is poverty almost entirely relative? in a way that a poor person in a wealthier country is more inclined to crime even though he is better off than a person in a poor country.
this issue is important because even though a free economy would uplift everyone as long as there is a wealth gap the bottom incomers would feel poor and social problems of poverty wouldnt be solved.
what im trying to say is that whether the question of poverty can be mainly solved by wealth equilization rather than increasing the material well being of people.
Don't forget that a "poor" person in a wealthy country can steal better things than can a "poor" person in a poor country. Theft etc. is connected with high time-preference.
In any case, as long as scarcity exists, all men will be poor.
all men dont "feel" poor though. it certainly has a lot to do with social class too. my grandmother is armenia is less well off than a ghetto welfare queen in the western world- but has a very different self-perception
a poor person in a wealthier country is more inclined to crime even though he is better off than a person in a poor country.
I think that crime is less the result of relative wealth than social perception of ways to attain wealth. Indubitably relative wealth influences social perception, but it is social perception and not relative wealth that ultimately creates criminals.
Yes, there will always be a wealth gap in a free society.
therefore could one say that increased material wellbeing is almost useless as long as people "feel" poor?
"It is also far easier to sentimentalize the issues and get the public's juices worked up by sobbing about the homeless, the foodless, etc. and calling for specific provision of these wants far easier than talking about the "moneyless" and calling upon the public merely to supply do-re-mi to the poor. Money does not have nearly the sentimental value of home and hearth and Christmas dinner. Not only that: but focusing on money is likely to lead the public to begin asking embarrassing questions. Such as: WHY are these people without money? And isn't there a danger that taxing A to supply B with money will greatly reduce the incentive for both A and B to continue working hard in order to acquire it? Doesn't parasitism gravely weaken the incentives to work among both the producer and the parasite class? Further, if the poor are without money because they don't feel like working, won't automatic taxpayer provision of a permanent supply of funds weaken their willingness to work all the more, and create an ever greater supply of the idle looking for handouts? Or, if the poor are without money because they are disabled, won't a permanent dole reduce their incentive to invest in their own vocational rehabilitation and training, so that they will once again be productive members of society? And, in general, isn't it far better for all concerned (except, of course, the social workers) to have limited private funds for charity instead of imposing an unlimited burden on the hapless taxpayer?" - Rothbard, http://mises.org/econsense/ch16.asp
"It is because we see the world reeking with injustices piled one on another to the very heavens that we are impelled to do all that we can to seek a world in which these and other injustices will be eradicated. Other traditional radical goals - such as the "abolition of poverty" - are, in contrast to this one, truly utopian, for man, simply by exerting his will, cannot abolish poverty. Poverty can only be abolished through the operation of certain economic factors - notably the investment of savings in capital - which can only operate by transforming nature over a long period of time. In short, man's will is here severely limited by the workings of - to use an old-fashioned but still valid term - natural law. But injustices are deeds that are inflicted by one set of men on another; they are precisely the actions of men, and, hence, they and their elimination are subject to man's instantaneous will. Let us take an example: England's centuries-long occupation and brutal oppression of the Irish people. Now if, in 1900, we had looked at the state of Ireland, and we had considered the poverty of the Irish people, we would have had to say: poverty could be improved by the English getting out and removing their land monopolies, but the ultimate elimination of poverty in Ireland, under the best of conditions, would take time and be subject to the workings of economic law. But the goal of ending English oppression - that could have been done by the instantaneous action of men's will: by the English simply deciding to pull out of the country. The fact that of course such decisions do not take place instantaneously is not the point; the point is that the very failure is an injustice that has been decided upon and imposed by the perpetrators of injustice - in this case, the English government. In the field of justice, man's will is all; men can move mountains, if only men so decide. A passion for instantaneous justice - in short, a radical passion - is therefore not utopian, as would be a desire for the instant elimination of poverty or the instant transformation of everyone into a concert pianist. For instant justice could be achieved if enough people so willed." - Rothbard, http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard199.html
That depends on your worldview. People are getting better off.
Also, there are different levels of poverty. Someone in the US who lives on food stamps doesn't have to worry as much about food as a poor African. The feeling isn't the same.