Discussion about poverty -- avoidable or inevitable?

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

I'm currently doing a research assignment on poverty. I am writing specifically on the issue of whether poverty is an issue which can be eliminated totally or something which is the byproduct of the way the world currently works.

There are 2 types of measuring poverty, relative an absolute. For example a shepherd living in Somalia with 5 sheep may be considered relatively rich in the local area. But comparing it to the equivalent price of the sheep and the total money the shepherd has or makes may give you an amount which may be considered below the poverty line in a developed country.

An absolute reading may say if a person makes more than x dollars then he might be above the poverty line.

It may appear that if we use relative poverty there will always be poor people who fall into the category.

Another issue is the basic requirements of life such as food, water and suitable shelter with sanitation as well access health care. Is it possible to eliminate this type of deficiency and have virtually everyone access these basic requirements?

Or does the world work so that there always has to be some living in poverty and a small percentage living in luxury?

[Lurker]

I'm currently doing a research assignment on poverty. I am writing specifically on the issue of whether poverty is an issue which can be eliminated totally or something which is the byproduct of the way the world currently works.

There are 2 types of measuring poverty, relative an absolute. For example a shepherd living in Somalia with 5 sheep may be considered relatively rich in the local area. But comparing it to the equivalent price of the sheep and the total money the shepherd has or makes may give you an amount which may be considered below the poverty line in a developed country.

An absolute reading may say if a person makes more than x dollars then he might be above the poverty line.

It may appear that if we use relative poverty there will always be poor people who fall into the category.

Another issue is the basic requirements of life such as food, water and suitable shelter with sanitation as well access health care. Is it possible to eliminate this type of deficiency and have virtually everyone access these basic requirements?

Or does the world work so that there always has to be some living in poverty and a small percentage living in luxury?

When I was an undergraduate student, I took a class in which we did this interesting exercise. A set of raw materials, tools, and wealth were defined. These were then distributed in a very inequal manner across the groups. The groups were then asked to take what they were given and maximize their wealth. The result was a classic exercise in, "The rich got richer and the poor got poorer".

I think that "poverty" will always exist as there will always be those with greater acquisitive desires than others. However, how does one actually measure "poverty". There are those I know with a goal in life of accumulating as much "financial wealth" as they can before they die. There are others who have much more nebulous desires such as, "finding happiness" or "achieving spiritual contentment".

Is the person with 5 goats poor if he is enjoys his life and greets each morning with a smile and a zest for life? Has the millionare escaped poverty if they wake up each morning angry or unhappy that they don't have more money... if they still cannot afford all that some other possesses. In that respect I think it can be difficult to measure poverty. Certainly some who are financially poor and starving live in poverty and others with great financial wealth live quite well. There are others, however, for which the circumstances are reversed.

That said, I think poverty could be reduced through a blend of pure capitalism and other systems that seek to spread material and financial wealth more evenly.

[korjik]

I'm currently doing a research assignment on poverty. I am writing specifically on the issue of whether poverty is an issue which can be eliminated totally or something which is the byproduct of the way the world currently works.

There are 2 types of measuring poverty, relative an absolute. For example a shepherd living in Somalia with 5 sheep may be considered relatively rich in the local area. But comparing it to the equivalent price of the sheep and the total money the shepherd has or makes may give you an amount which may be considered below the poverty line in a developed country.

An absolute reading may say if a person makes more than x dollars then he might be above the poverty line.

It may appear that if we use relative poverty there will always be poor people who fall into the category.

Another issue is the basic requirements of life such as food, water and suitable shelter with sanitation as well access health care. Is it possible to eliminate this type of deficiency and have virtually everyone access these basic requirements?

Or does the world work so that there always has to be some living in poverty and a small percentage living in luxury?

Why is the luxury percentage small? [/nitpick]

Luxury and poverty must be defined to have any meaning. Leaving the luxury portion out, as it is not the question at hand.

Any relative measure of poverty pretty much guarantees that some will be living in poverty. Some will, for whatever reason, have significantly less than average resources, and thus, by a relative measure, be in poverty.

An absolute measure of poverty theoretically allows for everyone to eventually be above the poverty line, depending on how the line is set. As an example, if you define poverty as not having the essentials to survive, then the poverty of the world has been slowly reducing over the last couple decades. Most (I think even in non-western societies) would think that that definition is a bit low. If you were to place the poverty line at the American definition, then the majority of people on Earth are living in poverty. So this tends to lead you to a more relative definition of poverty.....

That is just looking at poverty itself. If you add in happiness, like what Lurker is talking about, than things get extremely complicated. Is a region that has less than another, but has what they need, and has relatively modest wants, and is very happy, truly living in poverty? Is a region of great wealth but extreme instability and unhappiness truly wealthy?

[mugaliens]

Poverty is as much a state of mind as it is a physical condition. Obviously, if you're dying of starvation, you're probably in an impoverished condition. But one can be reasonably well fed, productive, happy, healthy, and yet meet every modern-world definition of poverty, while some who're living in the US don't meet such a definition but their lives are much more impoverished, and it tangible ways such as poor nutrition, relations, causing failure to thrive in the children.

So long as mankind continues to enjoy propogational rights, poverty will exist as a function of nature. I don't endorse imposing such limits, however, unless they're self-imposed.

[tofu]

comparing it to the equivalent price of the sheep and the total money the shepherd has or makes may give you an amount which may be considered below the poverty line in a developed country.

hmm, in that case I have to say that method of defining poverty is absolutely worthless. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, that would mean that Captain Kirk is poor because his spaceship is small compared to the average science fiction spaceship.

In practical terms, I don't think that any definition of "poor" is useful if it allows one to label fat people as poor. In other words, if you have so much stuff that you're actually obese, then you cannot possibly be poor. Labels such as "less fortunate" might apply, but not poor.

the issue of whether poverty is an issue which can be eliminated totally or something which is the byproduct of the way the world currently works

I hope that you'll post your conclusions because it's something that interests me as well. I've heard it said that if the entire world had the standard of living of just the United States, then we would need a planet with five times as much area (presumably, just to contain all the natural resources we use). That's probably true to one extent or another for every Western country.

On the other hand, if you compare the average standard of living now to what it was 1000 years ago, you'll see that the entire world has gotten richer. By that measure, wealth isn't a zero-sum game. The rich get richer, but not at the expense of the poor. The poor get richer as well. Wealth is actually created, and I think that's something important to keep in mind.

In many (most?) cases, you'll find that places where there's real poverty, it's because of a tyrants. Take Cuba for example. Castro talks about a "blockade" but there isn't really a blockade. He can't import products from the US, but there's nothing to stop him from trading with the rest of the world. The Cuban people are poor because Castro is a tyrant. Another example is certain middle eastern countries that have a lot of oil, and so are theoretically rich, but the people are kept poor by their leaders - compare that to Dubai in the UAE, where the leader spends the oil money on development.

So basically, I often hear that poverty has two causes: 1. capitalism is inherently bad. 2. wealth is a zero-sum game (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).

But I think that both of those ideas are false. Under any modern capitalist system (which includes liberal doses of socialism) even the poor people are rich! Furthermore, it's easy to see that wealth isn't zero sum. Wealth is created by economic activity, and that activity benefits everyone.

[Lurker]

I hope that you'll post your conclusions because it's something that interests me as well. I've heard it said that if the entire world had the standard of living of just the United States, then we would need a planet with five times as much area (presumably, just to contain all the natural resources we use). That's probably true to one extent or another for every Western country.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the world be brought up to any specific standard of living, but that perhaps a more equitable distribution of the wealth be arranged.

So basically, I often hear that poverty has two causes: 1. capitalism is inherently bad. 2. wealth is a zero-sum game (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).

But I think that both of those ideas are false. Under any modern capitalist system (which includes liberal doses of socialism) even the poor people are rich! Furthermore, it's easy to see that wealth isn't zero sum. Wealth is created by economic activity, and that activity benefits everyone.

However, a completely consumer driven society like those of the west are not nesessarily the best.

I think there is a lot of evidence, both theoretical and real, to show that there is some truth to both propositions as you state them. There is no suggestion that there are not advantages to the capitalism with socialistic constraints... the suggestion is that the optimal combination of the two systems may well not yet have been found. It disappoints me that many times when such discussions start, one sees the statements that capitalism has brought more wealth than any other system. This may well be true, but this in itself does not prove that capitalism is the best. Continued experimentation may well be in order. I think that is all anyone is asking for... a chance to let the system continue to evolve...

[Tinaa]

[snip]

In many (most?) cases, you'll find that places where there's real poverty, it's because of a tyrants. Take Cuba for example. Castro talks about a "blockade" but there isn't really a blockade. He can't import products from the US, but there's nothing to stop him from trading with the rest of the world. The Cuban people are poor because Castro is a tyrant. Another example is certain middle eastern countries that have a lot of oil, and so are theoretically rich, but the people are kept poor by their leaders - compare that to Dubai in the UAE, where the leader spends the oil money on development.

So basically, I often hear that poverty has two causes: 1. capitalism is inherently bad. 2. wealth is a zero-sum game (the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).

But I think that both of those ideas are false. Under any modern capitalist system (which includes liberal doses of socialism) even the poor people are rich! Furthermore, it's easy to see that wealth isn't zero sum. Wealth is created by economic activity, and that activity benefits everyone.

Tofu, you are heading into politics here. Don't go there!

[korjik]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the world be brought up to any specific standard of living, but that perhaps a more equitable distribution of the wealth be arranged.

Huh? You want everyone equally poor?

Dont bring up to a standard of living, but equal out wealth only leaves make sure no one has anything.

Could you amplify what you mean?

However, a completely consumer driven society like those of the west are not nesessarily the best.

I think there is a lot of evidence, both theoretical and real, to show that there is some truth to both propositions as you state them. There is no suggestion that there are not advantages to the capitalism with socialistic constraints... the suggestion is that the optimal combination of the two systems may well not yet have been found. It disappoints me that many times when such discussions start, one sees the statements that capitalism has brought more wealth than any other system. This may well be true, but this in itself does not prove that capitalism is the best. Continued experimentation may well be in order. I think that is all anyone is asking for... a chance to let the system continue to evolve...

How much experimentation do you need?

One thing that may be missing is that there is a cultural element to the biasing between socialist control and free capitalism. What is accepted and preferred in scandinavian countries may be unacceptable to the U.S.A, and vice versa. This will tend to make differences, but that dosent mean that one is better than the other.

[Lurker]

Huh? You want everyone equally poor?

Dont bring up to a standard of living, but equal out wealth only leaves make sure no one has anything.

Could you amplify what you mean?

My comment was in response to the comment that the planet does not have the capacity to bring everyone up to the standard of living enjoyed in the United States... in such a case, it seems reasonable to share the wealth with those who are more unfortuante.

How much experimentation do you need?

Don't know... more than none, less than revolution...

One thing that may be missing is that there is a cultural element to the biasing between socialist control and free capitalism. What is accepted and preferred in scandinavian countries may be unacceptable to the U.S.A, and vice versa. This will tend to make differences, but that dosent mean that one is better than the other.

I don't know if that is true or not... certainly this country accepted a much greater amount of socialism during the New Deal. Many disagreed with this, but it also had a great deal of support.

I don't agree with you about the nature of socialism vs capitalism being synonymous with control vs freedom. Many great political thinkers and leaders in this country, and others as well, have pointed out that the revolution described in the basic charter of this nation is a political one rather than an economic one and that capitalism need not necessarily be the only economic system to support our political system.

[Click Ticker]

Poverty will always exist for a few reasons. Real poverty, as stated above, does tend to be in large part the fault of tyrants and dictators. Additionally, many people in relatively free economic systems are in poverty due to their own bad choices. These bad choices then get taught to their offspring and the cycle continues.

Choices such as:

Not completing your education
Having children before you're financially ready
Buying things on credit you can't afford to repay

I always find it interesting to pass through an impoverished section of town and see dish network mounted on the houses. Or when reviewing credit reports, seeing unpaid medical collection after unpaid medical collection, only to see that their dish network collection was paid in full.

In most western civilizations - bad priority's are a huge driver of poverty. The unfortunate victims are the kids in the second and third generation that are never taught how to make good choices. The big question Lurker raises is at what point is the government (or society, rather) obligated to bail people out and at what point are people obligated to pay for their own bad choices?

Maybe not exactly what you were saying, Lurker - but it put the question in my mind.

As the old saying goes: Give a man a fish - he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish - he eats for a lifetime. The man's got to be willing to learn, though.

BTW - Congrats, TRS - looks like another beauty.

[tofu]

Tofu, you are heading into politics here. Don't go there!

I beg your pardon, but this is an economics thread.

[tofu]

It disappoints me that many times when such discussions start, one sees the statements that capitalism has brought more wealth than any other system. This may well be true, but this in itself does not prove that capitalism is the best. Continued experimentation may well be in order. I think that is all anyone is asking for... a chance to let the system continue to evolve...

You're probably seeing people say, "capitalism has brought more wealth than communism" That, to me, seems like a reasonable argument. You very rightly point out that our system should continue to evolve. It sounds like you and I are in agreement. Evolution is great. Now, if someone proposed revolution - throwing out the capitalist system in favor of communism, then you would see me argue that capitalism has brought more wealth and happiness to the world, and thus throwing it away is a dumb idea.

the suggestion is that the optimal combination of the two systems may well not yet have been found.

And more likely, it's a moving target and there isn't a best combination. If you imagine a graph with pure socialism on the left (no pun intended Tina ) and pure capitalism on the right, I would theorize that if there is infinite wealth in the system, then your economic needle should be pegged over to the left, and if there's zero wealth (I'm not sure how that's possible, but what I'm getting at is that if you have no money or possessions you can still barter for services, I'll mow your lawn if you cook me dinner) pegged to the right.

[tofu]

In most western civilizations - bad priority's are a huge driver of poverty.

And that's totally a cultural thing, which is good because it means we can change it. I'll pick on my own culture first - "keeping up with the Joneses" is a mantra that we learn from advertising as well as watching our parents. Acquiring "bling" is something from another culture, but it leads to the same thing, bad choices.

Contrast that with Asians. My ex-wife is Chinese and I was always amazed at what they valued - land and education. Her whole family drove crappy, beat-up cars and shopped for clothes at the flea market, but they owned property in San Francisco and they all had degrees from Berkeley. That was their culture, and it certain seems to have elevated them to at least upper-middleclass

So to flesh-out my answer to the OP's question, I think that poverty in developed countries is caused by culture, and in undeveloped countries by tyranny. Those aren't the only causes, I'm sure.

[Delvo]

(link to a past thread at BAUT which this reminded me of)

[Van Rijn]

I hope that you'll post your conclusions because it's something that interests me as well. I've heard it said that if the entire world had the standard of living of just the United States, then we would need a planet with five times as much area (presumably, just to contain all the natural resources we use). That's probably true to one extent or another for every Western country.

That entirely depends on the starting assumptions: If you assume everyone would have to use oil (instead of nuclear & solar), if you assume only certain ores could be used, etc. then of course there will be big limitations. Then again, the U.S. and other countries are and will continue to shift resource use as well. There is no physical reason why the world couldn't have a per capita standard of living equivalent or better than current Western economies.

[Lurker]

You're probably seeing people say, "capitalism has brought more wealth than communism" That, to me, seems like a reasonable argument. You very rightly point out that our system should continue to evolve. It sounds like you and I are in agreement. Evolution is great. Now, if someone proposed revolution - throwing out the capitalist system in favor of communism, then you would see me argue that capitalism has brought more wealth and happiness to the world, and thus throwing it away is a dumb idea.

Hmmmm... I would say more wealth, but happiness?? I don't think there is much scientific analysis would manage to measure that. First of all, I don't think anyone said anything about throwing away capitalism... I do think it has serious limitations and faults that might be addressed. It is certainly designed to maximize wealth but happiness is a lot more difficult to define let alone measure. In addition, communism has never been tried... to call the experiments in communism in the 20^th centurytruly communist is like calling the People's Republic of Korea an experiment in democracy because they say they are a people's democracy.

And more likely, it's a moving target and there isn't a best combination. If you imagine a graph with pure socialism on the left (no pun intended Tina ) and pure capitalism on the right, I would theorize that if there is infinite wealth in the system, then your economic needle should be pegged over to the left, and if there's zero wealth (I'm not sure how that's possible, but what I'm getting at is that if you have no money or possessions you can still barter for services, I'll mow your lawn if you cook me dinner) pegged to the right.

The difficulty with the American style of capitalism is that it is based on consumption. In order to succeed one must sell. This is good to a point, but it reaches a point where it becomes difficult to turn it off. Intel made a very careful business decision to stage the advances between the initial pentium chip and the improved models that came after. Was it smart, well, it made them a lot of money, but it has also left us awash in obsolete chips and systems that gather dust. Yes, of course some staging was necessary, but the staging was designed to allow Intel a maximum profit, not to allow consumers to save the most of their money.

[Van Rijn]

I beg your pardon, but this is an economics thread.

. . . which is almost impossible to separate from politics, assuming one even tries. I'm seeing a lot of politics in this thread.

[tofu]

how much of an ego must have I have to be quoting myself. Wow, sorry.

imagine a graph with pure socialism on the left and pure capitalism on the right, I would theorize that if there is infinite wealth in the system, then your economic needle should be pegged over to the left, and if there's zero wealth pegged to the right.

But as I was driving home just now I was trying to think of an example of "infinite wealth" and Second Life popped into my head. If you ignore bandwidth and server storage issues, it's possible to have a virtual world like second life where everyone can have everything - infinite wealth. And then the result would be that people would only actually have whatever they perceive that they need.

For those of you that don't know, you can create objects in the Second Life virtual world. So I create a spaceship. There's no reason why everyone can't have that spaceship. Perfect socialist utopia.

In practice however, even Second Life doesn't have infinite wealth because things like spaceships don't exist there. People have to create them and that means work. So how do we solve that when we're building our society? Capitalism of course! Add a little bit of capitalism to the mix - allow people to sell the things they create. Now I have an incentive to actually use my precious time and effort to build that spaceship, and in doing so, I increase the total wealth in the system.

[Lurker]

. . . which is almost impossible to separate from politics, assuming one even tries. I'm seeing a lot of politics in this thread.

That's because economics exists on paper... when it is implemented politics is the arena in which economic theory is realized. There may be valid economic reasons for say a Public School system, or a Free Market, but it is the political arena where the participants determine the nature and type of public education to be supported or what checks, if any there will be on a free market.

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

Interesting discussion. The main points I have gathered are:

* The entire "money does not necessarily bring happiness" argument by lurker

I can vaguely remember a quote about this topic which went something like " Money may not bring you happiness but it can make you very comfortable while you are being miserable." I personally would be very happy if I did have huge sums of money. Think of all the things you can do But looking at some millionaires this is not always a case.

* Happiness itself is a complex parameter which may have more to do with psychology than physical money.

Again this connects to the first point. However, I think I should stay away from happiness issue and focus on a particular question.

* Poverty in the western world is mostly a product of bad life decisions made rather than lack of resources or space.

I have heard this many times. It seems the system of capitalism provides opportunities for nearly everyone to become rich. Sure you need luck, hard work and have a brilliant idea or skill but it can happen. So homeless people have less excuse in western countries.

*Capitalism has proved to be the most effective system but it is far from being perfect.

The very thought that you can have the potential to become successful may be fuel for giving ideas and innovation. I am not very much into the details of capitalism and communism but I always thought capitalism was more in tune to human nature.

* Poverty is not entirely due to lack of resources and/or space but rather due to poor management/infrastructure and in some cases a tyranny.

This seems a valid point as the earth must have more than enough food or water to feed everyone. However there obviously is never a uniform distribution. I always thought it is interesting that countries get more developed as you move up and down the equator. There are points near the tropic of capricorn and cancer where lands are very fertile and there is fair weather, Near the poles cold temperatures and less sunlight does not help civilizations grow very big. The equatorial areas are densely covered in rainforests and the extreme heat and rainfall may have prevented great civilizations growing there.

On a minor note about poverty in africa seems to be due to natural and biological hazards as well as civil wars and tyrannical leaders which is the main cause of poverty there.

Feel free to point out any holes you see in the points.

[Delvo]

many people in relatively free economic systems are in poverty due to their own bad choices. These bad choices then get taught to their offspring and the cycle continues.

Statistically, the correlation that income or wealth has with IQ is stronger than the one it has with any of the other factors that are usually offered to explain people's different incomes & wealth levels (parents' wealth, parents' marital status, education, race, you name it).

I've seen lots of protesting to try to stifle and suppress those facts, but it's always in the form of either bad statistical logic such as using individual anecdotes to try to disprove a trend, straw-man attacks pretending the enemy said something different from what they actually said, or just accusing the enemy of being fascists, Nazis, classists, intellectual egotists, bigots, or in the pocket of some mytserious entity named "Bigbizness" (as if any of those things, even if true, would mean that their facts were wrong). Nobody I've seen so far, no matter how much they hate the connection between intelligence and success in life or want to prevent public awareness of it, has ever mustered a serious challenge to the validity of the facts. (Or if they have, I haven't seen it yet, and I've been looking, whereas you'd think if there were such a thing the opposition would focus on that instead of this other stuff.)

But the emotinoal intensity behind the denials of it is also informative: it means you'll be treading on thin ice and very likely to get in a fight or have someone boil over with rage against you and seek out some way to lash out at you for it if you dare to mention the subject at all. Suggesting that people can bring on their own poverty or prosperity in any way with their own actions is a risk you might not want to take for a mere homework assignment.

[CodeSlinger]

Statistically, the correlation that income or wealth has with IQ is stronger than the one it has with any of the other factors that are usually offered to explain people's different incomes & wealth levels (parents' wealth, parents' marital status, education, race, you name it).

But correlation does not prove causation. Is it that higher IQ enables one to attain greater wealth? Or is it that coming from a wealthy background enables one to acquire the knowledge and skillset that leads to a higher score on IQ tests?

[Delvo]

That's the kind of bad logic, or diversion from what was really said, that I was talking about. The correlation we're talking about isn't between IQ and "coming from a wealthy background". It's between IQ and one's own wealth/career/income, not someone else's (which means not the parents'). And that correlation is stronger than the one between one's own socioeconomic status and that of the parents.

[EricM407]

Statistically, the correlation that income or wealth has with IQ is stronger than the one it has with any of the other factors that are usually offered to explain people's different incomes & wealth levels (parents' wealth, parents' marital status, education, race, you name it).
[snip]
Suggesting that people can bring on their own poverty or prosperity in any way with their own actions is a risk you might not want to take for a mere homework assignment.

Is it possible for a low IQ be significantly raised?

[Delvo]

Not by any method that is known yet.

[Argos]

These bad choices then get taught to their offspring and the cycle continues.

Choices such as:

Not completing your education

What happens when everybody in the world becomes a scientist-philosopher?

I personally donīt think that poverty is just a matter of bad choices. But to discuss it in full we would have to enter a forbidden terrain here.

[CodeSlinger]

That's the kind of bad logic, or diversion from what was really said, that I was talking about. The correlation we're talking about isn't between IQ and "coming from a wealthy background". It's between IQ and one's own wealth/career/income, not someone else's (which means not the parents'). And that correlation is stronger than the one between one's own socioeconomic status and that of the parents.

My apologies for the bad logic, and the (unintended) diversion. I'm not familiar with the statistics you mentioned, so I was only working with your words, which I seem to have mis-interpreted. Thank you for the clarification.

[Click Ticker]

What happens when everybody in the world becomes a scientist-philosopher?

I personally donīt think that poverty is just a matter of bad choices. But to discuss it in full we would have to enter a forbidden terrain here.

That kind of narrows things up a bit. Completing ones education in no way implies that everyone is getting a degree in the exact same field. That's just silly and has nothing to do with what I said. Also - that is just one bad choice among several that I listed, and I am in no way suggesting that even my list is complete.

I didn't include drug addiction or alcohal abuse - just to name a couple more.

Of course it's not JUST a matter of bad choices - but when opportunity and resources abound in certain parts of the world - bad personal choices are a significant contributing factor.

[Argos]

That kind of narrows things up a bit. Completing ones education in no way implies that everyone is getting a degree in the exact same field. That's just silly and has nothing to do with what I said.

I ask that because ruined and unemployed lawyers, engineers, physicists, professors, abound around me, trying to keep their middle class dignity. It shouldnīt be so, by your reasoning.

[Click Ticker]

I ask that because ruined and unemployed lawyers, engineers, physicists, professors, abound around me, trying to keep their middle class dignity. It shouldnīt be so, by your reasoning.

You're again implying that completing ones education is the only factor I stated when it comes to making good choices. It was one of several.

How about when times were good for these lawyers, engineers, physicists, and professors? Did they live a lifestyle that exceeded their cash flow? Or did they live well within their means and save for such a time as they might find themselves unemployed? Were they in such a hurry to complete their studies that they took on an inordinate amount of debt in order to complete it within a certain time frame? Did they feel that a 5 year old Chevy was beneath an attorney, so they borrowed a bunch of money to buy a Mercedes? We're they unwilling to move to areas where their might be more demand for their chosen career field? If I live in Traverse City, Michigan - their probably isn't much call for a physics degree.

Your post puts the image in my head of bunch of really nice suits and lab coats wandering the streets with, "I will litigate for food" signs. In the US - the national unemployment rate is in the 4 - 5% range. Well within, if not better than historical norms.

I would also add that trying to keep your middle class dignity is a far cry from being in poverty. It sounds more like trying to keep their stuff rather than merely trying to eat.