<p>Onurcanbektas, I really like your thought process.  The problem with your mental model is that you've assumed economic output is exogenous.  However, in the real world (most) jobs produce economic output.  This output then increases the size of the pie, allowing people to be, on average, richer.  </p>

<p>However, from a societal perspective, I believe we will always have "poor" people since we essentially define poverty relative to some "median" income.  To see this, consider that the richest person 1000 years ago had no running water; something that nearly everyone in the US currently has regardless of whether or not they are "poor".  Even in my lifetime, there has been a shift from "feeding the poor" to "feeding the poor with nutritious food".  It used to be that the poor were thin, now our concern is they are too fat.  </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T04:36:31.347Z
This answer seems to ignore the premise of the question that allows for redistribution from the rich to the poor.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-14T13:09:15.247Z
2019-07-14T13:09:15.247Z
user9403
<p>American economic theorist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Henry George</a> wrote about precisely this issue in his famous work <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Progress and Poverty</em></a> published in the late 1800s, and based on his observations on the economic development of San Francisco during the gold rush.  His argument was that increasing economic development primarily benefitted landowners, at the expense of both capital and labor.  (<em>However</em>, since landowners were often also holders of large amounts of capital, it was primarily labor that ended up losing out.)  In a nutshell, the leverage that landowners held over the workers allowed them to push wages ever lower, creating poverty as a <em>result</em> of economic progress.  He theorized that taxing economic rent (at/near 100%) would eliminate speculation and thus stop the boom/bust cycle endemic to market economies, as well as providing ample revenue to the government to fund social welfare programs and to develop infrastructure.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T04:29:24.333Z
Why do landowners want tenants to have low wages? It is not enjoyable to chase after people who don't pay.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T05:42:52.377Z
It’s more that when the economic surplus produced through the combination of all three factors of production (Land, Labor, and Capital) needs to be divided, landowners are able to claim a larger portion. As productivity in a society increases, the landowners (rentiers) take a larger and larger share.  This drives wages down to the absolute minimum subsistence level, and would actually reduce the return to capital (i.e. interest) as well, were it not for the fact that in most capitalist economies, the landowners often control much of the capital, as well.
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:11:54.723Z
You seem to be saying, an increase in the non-labor share, all else equal, drives down wages. This seems to be taking what would correctly be viewed as the result as the cause. Cart before horse. I'm not saying Henry George is wrong. I am saying if that is how George explained it then he should have rewritten if he wanted to convince. It makes more sense to look at wages and returns to capital (of which land is one) as the cause. Shares are a direct consequence of secondary importance.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:15:03.707Z
Land is not capital.  That's the distinction George emphasized, and which neoclassical economics was invented to subvert.  If you conflate the two, then it becomes difficult to understand the concept of economic rent (which is in fact the very reason neoclassical economists chose to conflate the two.)  Henry George's argument was similar to that of Ricardo, though George's version dug into more detail as to the underlying mechanisms by which wages were driven down.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-12T17:07:58.383Z
2019-07-12T17:07:58.383Z
Bill Clark
<p>In the U.S. the poverty threshold is 3 times the minimum food requirement and it is adjusted for CPI inflation. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/about/history-of-the-poverty-measure.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Link to the source.</a></p>

<p>The person that determined this threshold was a government economist at the Social Security Administration. That means the poverty threshold is politically determined. Why is it 3 times but not 3.14 or 2.718. The former number was politically acceptable. That means that the resulting level of government generosity was politically acceptable. Since the threshold is politically determined it would require setting the threshold to a very low number to eliminate almost all poverty. This would be politically unacceptable but I sense that consideration might not be relevant to your inquiry. It seems you just want an answer to a logic problem involving math.</p>

<p>If we redistribute within countries but not across borders, there would be a threshold for each country. There are probably countries that do not define a poverty threshold. If a threshold is undefined it is difficult to say if people are in poverty or not.</p>

<p>If all world income were redistributed equally, even across borders, you would still face the problem that the prevalence of poverty depends upon a politically determined threshold.   </p>

<p><em>Addendum</em> </p>

<p>Implied by the foregoing, there is no empirical fact of poverty until a standard is defined and one example of a standard is an income threshold <code>T</code>. The threshold can be compared to arithmetic mean income <code>I</code>. You have indicated that you believe income is relevant.</p>

<p>The existence of poverty is not mathematically ensured. (The non-existence of poverty is mathematically feasible.) In some circumstances <code>T &lt; I</code>. One circumstance is where political forces set <code>T</code> low enough.  This answer is relevant to your inquiry because you posed a question of mathematical possibility. </p>

<p>Another circumstance is where <code>T</code> is left "unchanged" or perhaps changing only by the amount of CPI and CPI calculation is outsourced to a disinterested agent free from political influence. Technology will enable productivity changes over time so that <code>I</code> will increase so that <code>T &lt; I</code> becomes true. </p>

<p>Another circumstance is where <code>T</code> is left "unchanged" or perhaps changing only by the amount of CPI and CPI calculation is outsourced to a disinterested agent free from political influence and <code>I</code> is already higher than <code>T</code>. </p>

<p>I do not agree with your comment about wealth: that when everyone has 1000 dollars the amount has more or less no value. I claim that it has the value that can be purchased with 1000 dollars. I also claim that, after an equalizing global wealth redistribution, wealth still exists and money will still have some purchasing power. I do not even need to have a theory about inflation for my claim to be true. In fact, I made no claim about inflation, other than that it is not infinite inflation. Unfortunately you implied infinite inflation will be a result of equalization.</p>

<p>You made a similar (but less extreme) statement about gold wealth. Since it is less extreme I do not want to address it directly. However, I will say that your statement about the 1000 dollars (of wealth, not income) and your statement about gold wealth, both seem to suggest wealth must diminish when there is equality. Yours is an inflationary theory that I think is wrong. I am not saying that there will not be inflation as a result of redistribution. I am saying there does not necessarily have to be inflation. I am also saying there does not have to be extreme inflation.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that I think you have not justified your claim about the connection between equality (of wealth or of income) and a resulting extreme inflation.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-13T22:18:18.337Z
This does not try to answer to my question.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-13T23:20:53.273Z
To quote myself: "Since the threshold is politically determined it would require setting the threshold to a very low number to eliminate almost all poverty." That is the answer. Set the threshold to zero. All poverty will be eliminated by definition.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-14T06:27:47.807Z
I'm not talking about ending powert by changing the definition of poverty itself; I'm taking about the **empirical** fact that whether there some poor people or not.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-14T06:29:20.557Z
For example, if you are homeless, pulling the powderly line to zero does not make you "barely not poor".
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T04:13:43.010Z
In your question you make it clear that you believe income is relevant. If you believe income to be relevant, a standard would reasonably involve an income threshold. The threshold can be politically determined. The fact that some countries do not have a poverty threshold is proof of that. The fact that inflation statistics can be manipulated is evidence that the poverty threshold can be manipulated. It seems you haven't yet accepted mine as the correct answer so I think I need to elaborate. Please see my addendum for elaboration.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T07:57:56.307Z
See my edit to the question.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-22T04:55:53.417Z
It would be sensible to define poverty as a state of people who can't, or don't acquire a certain minimum level of resources (food, shelter) rather than a certain amount of money.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-13T22:14:59.847Z
2019-07-15T21:16:39.440Z
2019-07-15T21:16:39.440Z
H2ONaCl
<p>I recently saw a meme, and the content was something like:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In the near future, a meteor will 'hit' the Earth, and there will be
  gold rain, and hence everyone will be rich</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The ridiculous thing with this is that if everyone has tons of gold, then gold becomes worthless, so in terms of poverty, nothing would change.</p>

<p>This got me thinking!</p>

<p>It is clear that you cannot solve poverty by giving poor people money because than the money would loses its value, and prices go up (since also you would need to print heck a lot of money). However, one thing that might work is if everyone had a job with decent salary. Then, everyone would earn enough money to have decent life.</p>

<p>However, this got me thinking even more!</p>

<p>This solution implicitly assumes that in such a case, everything would be the same except now everyone has enough money to support themselves, but if everyone has a job with a 'decent' salary, say a job with at least paying \$1000 per month, then the values of the money would (or could) drop because everyone has that \$1000, so then \$1000 wouldn't become a 'decent' pay, and not everyone would be able to support themselves with that much money now.</p>

<p>(same thing ...) even more!</p>

<p><strong>Question:</strong> Is not having and poor people mathematically possible ?</p>

<p>If you think about it, the very fact that something is valuable, such as gold, depends heavily one the fact that not everyone has that item. Moreover, if all the wealth was distributed equally, and not allowed any imbalances, then we wouldn't be event survive as human species, but any imbalance would results in someone getting richer and some other getting poorer; and this means with some extreme exceptions, the existence of poverty is ensured mathematically.</p>

<p><strong>Edit:</strong></p>

<p>Guys, you are obscuring the core problem in here by dealing with specific details; forget money, thing in terms of wealth. There is some total wealth in the economy, and assume that there is some poverty threshold of in terms of wealth (it does not matter how this wealth is distributed or kept in practice i.e in terms of some money, gold, or silver; it does not matter.) What is this threshold.? we don't know, and we don't have to know for the time being. The analysis will show in what conditions, such a threshold can exists, and there can be no poor with respect to that threshold (of course, we then have to check, when we interpret our results in terms of real money whether that threshold corresponds to a "decent" one).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-12T17:49:32.710Z
What is the reason for the down vote ?
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-14T15:08:21.660Z
What definition of "poor people" are you using? Your question isn't answerable without knowing that.
410 gone
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T07:57:44.010Z
@EnergyNumbers See my edit.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T10:21:44.500Z
Contrary to your edit, the definition you use for poverty does matter. For instance, if we define poverty as meaning having an income (or wealth) less than 1/2 the median then poverty is *not* a mathematical necessity. Indeed, we could give the same income to everyone and nobody would be poor. If we define poverty as meaning having an income (or wealth) below 4/3 the median then poverty is a mathematical necessity.
Ubiquitous
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T10:39:17.617Z
@Ubiquitous As ı said, the analysis will show us which threshold lead us to the whether poverty is necessary or not, as also you demonstrated, so what you are saying does not contradict with my edit. Also, giving everyone money, as I also pointed out, does not resolve the issue; when everyone has $1000, $1000 has (more or less) no value in terms of wealth.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T10:49:37.617Z
Well, your question as stated is "Is not having an[y] poor people mathematically possible ?" My comment answers your question: yes it's possible. It seems like the question you asked and the question you are trying to ask are different. Also, your point about giving everyone \$1000 only holds if we achieve that by printing new money. If we simply redistribute income from the rich to the poor then there is no reason to expect the currency to loose any value.
Ubiquitous
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T10:52:31.720Z
Andy by the way, I'm not trying to be difficult. You can get a precise answer here, but only if the question is precisely posed.
Ubiquitous
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T15:05:32.290Z
@Ubiquitous I didn't perceive it like that; on the contrary, I'm grateful that you are responding, and giving in a sense a feedback.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T15:11:55.893Z
@Ubiquitous Of course, if you just considering the static case where you distribute the current wealth (money) equally (from rich to poor), and just look poverty right after such an act, yes, money has the same value, and there is no poor, but the time flows, so what we (and I am) are interested in is the dynamics; can there be such stable distribution. That is why I was considering salaries because it is not just a one-time thing, as long as the conditions are similar over time, your income is the same, hence the overall poverty is the same.
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T15:26:41.280Z
It seems to me that you’re really asking about wealth _inequality_ since that’s the only way I can see to talk about poverty, without reference to some threshold level.
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T17:37:09.443Z
@BillClark isn't "not having enough wealth" equivalent to being poor ?
Our
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T20:46:23.883Z
I have extended my answer to address your comment about 1000 dollars being of no value.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:06:14.140Z
"Enough" compared to _what_, is the question.  If you put your question in terms of wealth inequality then that gets around the issue of defining a threshold.  Then the question is whether there is some way in which society/economies will _always_ produce unequal distribution of wealth.  Those at the bottom we arbitrarily label "poor" but there's no need to appeal directly to any specific thresholds.
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:30:11.747Z
@BillClark, It seems to me that if the question invokes income, the income threshold is the necessary standard. If the question invokes wealth, the wealth threshold is the necessary standard. Here "arbitrary" looks like a euphemism for "I want to avoid being careful about details".
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:36:30.413Z
@H2ONaCl it depends on what's being asked.  You can interpret the question as being about _relative_ income/wealth, without specifying a threshold.  As other answers have pointed out, "poor" is something that changes with time... the wealthiest people hundreds of years ago didn't have running water in their homes, but even the poorest folks (in advanced countries) do today.  If the question is really about whether unequal distribution of wealth/income is unavoidable in economic systems, then there's no need to specify an explicit threshold.
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T21:59:38.543Z
@BillClark, It seems to me that's not the question asked. The question is explicit about the prospect of redistribution or an assumed redistribution presumably via force of government. He says it a few times despite poor grammar. To quote: "giving poor people money", "everyone has enough money", "the wealth was distributed equally". The assumed context is definitely not "free the markets and let us see what is avoidable or unavoidable".
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-15T23:05:49.067Z
@H2ONaCl I think maybe the question needs some more clarification.. all I'm saying is that focus on a defined threshold of poverty (which seems to be coming more from those answering, than the OP) probably isn't necessary here.  Many of the points in the question describe cases where redistribution doesn't change relative inequality (giving everybody the same amount, etc.)  I think the core of the question is about that...
Bill Clark
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-17T20:54:48.520Z
@BillClark, He seems to be making a false assertion that equal incomes via redistribution does not mitigate inequality and a false assertion that equal incomes via equal wages does not mitigate inequality. In both cases he blames inflation which I believe does not necessarily happen. I suggest you ignore the false assertions and measure poverty prevalence after equalization. You need a threshold to measure.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-17T20:56:55.757Z
Furthermore...If wage equalization happens via wage raises only, and in a short period of time, sure there will be inflation but since he does not say that explicitly I assume that somehow wages are equal in the long run.  If both wage raises and wage cuts lead to equalization then you don't need to assume equalization causes inflation.
H2ONaCl
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-18T03:36:51.350Z
@H2ONaCl My statements are not exactly; I'm not saying that "this would happen in that case", I'm just saying, "this might happen" in order to motivate the question.
Our
<macroeconomics><wealth><basic-income>
Is poverty a mathematical necessity?
Our
# Is poverty a mathematical necessity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-12)

I recently saw a meme, and the content was something like:

> In the near future, a meteor will 'hit' the Earth, and there will be
> gold rain, and hence everyone will be rich

The ridiculous thing with this is that if everyone has tons of gold, then gold becomes worthless, so in terms of poverty, nothing would change.

This got me thinking!

It is clear that you cannot solve poverty by giving poor people money because than the money would loses its value, and prices go up (since also you would need to print heck a lot of money). However, one thing that might work is if everyone had a job with decent salary. Then, everyone would earn enough money to have decent life.

However, this got me thinking even more!

This solution implicitly assumes that in such a case, everything would be the same except now everyone has enough money to support themselves, but if everyone has a job with a 'decent' salary, say a job with at least paying \$1000 per month, then the values of the money would (or could) drop because everyone has that \$1000, so then \$1000 wouldn't become a 'decent' pay, and not everyone would be able to support themselves with that much money now.

(same thing ...) even more!

**Question:** Is not having and poor people mathematically possible ?

If you think about it, the very fact that something is valuable, such as gold, depends heavily one the fact that not everyone has that item. Moreover, if all the wealth was distributed equally, and not allowed any imbalances, then we wouldn't be event survive as human species, but any imbalance would results in someone getting richer and some other getting poorer; and this means with some extreme exceptions, the existence of poverty is ensured mathematically.

**Edit:**

Guys, you are obscuring the core problem in here by dealing with specific details; forget money, thing in terms of wealth. There is some total wealth in the economy, and assume that there is some poverty threshold of in terms of wealth (it does not matter how this wealth is distributed or kept in practice i.e in terms of some money, gold, or silver; it does not matter.) What is this threshold.? we don't know, and we don't have to know for the time being. The analysis will show in what conditions, such a threshold can exists, and there can be no poor with respect to that threshold (of course, we then have to check, when we interpret our results in terms of real money whether that threshold corresponds to a "decent" one).

**Tags:** macroeconomics, wealth, basic-income

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What is the reason for the down vote ?  
> **username_1**: What definition of "poor people" are you using? Your question isn't answerable without knowing that.  
> **username_0**: @EnergyNumbers See my edit.  
> **username_2**: Contrary to your edit, the definition you use for poverty does matter. For instance, if we define poverty as meaning having an income (or wealth) less than 1/2 the median then poverty is *not* a mathematical necessity. Indeed, we could give the same income to everyone and nobody would be poor. If we define poverty as meaning having an income (or wealth) below 4/3 the median then poverty is a mathematical necessity.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 As ı said, the analysis will show us which threshold lead us to the whether poverty is necessary or not, as also you demonstrated, so what you are saying does not contradict with my edit. Also, giving everyone money, as I also pointed out, does not resolve the issue; when everyone has $1000, $1000 has (more or less) no value in terms of wealth.  
> **username_2**: Well, your question as stated is "Is not having an[y] poor people mathematically possible ?" My comment answers your question: yes it's possible. It seems like the question you asked and the question you are trying to ask are different. Also, your point about giving everyone \$1000 only holds if we achieve that by printing new money. If we simply redistribute income from the rich to the poor then there is no reason to expect the currency to loose any value.  
> **username_2**: Andy by the way, I'm not trying to be difficult. You can get a precise answer here, but only if the question is precisely posed.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I didn't perceive it like that; on the contrary, I'm grateful that you are responding, and giving in a sense a feedback.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Of course, if you just considering the static case where you distribute the current wealth (money) equally (from rich to poor), and just look poverty right after such an act, yes, money has the same value, and there is no poor, but the time flows, so what we (and I am) are interested in is the dynamics; can there be such stable distribution. That is why I was considering salaries because it is not just a one-time thing, as long as the conditions are similar over time, your income is the same, hence the overall poverty is the same.  
> **username_3**: It seems to me that you’re really asking about wealth _inequality_ since that’s the only way I can see to talk about poverty, without reference to some threshold level.  
> **username_0**: @BillClark isn't "not having enough wealth" equivalent to being poor ?  
> **username_4**: I have extended my answer to address your comment about 1000 dollars being of no value.  
> **username_3**: "Enough" compared to _what_, is the question.  If you put your question in terms of wealth inequality then that gets around the issue of defining a threshold.  Then the question is whether there is some way in which society/economies will _always_ produce unequal distribution of wealth.  Those at the bottom we arbitrarily label "poor" but there's no need to appeal directly to any specific thresholds.  
> **username_4**: @BillClark, It seems to me that if the question invokes income, the income threshold is the necessary standard. If the question invokes wealth, the wealth threshold is the necessary standard. Here "arbitrary" looks like a euphemism for "I want to avoid being careful about details".  
> **username_3**: @username_4 it depends on what's being asked.  You can interpret the question as being about _relative_ income/wealth, without specifying a threshold.  As other answers have pointed out, "poor" is something that changes with time... the wealthiest people hundreds of years ago didn't have running water in their homes, but even the poorest folks (in advanced countries) do today.  If the question is really about whether unequal distribution of wealth/income is unavoidable in economic systems, then there's no need to specify an explicit threshold.  
> **username_4**: @BillClark, It seems to me that's not the question asked. The question is explicit about the prospect of redistribution or an assumed redistribution presumably via force of government. He says it a few times despite poor grammar. To quote: "giving poor people money", "everyone has enough money", "the wealth was distributed equally". The assumed context is definitely not "free the markets and let us see what is avoidable or unavoidable".  
> **username_3**: @username_4 I think maybe the question needs some more clarification.. all I'm saying is that focus on a defined threshold of poverty (which seems to be coming more from those answering, than the OP) probably isn't necessary here.  Many of the points in the question describe cases where redistribution doesn't change relative inequality (giving everybody the same amount, etc.)  I think the core of the question is about that...  
> **username_4**: @BillClark, He seems to be making a false assertion that equal incomes via redistribution does not mitigate inequality and a false assertion that equal incomes via equal wages does not mitigate inequality. In both cases he blames inflation which I believe does not necessarily happen. I suggest you ignore the false assertions and measure poverty prevalence after equalization. You need a threshold to measure.  
> **username_4**: Furthermore...If wage equalization happens via wage raises only, and in a short period of time, sure there will be inflation but since he does not say that explicitly I assume that somehow wages are equal in the long run.  If both wage raises and wage cuts lead to equalization then you don't need to assume equalization causes inflation.  
> **username_0**: @username_4 My statements are not exactly; I'm not saying that "this would happen in that case", I'm just saying, "this might happen" in order to motivate the question.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-07-14. Score: 2

Onurcanbektas, I really like your thought process. The problem with your mental model is that you've assumed economic output is exogenous. However, in the real world (most) jobs produce economic output. This output then increases the size of the pie, allowing people to be, on average, richer.

However, from a societal perspective, I believe we will always have "poor" people since we essentially define poverty relative to some "median" income. To see this, consider that the richest person 1000 years ago had no running water; something that nearly everyone in the US currently has regardless of whether or not they are "poor". Even in my lifetime, there has been a shift from "feeding the poor" to "feeding the poor with nutritious food". It used to be that the poor were thin, now our concern is they are too fat.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: This answer seems to ignore the premise of the question that allows for redistribution from the rich to the poor.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-07-12. Score: 1

American economic theorist [Henry George](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George) wrote about precisely this issue in his famous work [*Progress and Poverty*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty) published in the late 1800s, and based on his observations on the economic development of San Francisco during the gold rush. His argument was that increasing economic development primarily benefitted landowners, at the expense of both capital and labor. (*However*, since landowners were often also holders of large amounts of capital, it was primarily labor that ended up losing out.) In a nutshell, the leverage that landowners held over the workers allowed them to push wages ever lower, creating poverty as a *result* of economic progress. He theorized that taxing economic rent (at/near 100%) would eliminate speculation and thus stop the boom/bust cycle endemic to market economies, as well as providing ample revenue to the government to fund social welfare programs and to develop infrastructure.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Why do landowners want tenants to have low wages? It is not enjoyable to chase after people who don't pay.  
> **username_3**: It’s more that when the economic surplus produced through the combination of all three factors of production (Land, Labor, and Capital) needs to be divided, landowners are able to claim a larger portion. As productivity in a society increases, the landowners (rentiers) take a larger and larger share.  This drives wages down to the absolute minimum subsistence level, and would actually reduce the return to capital (i.e. interest) as well, were it not for the fact that in most capitalist economies, the landowners often control much of the capital, as well.  
> **username_4**: You seem to be saying, an increase in the non-labor share, all else equal, drives down wages. This seems to be taking what would correctly be viewed as the result as the cause. Cart before horse. I'm not saying Henry George is wrong. I am saying if that is how George explained it then he should have rewritten if he wanted to convince. It makes more sense to look at wages and returns to capital (of which land is one) as the cause. Shares are a direct consequence of secondary importance.  
> **username_3**: Land is not capital.  That's the distinction George emphasized, and which neoclassical economics was invented to subvert.  If you conflate the two, then it becomes difficult to understand the concept of economic rent (which is in fact the very reason neoclassical economists chose to conflate the two.)  Henry George's argument was similar to that of Ricardo, though George's version dug into more detail as to the underlying mechanisms by which wages were driven down.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-07-13. Score: -1

In the U.S. the poverty threshold is 3 times the minimum food requirement and it is adjusted for CPI inflation.

[Link to the source.](https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/about/history-of-the-poverty-measure.html)

The person that determined this threshold was a government economist at the Social Security Administration. That means the poverty threshold is politically determined. Why is it 3 times but not 3.14 or 2.718. The former number was politically acceptable. That means that the resulting level of government generosity was politically acceptable. Since the threshold is politically determined it would require setting the threshold to a very low number to eliminate almost all poverty. This would be politically unacceptable but I sense that consideration might not be relevant to your inquiry. It seems you just want an answer to a logic problem involving math.

If we redistribute within countries but not across borders, there would be a threshold for each country. There are probably countries that do not define a poverty threshold. If a threshold is undefined it is difficult to say if people are in poverty or not.

If all world income were redistributed equally, even across borders, you would still face the problem that the prevalence of poverty depends upon a politically determined threshold.

*Addendum*

Implied by the foregoing, there is no empirical fact of poverty until a standard is defined and one example of a standard is an income threshold `T`. The threshold can be compared to arithmetic mean income `I`. You have indicated that you believe income is relevant.

The existence of poverty is not mathematically ensured. (The non-existence of poverty is mathematically feasible.) In some circumstances `T < I`. One circumstance is where political forces set `T` low enough. This answer is relevant to your inquiry because you posed a question of mathematical possibility.

Another circumstance is where `T` is left "unchanged" or perhaps changing only by the amount of CPI and CPI calculation is outsourced to a disinterested agent free from political influence. Technology will enable productivity changes over time so that `I` will increase so that `T < I` becomes true.

Another circumstance is where `T` is left "unchanged" or perhaps changing only by the amount of CPI and CPI calculation is outsourced to a disinterested agent free from political influence and `I` is already higher than `T`.

I do not agree with your comment about wealth: that when everyone has 1000 dollars the amount has more or less no value. I claim that it has the value that can be purchased with 1000 dollars. I also claim that, after an equalizing global wealth redistribution, wealth still exists and money will still have some purchasing power. I do not even need to have a theory about inflation for my claim to be true. In fact, I made no claim about inflation, other than that it is not infinite inflation. Unfortunately you implied infinite inflation will be a result of equalization.

You made a similar (but less extreme) statement about gold wealth. Since it is less extreme I do not want to address it directly. However, I will say that your statement about the 1000 dollars (of wealth, not income) and your statement about gold wealth, both seem to suggest wealth must diminish when there is equality. Yours is an inflationary theory that I think is wrong. I am not saying that there will not be inflation as a result of redistribution. I am saying there does not necessarily have to be inflation. I am also saying there does not have to be extreme inflation.

The bottom line is that I think you have not justified your claim about the connection between equality (of wealth or of income) and a resulting extreme inflation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: This does not try to answer to my question.  
> **username_4**: To quote myself: "Since the threshold is politically determined it would require setting the threshold to a very low number to eliminate almost all poverty." That is the answer. Set the threshold to zero. All poverty will be eliminated by definition.  
> **username_0**: I'm not talking about ending powert by changing the definition of poverty itself; I'm taking about the **empirical** fact that whether there some poor people or not.  
> **username_0**: For example, if you are homeless, pulling the powderly line to zero does not make you "barely not poor".  
> **username_4**: In your question you make it clear that you believe income is relevant. If you believe income to be relevant, a standard would reasonably involve an income threshold. The threshold can be politically determined. The fact that some countries do not have a poverty threshold is proof of that. The fact that inflation statistics can be manipulated is evidence that the poverty threshold can be manipulated. It seems you haven't yet accepted mine as the correct answer so I think I need to elaborate. Please see my addendum for elaboration.  
> **username_0**: See my edit to the question.  
> **username_6**: It would be sensible to define poverty as a state of people who can't, or don't acquire a certain minimum level of resources (food, shelter) rather than a certain amount of money.  

---

