absent ideal communism, people will have differing incomes.
there will be a distribution of incomes and those who lie
at the lower end of the distribution will be "the poor".

You've got a very good point here. Over-population is indeed one of the major causes of poverty. But there are other factors too.


Poverty has many causes, some of them very basic. Some experts suggest, for instance, that the world has too many people, too few jobs, and not enough food. But such basic causes are quite intractable and not easily eradicated. In most cases, the causes and effects of poverty interact, so that what makes people poor also creates conditions that keep them poor. Primary factors that may lead to poverty include overpopulation, the unequal distribution of resources in the world economy, inability to meet high standards of living and costs of living, inadequate education and employment opportunities, environmental degradation, certain economic and demographic trends, and welfare incentives.

Because rich people are rich (keep getting richer and greedier) and there is no middle class to fall into. Figured I would simplify this post, LMAO!!

and how do you think opening up the job market to millions more unskilled workers is going to help the already working poor?

define unskilled,, I wouldnt suggest anyone hire a person who doesnt know how to do or learn to do the job,,,

define unskilled,, I wouldnt suggest anyone hire a person who doesnt know how to do or learn to do the job,,,

Unskilled:People that carry boards and drywall.

Skilled: People that read the drawings and know where to put the boards and drywall..

shall I continue?

Most definitely, I agree completely.

Couch filer green, running dual sky.

tmo, sometimes it's hard to break the vicious circle when you are lacking of opportunity to get good education, job, etc. therefore happens all the time that for generations some families stay in the same poor condition.

You are touching on a key point here; we define poor relative to the distribution of wealth amongst our entire populace. We might instead think of some baseline of 'necessities' and ask home many people are truly below that baseline.

If you look at the history of humanity - many people barely had more than 'protection from the elements and enough food'. If you look around the world today, you see people literally starving to death for lack of access to food, or suffering from diseases due to a lack of clean water.

While travelling, I've lived with homeless people in a dozen US cities - none of them were 'terribly poor' in my estimation. They all had sheltered places to sleep, they had sleeping bags and blankets, they were given food for free every day; they had an abundance of free time and spent their days playing games, hanging out, getting drunk, reading at the library and book store. The only people who were really suffering from material lack were the addicts and the mentally unwell.

Now you take a rural african village in an impoverished nation, and give them the resources your average american homeless person has (clean water at public water fountains? food lines every day?) I think they'd throw a party.

In short: as long as fundamental survival needs are being met, poverty is entirely relative.

Infinite subjectivity is indicative of non-existent objectivity.

Well maybe so Joe..to me everything is open to perception and subjectivity. Between black and white there are many shades of gray..
I was being sarcastic using the word replenish in the very first post as I'm not Christain and don't live by the bible teachings of replenishing or anything else for that matter.
Point being..some things are just meant to be..life will not be contained, children are born into many different circumstances. So the attempts at explaining them all seems moot..to me.

Someone's gotta live in a tent under the bridge right??

Or in a van down by the river...

I grew up pretty damn poor, but have worked hard, and saved my money.

I didnt know there was a job that paid people to carry things,, but I guess if someone is paying for it,, its a skill

I don't think so. I mean, there may always be people who would prefer to live in a van down by the river (was that an SNL reference?), but I believe we can create a world in which everyone who is willing to work can have better than a van by the river, if they want.

I could give a rat's azz if anyone thinks the truth I lived, a generalization.

I have seen many projects and high rises slap full of career welfare recipients. The Canal St. Ferry took me to the high rises many a time to score dope. How do ya think most subsidized their income. Prostitution, selling food stamps. $10.00 get ya' $20.00 of stamps.

From 1968 to 1970, I lived on Bourbon St and slept in Jackson Square. Got caught up twice in a transient roundup. Given a bus ticket to Ms. Waited a couple weeks and headed back. They do those when a big celebration is getting close.

In 1978, I was in Everett, Wa. Had custody of two kids. One 3 months and the other a year and a half. Living in the projects on welfare, medicade and food stamps. Couldn't work. Guv subsidized day care wouldn't take kids in diapers. Had plenty of time yo get to know the neighbors. At least 60% were career welfare.

There was a lot of discrimination then also.

The career recipients only had to go in once a year to recertify. I was put on month to month. Just because I was a man. They didn't even bother chasing the absent Mother for Child Support.

Child support reluctantly took the report I gave them. The worker told me from the start she believed those kids belonged with their Mother. I wasn't surprised when nothing came of the report.

My experiences are far from generalities, thank you very much.

And, if anyone wants to claim generality, come up with some facts ta' back it up.

Your sarcasum did not go unnoticed.

Your sarcasm did not go unnoticed. I was merely pointing out that humans, like human cells, cannot multiply indefinitely. Replenishing numbers lost to disease or war is one thing but covering the Earth to the detriment of all living things ... including humans ... is a very very bad thing. Adding an extra billion is adding an extra billion to the poverty list. At some point we all become improvised.

I agree...enough is enough for many reasons. I'm very aware and mindful of the damage our Mother Earth is experiencing due to our bad choices. The op was in regards to why some are rich and some are poor...and this thread like so many took a completely different turn. My point is that I don't put much faith in the studies because there are many variables...