Peter Saunders,

You say to Daggett that it is absurd to suggest that poverty is getting worse because the figures show that people's incomes are rising. However, while the price of some things is falling, (and this has negative effects (eg on farmers incomes)) costs for essential things are rising.

It costs a lot more to send a child to even a state school these days. It used to be almost free. That was a good thing.

You say that we quickly forget what life used to be like, and we cease to appreciate how well off we all are now. Perhaps, but some of us feel deprived now because in some ways we were better off in the past.

We don't all feel deprived because others have more; the ones who do are those who are sucked in by the marketing that is essential for high levels of economic growth; the marketing that encourages us to believe that things are good for us and will make us happy.

You probably won't believe it but some Australians used to feel quite proud of being working class - now it seems we are failures unless we are aspiring for middle class status.

And, can you please just get over the cold war? I do not know any of those mythical creatures on 'the left' who still seem to populate your fantasy world.

We are all captialists now but some of us see clearly that 'the market' without some understanding of the frailities of human beings, is just as inhuman as centralised control.

Peter Saunders wrote : "Daggett ... (prefers) to rely for evidence on anecdotes about his grandfather’s family holidays in Maroochydore."

I was suggesting that the experience of my grandfather would have been a common experience of people on single modest incomes of that time: They could afford to buy a decent free-standing home and take their families on long holidays in near idyllic locations. How many primary school teachers does PS believe are capable of doing this these days?

The additional necessary costs of living as mentioned by digiwigi above, the obscene hyper-inflated costs of housing, the costs associated with buying additional cars, when families in the 1960s could get by with only one, the costs and time associated with obtaining extra qualifications to satisfy 'credentials creep', time wasted commuting in abysmally designed cities, longer hours, unpaid overtime, etc, etc have clearly acted to reduce our quality of life, and yet are not included in the GDP figures upon which Peter Saunders relies to prove his case that our standards of living are improving.

Perhaps Peter Saunders would care to offer his explanation as to why he thinks that Simon Kuznets, originator of that GDP measure, warned the US congress in 1934: 'The welfare of a nation can scarcely be measured from a national income'

There is ample evidence that poverty - and not just poverty in a relative sense - is real from Australian journalist Elisabeth Wynhausen's "Dirt Cheap" and, before that, American journalist Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed", neither of which Peter Saunders has responded either in "Australia's Welfare Habit" nor in any of the essays that I have read.

One final point, the "capitalist economic growth" to which Peter Saunders refers, is based upon the destruction of our natural capital, in particular our non-renewable fossil fuel reserves, which took at least tens of millions of years to create. Even if our quality of life, which is dependent upon higher levels of consumption of these resources, can be construed as 'better' than it was in the 1960's it is at the expense of future generations. (see http://www.sydneypeakoil.com/, http://www.eclipsenow.org/)

Arjay wrote: "The result is that honest and able people must work twice as long and hard to support the bludgers."

Arjay, can you so sure that many of those 'bludgers' would not, if circumstances were different, be capable of filling your shoes? And, can you be so certain, that if circumstances were not different, you would not be in their shoes?

Many of those you refer to as 'bludgers' would have had, until not so long ago had fulfilling jobs. For example 700 workers, who used to work at Mitsubishi in South Australia were unable to find other jobs, it was reported on Radio National's "The National Interest" on 15 May. Do you think that these people, as well as countless others, who have had their livelihoods exported to countries like China and India suddenly decided after all these years that they no longer wished to work?

I guarantee that many of those 'bludgers' you so bitterly resent, would be more than happy to work as hard as you do in order to fill your shoes.

Your attitude only helps to fan unreasoned prejudice against hundreds of thousands of ordinary well-meaning people who have not been able to enjoy the same good fortune that you have, and is, therefore, little better than racism in my opinion.

And while we are on the subject of bludgers, a few years ago when I was considering buying a town house, an estate agent explained to me that, because of the negative gearing laws, one out of three dwellings bought by property speculators were effectively paid for by their tenants.

That is one reason why so many ordinary hard-working Australians have to pay through their noses to have any kind of roof over their heads these days.

In terms of the economic debate (ie looking at income, wealth and material poverty) I think that we need a few international benchmarks.

We could call them:-

Global-Poverty-Line-A. Below this line you are headed for death within 12 months or less due to malnutrition or continual exposure to the elements.

Global-Poverty-Line-B. Below this line you are frequently undernourished and/or your body is often exposed to harsh environmental elements like cold, heat or wet. Such that your physical growth, development or function is impaired.

Global-Poverty-Line-C. Below this line you are often hungry and on average you miss out on 3 meals each week.

Global-Povery-Line-D. You are without some type of medium term housing.

etc,

etc,

etc,

Global-Povery-Line-Z. You can't afford Nike shoes for the kids.

Petr Saunders another thing - I think you are being a bit disingenuous when you 'suggest' that improvements in surgery come from capitalism. That is bollocks. The great improvements in health came about from public health initiatives based on work by 'do-gooders'. The basis of the surgical skills were initiatives - again by do-gooders - to do fix war injuries.

It is the newer more controversial 'improvements' in health care that come from capitalism; anti-depressants, viagra, diet pills.

Terjes, why do you want an absolute poverty level? Would you suggest that I have the same needs for basic sustenance as my friend who has rhematoid arthritis. She cannot shovel gravel for her driveway to save money or wear Dunlop Volley's - shoes with proper support are very expensive

Mollydukes,

You make it sound as though capitalism is driven by something other than do gooders. The essence of capitalism is people finding better ways to do old things and clever ways to do new things. They do it through personal initiative to derive personal profit or personal satisfaction. Those such as myself who advocate an expansion of capitalism do so precisely because we have enonormous faith in the abilities and good will of free people.

You asked why I want an objective measure of poverty rather than a relative one. The reason is simple. I want more social progress. And unless we measure progress with some degree of objectivity we are unable to know whether our policies are working or not. You can't manage what you can't measure. The relative measures that are common today lead us down a dead end lane.

In Niger the kids are starving because their government taxes the people at 50 cents in the dollar once their weekly income exceeds US$16. That is but one of many example in which stupid policies ensure poverty. Who would wish such misery on any society? And yet by relativistic measures nobody is impoverished in Niger. Nearly everybody is equally miserable in Niger unless they have a government job.

Regards,
Terje