It looks like, to economists, poverty is more about being unable to have a bigger place for yourself, newish car, newish electronics, rich variety in food etc. - but it's hardly end of the world if people don't have those things, so why should the public care?
The public should care about relative poverty, since social mobility and social stigma hinge almost solely on that and not on absolute poverty (for which the threshold is usually set in whatever lowest possible way that pleases politicians). Children of the poorest families have almost no chances of breaking out of that life, leading to ghettos, social unrest, criminal gangs, drug abuse, etc. You just have to go to Skid Row in L.A. to see the effects of poverty in action. There is a photographer who currently documents poverty and other problems in the US on Youtube, it's a very interesting watch.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCvcd0FYi58LwyTQP9LITpA
That is, poverty is relative to the environment in which one finds oneself. And we should care if only because someone without a reliable car, a mobile capable of doing the things that need to be done like banking, tolerable accommodation, etc., eventually becomes a burden for the rest of us, disaffected, disenfranchised, unable to participate in society. And that goes double for their children.
And of course we should care because they are humans too.
Finnish poor has an apartment paid by government etc.
There are shelters too, as our system cannot handle those who drink their rent money well.
Maybe the key difference is that poverty is better hidden in Finland with more available shelters?