Just see the following there is a construct called relative poverty. And it’s “definition” is that those are poor which earn less than half of the average income.
So let’s see an example. Our world is simple we have 1/3 earning 1000 GE, 1/3 earning 2000 and GE 1/3 earning 3000 GE. So our average is 2000 GE and we do not have one “poor” soul.
Now the middle earners get 10 GE more so our average is now: 2003,33. And now we suddenly have 1/3 poor people. Nothing has really changed for the “less much earning parts” but still now they are considered poor. So if the average climbs for whatever reason especially if those above average earn just a cent or whatever more the poor parts raise.
Even more absurd. Imagine just one person with an earning of 6000 GE enters the scene. Suddenly there are “more” poor souls. In Germany we have absurd laws for people considered especially true. If they live divorced and the partner does not live in Germany they even get the right for a flight tickt to the other country. If you are a little above this poors and you can not afford to buy this ticket you have to stay home. The idea that this is this way does not feel “right” for most of the Germany but a few say it’s unfair to those regarded poor that they are not “unwilling” to work but just unlucky or whatever.
However the deledefs of course ride on thiis definition and take that as a permission to steal more from the not “poors”. If you can read german just type in “Armut in Deutschland” and then read the entries.
Having to think about an absolute limit on where poverty strikes, is of course a difficult undertaking. And So why bother? Just use the relative definiton and thinks turn out “brutally”. If the average income raises much more poors have to be “fed”. ….. That’s deledefs logic….
The reason vor poverty are mentioned on:
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/182080/umfrage/meinung-zu-gesellschaftlichen-gruenden-fuer-armut/
The main reason found for 54% of the asked people is that the wages are too low.
Now this suggests an immediate answer from the deledefs the minimum wage. This means we open a new chapter in the never ending story of “How deledefs raise the poorness. Minimum wages suggest a demand for work that can not be fullfilled by the markets. And so people do start learning a certain job, just to recognise there is not “work” to be done any more. The jobs simply vanish and instead of raising wealth. We have more people unemployed, so either the tax or debt have to be increased and it all lend to a death spriral of even more unemployment. I do not know where the level is of a rate of unemployment which can be sustainable. But I doubt it’s m uch above 25%. And surely it must be well below 50%.
The problems of raising unemployment will yield an extension of bueraucrats jobs and this have to be paid by less and less productive corporation. We slide down the spiral faster and faster….
At the same time the industry is searching for skilled workers. I wonder why it is not possible for the somewhat 3 Millions jobless people here to get skilled. With minimum wages in every area the incentive to do so
will just vanish like snow in the sun……
If we see that their are less and less children nearly everywhere in developed countries we’ll find another problem that of higher unemployment and more payments to the elder generation. This gap just can be filled by immigration and that’s another very hot area, in which deledefs never ever got it right. I’m not very optimistic about the outcome. I expect that “real” poverty will raise it’s ugly had. This usually has meant war and starving in the past…..
I never will understand how people are able to think that more “regulation” will be the cure. The more the markets are hampered the worse the end effect for all will be. But they are trying this route over and over and over and over again…. I can not find another expression as “stupidity” for that….