Not quite true: under a relative measure one can still reduce and, possibly, eliminate poverty by bringing the tail in.

Matt,

For what it’s worth I’m a fan of using both types of line, and probably outcome measures too. Like you – albeit for different reasons – I think both lines provide us useful, different information.

cheers and back to blogging about hillsides

Terence

And that was me keeping it short 😉

“Oops. That last sentence was a proof reading free zone!”

No worries, as you’ve probably noticed large sections of my post dwell in the same zone 😉

In terms of relative poverty he’s an (extreme) example of how not matter what level of govt intervention you’ll have relative poverty is impossible to eliminate.

I find it ridiculous that it’s not measured in absolute terms. Why should someone be considered to be in poverty just because they don’t own a 40″ plasma/lcd?

Over 850 words to arrive at this bombshell? God I love economists!

But seriously, I think that those of us who favour a relative measure of poverty LIKE that it means poverty will never be removed. They LIKE that they can feel good about curbing the success of those on the right of the income distribution curve. Usually wishing for someone to be worse off is a bad thing, but with this measure of poverty they are able to feel virtuous about their vice.

It was probably Nome, phule, or one of the Standard trolls who might have said “Yeah, I hate rich people and want them to be poorer, but I say I am doing it because I want to help the poor so that makes it okay.”