We’re arguing semantics, but if a working poor in the US has to work 50 hour weeks and 3 jobs (due to low status maybe —- livable income but high costs for transport, rent, debt and healthcare ect) to get food and shelter, that’s still poverty. A farmer in Eastern Europe could have much more freedom over their life while still earning less in absolute terms.

There’s no inherent reason why relative low status has to turn into slavery in practice, that’s a choice made by society.

The question of absolute material wealth is still relevant and interesting, but it is mostly a different question.

I didn’t come up with that definition of poverty, it is the definition used by UNICEF, UNDP (The United Nations Children's Fund) and the OECD.

And there certainly is discussion about that definition, but other poverty definitions also fail to capture certain aspects of poverty (e.g. the World Bank’s poverty line).

It isn’t status, when bith of your parents work full time and you still don’t get to eat on the last days of the week. That is poverty.

First of all, I don't know why we're discussing the word "poverty". I talked about "30x the income", never mentioned "poverty".

But let's talk about the word.

By the UNICEF/UNDP/etc definition of "poverty", poverty can never be eradicated. There will always be people below average, as any math teacher can explain to you.

In a "Richistan" society comprised only of dollar millionaires and billionaires, the least wealthy millionaires will be living in "poverty".

> It isn’t status, when both of your parents work full time and you still don’t get to eat on the last days of the week. That is poverty.

...but now you've jumped to absolute poverty measures! Those "Richistan poor" could easily dine in fine restaurants every day.