Poverty measure ... doesn't make sense to me

[Jeeper]

I remember when there was no TV. We listened to the wireless and read books.

BBC started transmission in 1935 in London, how vintage are you?

[Ocean1]

I remember when there was no TV. We listened to the wireless and read books.

One of the old man's mates made a TV from a 10" round green oscilloscope screen. First few days he had it we'd sit there watching the news broadcast from Aussie, couple of years before TV came here.

Can't remember if it was 1 hr or 2, but that was, news and some very BBC style current affairs thing.

[ellipsis]

...I remember the first TV coming to our town...it created some wondrous conversation...it was at a house not far from ours which was 'exciting'...we had one a couple or three years later, rented from ?...it looked a lot older than the one pictured here...fucked if I know why but us kids were not allowed near it...I remember lots of cuffed ears for watching the cartoons after school, if I was caught...

[Ocean1]

...I remember the first TV coming to our town...it created some wondrous conversation...it was at a house not far from ours which was 'exciting'...we had one a couple or three years later, rented from ?...it looked a lot older than the one pictured here...fucked if I know why but us kids were not allowed near it...I remember lots of cuffed ears for watching the cartoons after school, if I was caught...

There was a scheme where someone was modifying British second hand TVs to work here. I remember getting dragged down to the post office to buy UK bonds, (limit per person/week, then) so we could pay for ours.

That was maybe a year after broadcasting began here. Was always a rigmarole around tuning the fucking thing, look at it sideways and it gave up. I remember some nights any time someone stood up reception turned to shit.

[mashman]

I could be poor too, I felt the inconvenience of that far outweighed the inconvenience of working most days for the last 35 years.
Although nobody goes in to bat for old tired pricks that worked too hard.

I Am doing that very thing dearheart... that and trying to prevent anyone from having to work that hard for so long without the inconvenience factor. Enjoy it. Stop moaning about it ya grumpy fucka

[mashman]

They deserve what others consider their work's worth.

The end.

Meanwhile, that behavioural construct is systematically poisoning our environments (social, mental, trees n resources n shit etc...).

No. It isn't.

[ellipsis]

There was a scheme where someone was modifying British second hand TVs to work here. I remember getting dragged down to the post office to buy UK bonds, (limit per person/week, then) so we could pay for ours.

That was maybe a year after broadcasting began here. Was always a rigmarole around tuning the fucking thing, look at it sideways and it gave up. I remember some nights any time someone stood up reception turned to shit.

...yeah...the, 'who's going up on the roof ?', question was probably asked every time the fucken thing was turned on...

[mashman]

Without questioning the absurdity of some of the economic logic displayed in your comments, would you care to elaborate how would you define poverty? How would you measure it? And how do you purpose to alleviate suffering of humankind who are supposedly living on $100 a week in NZ.

The absurdity is is that I've just described your absurd system and you've agreed that it's absurd. Although the absurdity could be your need to reframe the $100 to live on where it was quite clearly in the context of food budget. Then again, the absurdity of questioning economic logic that exists does somewhat take the biscuit.

I define poverty as the lack of social cohesion that gives credence to phenomena, like Structural Violence. It is measured in Educational terms. It is measured in living standards and conditions terms. It is measured by the access to goods and services like houses, transport, amenities, food quality etc... Absolute poverty for the vast majority of the population. Yeah, pretty close. I'll give that as a part of an answer as to how I would define poverty.

As for alleviation. Moving towards a Resource Based Economy would do the trick. Failing that, putting things in place to fund those who currently redistribute free food to those who need it. Building vertical hydroponic farms on the doorsteps of those very people and calling them community gardens. I'd look at slightly different ways of mixing current logistics to save on transport costs, sprays etc... Either way, should anyone struggling financially choose to turn down good fresh free food, and therefore not have another 17% in their pocket by default, then that's their problem. Where they do get 17%... well, they now have 17% more money without anyone really having to spend much outwith the investment required to build the farms. Even at that we could find the final year students who kick ass and offer them the contract to build them. Again, it's be cheap, potentially free, as these guys are already paid for given that they're still in education. What they would receive in return is a short-cut in terms of their industry standing. There are a few other, more maybe, important things I'd address too... but hey, let's start with the alleviation of poverty and maybe some knock on health effects.

So please, point out the absurdity of not being able to get any of the abundance of food that currently exists to those who could do with it. Coz iffen ye don't have the money, then ye don't have access to that resource... and so on and so forth. the current system is clinically insane given its outcomes. I'll take your perceived absurdity over that any day.

[roogazza]

One of the old man's mates made a TV from a 10" round green oscilloscope screen. First few days he had it we'd sit there watching the news broadcast from Aussie, couple of years before TV came here.

Shit yes, my uncle made a TV from the same sort of thing but it would have been smaller maybe 6 to 8 inch diameter max. We'd sit round and watch really old stuff ,Hyram Holiday (spelling) or some such.

[Jeeper]

Mashman, are we now talking about absolute poverty or still talking about relative poverty? The measure used by NZ and referred to in the original post is for relative poverty, which we are unlikely to ever eliminate (unless we all live on a big Commune and grow some funky stuff together). If you are talking about absolute poverty, like the measure used in US, then that is actually much easier to calculate and mark progress against.

All your ideas are just big statements with relatively no connection to any economic theory or policies that can actually be implemented and progress monitored against.

Healthy debate is a sign of a healthy society. But it has to be grounded in logic. Propose a single alternative measure for absolute poverty in NZ. And then we can see what works. Heck, we can measure both absolute and relative poverty and decide which one makes the society feel better.

[FJRider]

Really? Ever talked to someone who grew up in a "union" household and how they went hungry while Dad was on strike for some dumbfuck reason.

"Winning" a 10 week strike ... and getting an extra 59 cents per hour and 5 extra minutes for morning and afternoon smoko ...

[mashman]

Mashman, are we now talking about absolute poverty or still talking about relative poverty? The measure used by NZ and referred to in the original post is for relative poverty, which we are unlikely to ever eliminate (unless we all live on a big Commune and grow some funky stuff together). If you are talking about absolute poverty, like the measure used in US, then that is actually much easier to calculate and mark progress against.

All your ideas are just big statements with relatively no connection to any economic theory or policies that can actually be implemented and progress monitored against.

Healthy debate is a sign of a healthy society. But it has to be grounded in logic. Propose a single alternative measure for absolute poverty in NZ. And then we can see what works. Heck, we can measure both absolute and relative poverty and decide which one makes the society feel better.

I gave you my definition and measure of poverty. Not sure why you're so confused. If your goal s to accept a level of poverty, then poverty you shall have. Given that there's more than enough food to go around, there are still empty stomachs. Anything else is trifling over those lives.

Correct. They are different thinking. It's kind of what we need. Yet absolutely everything I put forwards there is achievable today using the very same tools and monitoring that we have today. All that has changed is the logistics. That such a thing confuses you really doesn't surprise me, because instead of putting forwards an economic argument, you dismiss that which was offered as nothing more than big statements. I can't help you being a sad sack of shit, but I sure as hell don't have to accept that that's the best you can do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you and TDL are related. Blood sisters or summink.

Measure measure measure. Always with the measuring. Just do what needs to be done and there'll be no need to measure anything. But that's what Resource Based Economy is about i.e. making sure everyone has access to everything so that you don't have to waste time and effort on systems that are used to do nothing other than monitor that everyone is getting access to what they require. Your bullshit system uses averages and medians and all sorts of measures to quantify that which exists in sufficient enough numbers that we're currently trying to find policy to fix it.

So I'm sure you'll excuse me when I tell you to fuck off back under the 1150's rock from which you crawled. Coz, Son, you've got nothing... but at least you're in good company.

[Woodman]

Mashman, are we now talking about absolute poverty or still talking about relative poverty? The measure used by NZ and referred to in the original post is for relative poverty, which we are unlikely to ever eliminate (unless we all live on a big Commune and grow some funky stuff together). If you are talking about absolute poverty, like the measure used in US, then that is actually much easier to calculate and mark progress against.

All your ideas are just big statements with relatively no connection to any economic theory or policies that can actually be implemented and progress monitored against.

Healthy debate is a sign of a healthy society. But it has to be grounded in logic. Propose a single alternative measure for absolute poverty in NZ. And then we can see what works. Heck, we can measure both absolute and relative poverty and decide which one makes the society feel better.

You are new here aren't you?

[Jeeper]

You are new here aren't you?

Does that mean I am not allowed to have an opinion that differs from someone who's best argument is to name call and throw personal insults? Thank you for reminding me. I will keep that in mind for future.

[Jeeper]

I gave you my definition and measure of poverty. Not sure why you're so confused. If your goal s to accept a level of poverty, then poverty you shall have. Given that there's more than enough food to go around, there are still empty stomachs. Anything else is trifling over those lives.

Correct. They are different thinking. It's kind of what we need. Yet absolutely everything I put forwards there is achievable today using the very same tools and monitoring that we have today. All that has changed is the logistics. That such a thing confuses you really doesn't surprise me, because instead of putting forwards an economic argument, you dismiss that which was offered as nothing more than big statements. I can't help you being a sad sack of shit, but I sure as hell don't have to accept that that's the best you can do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you and TDL are related. Blood sisters or summink.

Measure measure measure. Always with the measuring. Just do what needs to be done and there'll be no need to measure anything. But that's what Resource Based Economy is about i.e. making sure everyone has access to everything so that you don't have to waste time and effort on systems that are used to do nothing other than monitor that everyone is getting access to what they require. Your bullshit system uses averages and medians and all sorts of measures to quantify that which exists in sufficient enough numbers that we're currently trying to find policy to fix it.

So I'm sure you'll excuse me when I tell you to fuck off back under the 1150's rock from which you crawled. Coz, Son, you've got nothing... but at least you're in good company.

Ah, the age old cliches with no logic but name calling and personal attacks. Im not your son, dont ever call me that again, my father was infinitely more intelligent than you ever could dream to be.

Poverty in NZ is a relative construct. You want to see absolute poverty, visit some of the developing countries and see how they live. Poverty in NZ is created following an attitude of entitlement and that attitude being positively reinforced with universal and unconditional funding.