Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

No one said they were poor in that sense. However, there are still poor, even if they are not starving. Economic stress of living on small paycheck to small paycheck is poverty.

Sure if you took their several dollars to another poorer country they would be considered well off, but they can't get there and spend it. They are here, paying for food and lodgings that take almost their entire income.



sort by: page size:

so.... the reason they are poor is that they don't have a lot of money?

If they were, why would they be poor?

They are poor - in relative terms.

The relevant case is people who have no income, but have a substantial amount of wealth (enough to buy a home). I'm not sure how you can consider that poor.

They are poor.

You forget that 'poor' doesn't only refer to the amount of money a person has.

These people are 'time poor' too.


if they are running a deficit, maybe they can legitimately consider themselves poor? :)

That's a very narrow definition of poverty. Some don't have those resources to exploit.

"Some people are so poor, all they have is money."

What you're describing sounds like "destitute", not poor.

I don't think this is always accurate; a lot of poor people are poor through spending habits and poor financial management, not through lack of income.

Also the poor generally don't have wealth to speak of, definitionally. Having $25k or 50k in savings is quite far from being poor.

And they're poor.

Or “poor(er) people having some money.”

*poor people

poor might mean lower middle-class. no welfare income.

The article was about India, where at least some people are that poor.

They can't stop being poor

That's why they are poor.
next

Legal | privacy