Just wanted to throw to other points into this discussion, which I think are pertinent:

1. What do we actually mean when we use the term ‘poverty’; and

2. Wealth is not necessarily the same as well-being. Of course, citizens need to have their basic needs met first; but beyond that, a society that is wealthy on paper may still not enjoy a high level of general well-being. This discussion shouldn’t just revolve around money.

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just wanted to throw to other points into this discussion, which I think are pertinent:

1. What do we actually mean when we use the term ‘poverty’; and

2. Wealth is not necessarily the same as well-being. Of course, citizens need to have their basic needs met first; but beyond that, a society that is wealthy on paper may still not enjoy a high level of general well-being. This discussion shouldn’t just revolve around money.

Traditional Proverb

Enough is Plenty

22 hours ago, geordief said:

There might be no problem if hoarding was all they were allowed to do.

So long as they invest their money so that it is available to the general public (and for the government to allocate according to the general consensus) that might be acceptable.

What is definitely not acceptable imo is for that money to be used for political influence or for greater wealth to be used as a means of bypassing the legal structures that are supposed to apply to everyone equally.

Nor should the uber wealthy have a greater say in the direction society takes when they are free to direct huge amounts of money in particular directions without public approval.

I agree 100% with this. The problem is how to change it?

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Forgive me for not proactively clarifying that my comment wasn’t intended to focus on people choosing to be poor on purpose.

No worries. I just felt it should be mentioned.

4 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

I agree 100% with this. The problem is how to change it?

Boringly vote for political parties who recognise the problem(I think the problem is well understood) and see how they get on.

At school I learned that laisser faire capitalism was largely discredited and that regulation was desirable to a degree.

I never imagined it would come back in force but I lazily assumed the US would remain a force for good and not some kind of a retirement home for corrupt and corrupting felons, conmen and election riggers in positions of overreaching power.

10 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just wanted to throw to other points into this discussion, which I think are pertinent:

1. What do we actually mean when we use the term ‘poverty’; and

2. Wealth is not necessarily the same as well-being. Of course, citizens need to have their basic needs met first; but beyond that, a society that is wealthy on paper may still not enjoy a high level of general well-being. This discussion shouldn’t just revolve around money.

Poverty IMO is a relative term that is dependent on one's circumstances, a reason I have avoided using the word. The poorest person in the US would be considered pretty wealthy by Haitian standards but when the standard is keeping oneself from starving to death or being killed by a neighborhood gang, poverty is below what most people would consider an acceptable level of well-being. This discussion is isn't so much about money but allocation of resources for which money is simply a temporary representative in most circumstances. One of those other circumstances, I think, is education, especially about money and economics.

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Boringly vote for political parties who recognise the problem(I think the problem is well understood) and see how they get on.

At school I learned that laisser faire capitalism was largely discredited and that regulation was desirable to a degree.

I never imagined it would come back in force but I lazily assumed the US would remain a force for good and not some kind of a retirement home for corrupt and corrupting felons, conmen and election riggers in positions of overreaching power.

The problem in the US is that only 2 parties are allowed to participate and both are bought off by moneyed interests. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is similar to the difference between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, pretty great on some few ancillary positions but in the end still capitalists/communists. Look how the mainstream Democratic Party did everything they could to oppose Mamdani and EVERY candidate he supported. Now they are saying that mainstream Americans are "not for socialism" without ever describing all of the socialist policies already in place or taking longer than a sound bite to talk about any specific policy.

50 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

Poverty IMO is a relative term that is dependent on one's circumstances, a reason I have avoided using the word. The poorest person in the US would be considered pretty wealthy by Haitian standards but when the standard is keeping oneself from starving to death or being killed by a neighborhood gang, poverty is below what most people would consider an acceptable level of well-being. This discussion is isn't so much about money but allocation of resources for which money is simply a temporary representative in most circumstances. One of those other circumstances, I think, is education, especially about money and economics.

The problem in the US is that only 2 parties are allowed to participate and both are bought off by moneyed interests. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is similar to the difference between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, pretty great on some few ancillary positions but in the end still capitalists/communists. Look how the mainstream Democratic Party did everything they could to oppose Mamdani and EVERY candidate he supported. Now they are saying that mainstream Americans are "not for socialism" without ever describing all of the socialist policies already in place or taking longer than a sound bite to talk about any specific policy.

Yes,it is a long road.I think US needs to reform its democracy but I don't necessarily see that happening.

On 7/25/2026 at 4:42 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Hm, this is also a tough issue…I have never myself been in one of those “Emergency Accomodation” units, but I have heard accounts from homeless people who say that conditions in many of those places are deplorable, to the point that they feel safer sleeping outside.

I have a relative who works in social care. Its certainly complicated, even when it comes to this type of accommodation. Many, to combat violence and fear factors impose rules to which many homeless folk chose not to adhere to, so continue living on the streets, drugs use and weapon carrying being the main 2.

On 7/25/2026 at 4:42 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Depends what kind of “monk” you mean, specifically. In my particular case, our entire tradition is based on alms mendicancy, meaning we live exclusively on material donations freely given by others. We do not use, receive or own money in any form. So we stand outside this system.

But perhaps this might be interesting in the context of this thread: we keep up the tradition of going on “alms round”, meaning a few times a week we walk into town with our alms bowls in the hope of receiving some form of edibles for our (one and only) daily meal. In my experience here in the West, and purely statistically: out of every 100 people I encounter, 96 simply ignore me and walk past; 2 are curious and ask questions, but don’t give anything; 1 will be actively critical, on rare occasions even hostile; and 1 will actually donate food.

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

I suspect that most people would assume you are just begging out of idleness, without first understanding your lifestyle and culture.

Regarding your PS. This attitude is ripe across a number of situations. Years ago when I ran my own construction business the wealthiest clients tended to be the meanest. Like wise the poorest the most generous. The poorer clients would happily offer drinks, food and cash tips to the workers. Whereas the wealthy clients would offer nothing but expect huge discounts.

Just going back to homeless donations. I often offer loose change or a hot coffee, but on one particular occasion I was approached and advised by a police officer who saw a particular person begging not to approach or gift anything. She explained that the person was a multiple offender who was a drug user and had been offered help over the years choosing not to take it. Donations would encourage his poor behaviour so the police and social care were trying to deter him from continuing his current life style.

Just something to consider and shows that each individual case is different and some complicated. There are people who are born into poverty, forced into poverty, chose poverty and chose to ignore poverty.

As you said poverty isn't just about money.

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Wealth is not necessarily the same as well-being. Of course, citizens need to have their basic needs met first; but beyond that, a society that is wealthy on paper may still not enjoy a high level of general well-being. This discussion shouldn’t just revolve around money.

I was having just this discussion with my son the other day. What makes a person wealthy and what makes them poor?

In modern western society for the general population a certain amount of money does help to provide a certain level of well being. The question is, what does money buy and how much does one need to achieve it?

For example, my son offered to buy me a fancy car, a big, house, expensive holidays upon him becoming rich and successful (by the way he's still a student at Uni, so currently broke in reality). I explained that I don't need any of those things. What would be nice (for my personal wellbeing) is my house paid off, my early retirement, and enough money to cover my bills and health care. The rest is just material and has no value for me.

My point being, wealth is really about health, happiness and content and poverty is really about suffering and hardship.

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Intoscience
spelling

Having done social work for several years, back there in antiquity, I've found myself wanting to hang back and take in the many trenchant observations made here rather than unleash a torrent of job experiences. I've really appreciate comments from @Markus Hanke and others on how human well-being and nurturance is not just about money and material stuff. It was interesting to me how much stuff and square footage people could amass and yet not be too happy. (Hedonic treadmill is a pertinent concept here) And how others could have little more than a bedroll and a library card and maybe a closet sized space and live robustly and soar across the universe. My perspective, perhaps call it "Buddhist with a small b," is that the latter see past momentary stimulation and the parade and pageantry of shiny things.

What's funny is how outwardly I might seem middle class and comfortably equipped with material stuff and yet how little it matters to me and how easily I would toss almost all of it onto the lawn with a FREE sign. It's like living on a strange planet where people seem to require all this junk to communicate and prop up a fragile persona which they've confused with their real selves.

And Capitalism relies upon this falseness of priorities. It's not immoral, it's just amoral, i.e. it has no real perspective on what's important in life. Like cancer cells, corporate entities seek to grow and grow, while draining life from the body of humanity. And nothing drains life from an individual quite like a sense of obligation to his material goods and property. As @Intoscience points out, poverty is really suffering and hardship - the cleverest trick of late stage capitalism is to expand the perception of hardship until it's leached of all its original and authentic meaning and simply becomes "the lack of whatever we want to sell you."

11 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I suspect that most people would assume you are just begging out of idleness, without first understanding your lifestyle and culture.

You are right, people don’t understand the concept, and most are too shy and reluctant to approach me and ask. At one point in history, there were also some Christian monastic orders who lived based on alms mendicancy, but I don’t think they exist anymore, so people are no longer familiar with the archetype.

But just to be clear - we don’t accept money (only food and material necessities), and we never approach people ourselves asking for stuff. We basically just stand there silently, hoping someone will come up to us. We have very strict rules of behaviour and conduct around the whole thing.