Nearly all Kings and Emperors were 'poorer' than most Westerners under the poverty line of today. They had no refrigeration, antibiotics, electricity, etc. But we still agree that there are 'poor' people today, and I think we're correct to say so. Yes, it is a moving target, and thank God that it is such. If 'progress' means that we have to drag the least lucky of us up to levels of decadence that Cesar could never have though of, I'm more than on board for that. Quibbling about the exact definition of poor for all of time is useless. Charge ahead, have the 'poor' of our grandchildren's time be the wealthy of today.
If you're poor in America you live with constant fear of minor financial catastrophes because they will further constrain your opportunity, perpetuating a downwards spiral. Integrated over time this background anxiety drastically reduces one's subjective quality of life, and also leads to physical health issues down the road.
By contrast, if you're a monarch of a medieval European kingdom, you might be dying of syphilis at 43 but with the knowledge that everything possible is being done to save you, and you can call for a roast pheasant or the execution of your meddling cousin on your deathbed.
It's completely subjective, and thus very easy to dismiss, but it contributes the "missing term" for me in thinking about this question.
There has to be a baseline standard, amounting to triage, above which "your core needs are met, and you have a path to thrive on - up to you to do you now."
Maybe there's another moving standard of minimum standard of living, whereby people don't existentially need X but society at large agrees everyone should have X (or opportunity thereto).
> many people have a vested interest in conflating the two.
Just like you are conflating being poor and being a bad person:
> your core needs are met, and you have a path to thrive on - up to you to do you now.
This implicitly suggests that you are only poor because you were too lazy/stupid/<insult> to follow that path. Maybe there are people like that, but many people are poor because being poor is expensive.
At some point it's up to a competent adult to do with their lives what they see fit under the circumstances dealt them by life. They are not automatically the charge of others just because they don't achieve some nebulous whim of strangers. Each has their own dependents to prioritize.
And that's the core problem: everyone is tossing around the word "poor" to fit their ulterior motives (yours currently being to demean me for no apparent reason) without any agreed-on definition thereof. You're beating me up for suggesting there be an objective common definition, which happens to not be what you want it to mean (which, apparently, is whatever implication you see fit to win an unprompted argument with a stranger).
I don’t even agree with this. Even for starvation there’s no clean dividing line. Malnutrition leads to reduced lifespans and health problems. I think that quality of life both can and should increase as society improves its technology and wealth.
If that amount is below some standard of living we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies then we can worry about it (i.e. raise the tax rate). If it's somewhat more than that but nonetheless we have a reasonable tax rate, so what? If the economy is doing better in ten years and that allows someone living on a UBI to be able to afford broadband when they couldn't before, is that supposed to be a problem?
Someone who couldn't afford broadband before UBI wouldn't be able to afford broadband after (beyond a brief blip where the market sorts pricing out) because rent & broadband just increased price according to everyone now having UBI. If anything, more won't afford essentials and near-essentials precisely because overall prices will rise.
It's the same reason why minimum wage really doesn't work: prices increased to match a baseline income for low productivity, coupled with an increased population unable to earn at all because they simply don't produce $minwage value (and are now marked "poor" and routed to get their needs provided by a bureaucracy).
The other thing missed by UBI advocates: money is merely a representation of value, it is not value itself. Someone living on $UBI (and I expect a great many would) has all their basic needs met without their effort ... except that those basic needs are not provided without effort. This badly distorts supply-and-demand. $1 costing a UBI recipient nothing, prices rise by $1 - knowing that the $1 cost nothing to obtain; to wit "easy come, easy go".
Only if we do nothing about housing supply constraints and nobody decides they'd rather move to areas without those constraints given a UBI. But we should do something about housing supply constraints, and people would move away from high housing cost areas either way, but moreso if we do nothing about housing costs. Either one invalidates your premise.
> Someone living on $UBI (and I expect a great many would) has all their basic needs met without their effort ... except that those basic needs are not provided without effort.
We already do this for people with disabilities etc. It's not a problem unless the number of such people is large.
Meanwhile most people are not satisfied to live in a studio apartment and eat nothing but rice and beans forever. Anyone with more ambition than not starving to death would still have plenty of incentive to go out and do productive work, so the majority of people would continue to do so.
This is also another reason to fix the amount of the tax. If hypothetically too many people started to live off the UBI and not work, the tax would generate less revenue, the UBI amount would decrease and fewer people would be inclined to live off it.
> This badly distorts supply-and-demand. $1 costing a UBI recipient nothing, prices rise by $1 - knowing that the $1 cost nothing to obtain; to wit "easy come, easy go".
Giving everyone $1 doesn't cause prices to rise by $1. Some people would buy things with elastic supply whose quantity rather than price increases with increasing demand, some people simply wouldn't spend all of the money. (The second is more commonly done by corporations, but it's still very common, and the economic effect of the money being removed from circulation after being spent one time isn't that much different than zero.)
Also, that still only happens if you print the money. If it comes from someone then it doesn't cause price changes unless the two people would have bought different stuff -- which is not the case if they were both buying housing.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
The aforementioned Greeks & Romans had to go hunt & kill & skin & dry a good-sized animal to make a shirt.
You can buy an entirely respectable modern shirt for $5 today, 42 minutes of mundane commodity labor in a comfortable environment.
The US "poverty line" is at 80th percentile of world incomes. The US's vast welfare/entitlement system ensures few indeed net less than that line, shoring up their shortfall with trillions of $.
What constitutes "poor" keeps shifting. There will always be a bottom 10%. There is ongoing increase to the standard of living, instilling a sense of "nobody should go without X" (when X didn't exist not long before, broadband internet being the latest). Affordable housing gets overrun by population growth & attracting mobile opportunity-seekers, living space naturally going to the highest bidder; property taxes being a thing, there is no recognized natural right to real estate. Health care relentlessly advances, new lifesaving care objectively costing a great deal ... vs a public sentiment of a right thereto.
We need an objective redefinition of "poor", predicated on a baseline of nutrition, housing floorspace, basic tools (stove, disposal, etc), care (minimum optimistic odds of longevity), information access, etc and an understanding that the baseline cannot be shifted - that those doing better are not poor, that accessibility thereto is largely attainable (whatever the sociopolitical system), and acknowledgement that when/if all are above that line, poverty services are officially out of a job.
As it stands, "poor" is a moving target for which a great number of people have a vested interest in covering a consistent, if not growing, population.