are more benefits to living in a big city than a smaller one (on the whole).

[Charlie Daniels]

I mean ffs if living on $300 a week in Sydney is poverty, but living on $220 a week in Tasmania isn't, then people earning $300 a week should move to Tasmania and no longer live in poverty :-S

[Smokey D]

Okay but you're asking why you live on the poverty line but don't have any problems. The answer is because goods are cheaper. Low wages may bring the CPI into line with the rest of Australia but that doesn't change the fact that if you're using the national average to determine your own wealth without adjusting it for lower prices.

As for people moving to Tasmania, I think the point is clear: nobody in their right mind wants to move to Tasmania.

Although the fact that Tasmania has lower wages probably informs that decision too.

[Charlie Daniels]

Okay but you're asking why you live on the poverty line but don't have any problems. The answer is because goods are cheaper. Low wages may bring the CPI into line with the rest of Australia but that doesn't change the fact that if you're using the national average to determine your own wealth without adjusting it for lower prices.

As for people moving to Tasmania, I think the point is clear: nobody in their right mind wants to move to Tasmania.

Although the fact that Tasmania has lower wages probably informs that decision too.

I don't see what your saying. While housing is cheaper here, health services, household goods, some items of food and the like are more expensive here.

But my point is, if there really is such a big difference in how much money you need to avoid poverty, why do people insist in living in the expensive areas in poverty?

[Smokey D]

I don't see what your saying. While housing is cheaper here, health services, household goods, some items of food and the like are more expensive here.


I doubt it's more expensive than Sydney or Melbourne. When that source says weekly cost of housing, I'm pretty sure it means household living costs.

But my point is, if there really is such a big difference in how much money you need to avoid poverty, why do people insist in living in the expensive areas in poverty?

Because Tasmania is mind boggling uninteresting.

And because wages are such that moving to Tasmania doesn't mean that you are going to have more disposable income there than in the big cities.

[Hababi]

Because Tasmania is mind boggling uninteresting.

And because wages are such that moving to Tasmania doesn't mean that you are going to have more disposable income there than in the big cities.

Isn't anything going on in Hobart?

[Smokey D]

I'm gonna say no because it's in Tasmania, but I'm not Australian so what do I know.

[Aaron]

Hobart is a nice city and not unexpensive. It's probably more expensive than Adelaide and I know it's more expensive than Darwin.

[Hababi]

yeah but Darwin's like the crime capital of Australia amirite? Sounds like Adelaide is the best deal.

[Charlie Daniels]

I doubt it's more expensive than Sydney or Melbourne. When that source says weekly cost of housing, I'm pretty sure it means household living costs.
Well if you read the link you posted...

It's more expensive because tasmania has to import most of it's stuff from the mainland, and because of the smaller population, the retailers are forced to take a bigger cut. And I don't think it's more expensive than living Melbourne or Sydney, what I'm saying is there is no law saying that people have to spend absorberment amounts on renting in Melbourne or Sydney and if they do that there poverty is self-inflicted through bad budgetting...



Because Tasmania is mind boggling uninteresting.
So, perhaps an arguement can be made that though I have more dispoable income (supposedly) I'm actually worse off because I live on a 'mind bogglingly uninteresting' island?

And because wages are such that moving to Tasmania doesn't mean that you are going to have more disposable income there than in the big cities.
I'm not sure what you're saying here

[Charlie Daniels]

Isn't anything going on in Hobart?

Well, smokey (i think) is saying it's better to live in poverty in melbourne or sydney than to live comfortably in hobart and that's a pretty big blow. I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in my house than under a melbourne bridge...

But I really don't by this 'cost' of living thing

[Smokey D]

It's more expensive because tasmania has to import most of it's stuff from the mainland, and because of the smaller population, the retailers are forced to take a bigger cut. And I don't think it's more expensive than living Melbourne or Sydney, what I'm saying is there is no law saying that people have to spend absorberment amounts on renting in Melbourne or Sydney and if they do that there poverty is self-inflicted through bad budgetting...

I don't doubt that Tasmanians have structural costs that mainland Australia doesn't. But the fact is that Melbourne and Sydney are so expensive and so big that they distort the rest of the country's average. So there is higher poverty line than would be justified purely on Tasmania's statistics.

There are lots of reasons not to move to Tasmania, aside from it being boring. Probably the most important is the absence of jobs. I don't think Tasmania could absorb an influx of labour.

So, perhaps an arguement can be made that though I have more dispoable income (supposedly) I'm actually worse off because I live on a 'mind bogglingly uninteresting' island?

Quite possibly.

I'm not sure what you're saying here

If someone moves to Tasmania, they are on average going to be earning less money than they would have been earning in the big city. If the difference in wages are greater than the difference in cost in living, then the average person is worse off moving to Tasmania, lower costs notwithstanding.



Well, smokey (i think) is saying it's better to live in poverty in melbourne or sydney than to live comfortably in hobart and that's a pretty big blow. I'm pretty sure I'd rather live in my house than under a melbourne bridge...

We've already been through the fact that being below the povery line does not equate to destitution.

[Charlie Daniels]

What have you got against Tasmania anyway? You do realise half a million people live in it and it's not some remote island and we have a full range of services, industries, amusements etc. etc.?


We've already been through the fact that being below the povery line does not equate to destitution.

So what should the poverty line be in Tasmania? If what you're saying it is true, surely it should be the same as the poverty line for melbourne or sydney so the slightly more disposable income offsets the fact that we live an utterly boring existance...

have you actually been to tasmnia?

[Smokey D]

There's half a million people in the South Island too, but I wouldn't want to live there. Melbourne and Sydney are the cultural centres of the south Pacific. Everywhere else pales in comparison.

So what should the poverty line be in Tasmania? If what you're saying it is true, surely it should be the same as the poverty line for melbourne or sydney so the slightly more disposable income offsets the fact that we live an utterly boring existance...

I dunno I haven't done the studies. I'm sure the Tasmanian government has the information somewhere. But I don't get the last point.


have you actually been to tasmnia?


Why is htat important?

[Charlie Daniels]

There's half a million people in the South Island too, but I wouldn't want to live there. Melbourne and Sydney are the cultural centres of the south Pacific. Everywhere else pales in comparison.



I dunno I haven't done the studies. I'm sure the Tasmanian government has the information somewhere. But I don't get the last point.

Well, you're saying that living on $300 a week is better in melbourne/sydney than living on $300 a week in Tasmania... so why are you then that the poverty line in tasmania should be less... shouldn't it be more?

Melbourne is a great city, and I have lived there, but I prefer the lifestyle I have here.

[Charlie Daniels]

and if you've never been here, how can you slag tasmania off so much? I mean, it's education system is probably the best in Australia, with university being availible to signifigcantly greater number of students (by percent) than the other states (particularly) victoria.

[Smokey D]

Well, you're saying that living on $300 a week is better in melbourne/sydney than living on $300 a week in Tasmania... so why are you then that the poverty line in tasmania should be less... shouldn't it be more?

The poverty line would be less because costs are lower.

Melbourne is a great city, and I have lived there, but I prefer the lifestyle I have here.

Okay.

and if you've never been here, how can you slag tasmania off so much? I mean, it's education system is probably the best in Australia, with university being availible to signifigcantly greater number of students (by percent) than the other states (particularly) victoria.

Because backwaters are always boring. Some people might like it, but I don't understand it.

[Charlie Daniels]

Because backwaters are always boring. Some people might like it, but I don't understand it.Who said anything about backwaters?

[Smokey D]

Tasmania is a back water to Sydney and Melbourne.

[Charlie Daniels]

Oh now you're just trolling.

[Smokey D]

No I'm not. A backwater isn't necessarily bad. Melbourne and Sydney are metropolises; the rest of Australia is their hinterland.

[Charlie Daniels]

how do u mean?

[Smokey D]

The Australian economic system is oriented towards supporting those two cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropole

[Charlie Daniels]

Hardly....

[Smokey D]

Yes it is. In the sense meant by metropole anyway.

[Charlie Daniels]

if you think that your wrong...


but i'm sure you're trolling now anyway :rolleyes:

[aria]

yep pathetic troll attempt

[Smokey D]

No. Sydney and Melbourne are the metropolitan centres of Australia. They dominate it politically, economically, culturally and pretty much any other way you can think of. Tasmania is the periphery. It exerts very little influence on the main centres. It's main role (to the Australian state, but obviously not the Tasmanian people) is to supply resources and taxes to the central government. It's exactly the same role that Alabama plays to New York or Birmingham plays to London. I'm not saying that Tasmania doesn't have value or isn't important. I'm defining it's role in the Australian political economy. A characteristic of periphery economies is less cultural output, smaller populations and less activity in general. Hence why people who live in metropoles are likely to find it boring.

[Danish]

It's similar in Canada. Everyone who lives outside of Toronto hates Toronto because "Toronto thinks they are the best/run the country". Historically, Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto have been the "centres" in Canada; recently, we can add Calgary to that list.

Cities are very powerful as economic and cultural engines.

[Hababi]

If Toronto had the sociopolitical values of Calgary...and the weather of Bogata...it'd be perfect.

[dei]

Bogotá?

Isn't Calgary pretty conservative?

[Hababi]

Bogotá?

Isn't Calgary pretty conservative?

yes and yes

[dei]

Conservatism is bad. ;(

[Danish]

If Toronto had the sociopolitical values of Calgary...and the weather of Bogata...it'd be perfect.

Maybe for you; to me, that whole province is a write-off.

[Hababi]

Maybe for you; to me, that whole province is a write-off.

Ah then perhaps you'd be interested in my 'split Canada up' plan, which would leave:

British Colombia & Yyukon

Alberta, NW territory, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia

Quebec


With Alberta & co totally pwning everywhere else.

[Danish]

We already call Alberta "The 51st State".

[Hababi]

I'd love for Alberta and NW to be rolled into the US :D

[dei]

I'd love for the Pacific states, the Great Lake states (minus Indiana and Ohio), and the Northeast to secede and become part of Canada.

[Charlie Daniels]

No. Sydney and Melbourne are the metropolitan centres of Australia. They dominate it politically, economically, culturally and pretty much any other way you can think of. Tasmania is the periphery. It exerts very little influence on the main centres. It's main role (to the Australian state, but obviously not the Tasmanian people) is to supply resources and taxes to the central government. It's exactly the same role that Alabama plays to New York or Birmingham plays to London. I'm not saying that Tasmania doesn't have value or isn't important. I'm defining it's role in the Australian political economy. A characteristic of periphery economies is less cultural output, smaller populations and less activity in general. Hence why people who live in metropoles are likely to find it boring.
Actually, you have it wrong. Per capita, I beleive Tasmania is funded more than any other state by the federal government. Yes, they may dominate Australia politically, economically and culturally but that's because they have the most people there. But that doesn't that Tasmania's purpose is simply to prop those people up. Infact, Tasmania exports a lot of agricultural produce to the big cities and without them the Tasmanian people wouldn't be as well off. Likewise, the residents of the big cities need states like Tasmania and the outer regions of victoria and new south wales to feed them. We're both dependant on each other.

So basically:

The amount in taxes we supply to the federal govt is roughly equivilient (or some years less) than what we get back in sevices and infrastructure.

Tasmania supplies resources to the big cities, but those cities pump an amount of money back into Tasmania and this is how Tasmanians make money. It's an equal relationship, not the master and slave you are portraying it to be.


And on another point, so if the purpose of everywhere in Australia is to supply taxes to the government and resources to Sydney and Melbourne, what is the purpose of Sydney and Melbourne? I'm pretty sure the majority of tax dollars to the central govt comes from Sydney and Melbourne and I'm pretty sure Sydney and Melbourne...

Please stop trolling it's getting old.

[Smokey D]

Actually, you have it wrong. Per capita, I beleive Tasmania is funded more than any other state by the federal government. Yes, they may dominate Australia politically, economically and culturally but that's because they have the most people there. But that doesn't that Tasmania's purpose is simply to prop those people up. Infact, Tasmania exports a lot of agricultural produce to the big cities and without them the Tasmanian people wouldn't be as well off. Likewise, the residents of the big cities need states like Tasmania and the outer regions of victoria and new south wales to feed them. We're both dependant on each other.

Actually you've just summed up the concept of metropole-periphery perfectly. If you think back through the history of empires, you will see exactly the same thing. Argentina, Australia, Canada New Zealand and even the USA (at least until the rise of New York and Chicago) all supplied London with food and resources while London supplied the periphery with finance, capital, technology, and culture. Of course the roles were never so clear cut but that's the general trend. Some historians have posited the relationship was exploitative -- that the core extracted far more wealth from the periphery than was put back -- but I disagree. Like you, I think there is a mutual dependence. But it doesn't change the fact that Tasmania, and most of Australia, is peripheral, to the the south eastern sea board -- even though a significant part of Australia's foreign exchange is generated by resources extracted from the periphery.

And on another point, so if the purpose of everywhere in Australia is to supply taxes to the government and resources to Sydney and Melbourne, what is the purpose of Sydney and Melbourne? I'm pretty sure the majority of tax dollars to the central govt comes from Sydney and Melbourne and I'm pretty sure Sydney and Melbourne...

Well, Sydney alone generates 25% of Australia's GDP, so I think it's contribution is pretty obvious.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well, I'm failing to see how you are saying that Sydney's purpose is somehow superior to Tasmania's purpose...

[Smokey D]

I specifically said it wasn't.

But that doens't mean Tasmania isn't boring.

[Charlie Daniels]

Well I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. First you were saying Tasmania is boring and a backwater and the only reason it exists is to fund MElbourne and Sydney, and now you're saying it's equal but still boring?

And youve never been so wtf would you know ayway?

[Charlie Daniels]

ps smokey thanks for not negging me (unlike some other people) even though I think your view is stupid I atleast reqpect that you have a view and wont rubbish you for it (unlike some other people)

[Stevie II]

why dont you get a freakin job whats wrong iwth you go to college

[Charlie Daniels]

Way to read the thread :rolleyes:

I go to university, and am electing to study a 1.5 load which means I get my degree quicker, but also means I don't have time to work as this last semester I spent 40 hours a week on campus.

[Danish]

I'd love for Alberta and NW to be rolled into the US :D

I'll make you a deal: you can have Alberta, but we get Vermont!

[Smokey D]

Well I'm not sure what you're saying anymore. First you were saying Tasmania is boring and a backwater and the only reason it exists is to fund MElbourne and Sydney, and now you're saying it's equal but still boring

It is a backwater. It's part of the periphery, so it lacks the metropolitan features. And structurally (in terms of political economy) the main purpose of Tasmania is to supply resources and taxes. This isn't saying that Sydney and Melbourne extract an unequal exchange. I don't buy into idea that there are shadowy figures in high places conspiring to impoverish the people. I think the central government firmly believes in doing right by Tasmania and the other states. That's why we get re-investment into Tasmania.

This has nothing to do with the value Tasmanians ascribe to themselves or their way of life or anything. It's simply outlining the roles within the economic system of Australia.

and youve never been so wtf would you know ayway?

There's lots of places I've never been to but I know would be boring.

And by boring I mean interesting for a while but I couldn't live there.