Poverty As A Disability

[the_std]

I was reading a random book yesterday in a coffee shop and there was a line of dialogue which included the phrase, "poverty is a disability", and it got me thinking.

Do you think that poverty is a disability on the same level as, say, Down's Syndrome or epilepsy? And why?

[Slytovhand]

I think people are thinking about this one, STD

I'd say no, not on the same level.

Yes, a type of disability, but given just how damn easily it's possible to 'overcome' it, or 'cure' it, it doesn't fall into any other category. I mean, 1 lotto ticket changes everything... (not to mention all other possibilities).

Maybe better to say 'discrimination' rather than 'disability'?


Slyt

[Boozy]

Some dictionary definitions of "disability" include:

Lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability; incapacity.

Anything that disables or puts one at a disadvantage.

So I guess poverty is a disability in that sense.

I guess my only problem with it is that I don't see how describing it that way helps either the poor or the physically or mentally disabled. Common sense tells us that poverty, and say, multiple sclerosis are two completely different things and require different solutions.

[Seshat]

Poverty of the level that means you don't get your basic human needs met, I would consider disabling. I wouldn't classify it among the 'disabilities' in the sense the word is most often used, but it is a severe problem (and malnutrition or exposure can certainly cause disabilities).

I guess the question I'd ask is not 'is it a disability', but 'is it helpful to classify it among the disabilities'.

To which I'd say the answer is 'no'.

For a physical or mental disability, the patients' needs are primarily medical, secondarily assistive technology and/or assistance with household talks, tertiarily financial support.

For poverty, the patients' needs are primarily financial support, secondarily (potentially) remedial education and/or life skills training, tertiarily (potentially) remedial medical work.

Thus, I don't believe it to be helpful to classify them together.

[daleduke17]

No. Poverty is not a disability, and it is not discrimination.

- You can get yourself out of (cure) poverty...you cannot cure Downs Syndrome.
- There's people of all races, creeds, colors, sexual orientations, religions, etc. that are impoverished (is it im- or in-?).

Last thing we, as a nation, need is for poverty to be considered some form of disability or discrimination. If we cut back on considering stuff like poverty those two terms, then, people might actually want to get up and do something about it, rather than sit on their asses and say "I'm discriminated against because I'm poor" or "I'm disabled because I have no money".

If you get your leg blown off, have Down's Syndrome, have anything medically wrong with you: you're disabled.

If you get told you didn't get something because you're Black/Chinese/male/female/gay/straight/whatever: you've been discriminated against.

You have no money? Do something about it. Get a job, get an education (there's scholarships/grants/loans out there) and you will (usually) have money.

[AFPheonix]

That's an interesting question, as often physical and mental disabilities go hand in hand with poverty. They can be related, but depending on where one lives, poverty doesn't necessarily have to be a disability.
Unfortunately, one must possess drive to overcome poverty and disability. That's where they are similar.

[Seshat]

that are impoverished (is it im- or in-?).

im-

Last thing we, as a nation, need is for poverty to be considered some form of disability or discrimination. If we cut back on considering stuff like poverty those two terms, then, people might actually want to get up and do something about it, rather than sit on their asses and say "I'm discriminated against because I'm poor" or "I'm disabled because I have no money".

<snip>

You have no money? Do something about it. Get a job, get an education (there's scholarships/grants/loans out there) and you will (usually) have money.

There is a level of poverty where no amount of drive will actually help. Few people in any state with an effective welfare system actually reach that level, but there are millions, perhaps billions, of people in the world who are at that level.

This is the poverty of people who have no access to clean water, no access to reliable food supplies, no access to seeds or domesticable animals to develop their own agriculture, or (perhaps worse) access to the seeds and animals but not to arable land. There are also the rural working poor: people who do backbreaking rural labour every day, yet their harvest is barely enough to pay their landlords/taxes/creditors/etc, maintain seed stock, and feed themselves. Or in far too many cases, their harvest doesn't even achieve that much.

There are also urban poor and urban working poor. Again, these are people whose income doesn't completely cover (or barely manages to cover) the necessities of life: a roof over one's head, nutritious basic food, and clean water. Preferably also adequate clothing to maintain a job, and transport to one's place of work.

These, by the way, are the people that microloans and other 'teach them to fish' charity schemes help. The microloans, water pumps, seeds, goats and chickens, clothing-for-work programs and the like give them just enough to get above that subsistence poverty, and make it possible for those with drive to work their way to mere welfare-state level poverty: or even higher.


Admittedly, there are a vast number of people who cry poor because they (gasp!) only have basic cable, or don't have a TV in each bedroom, or whatever. These people have enough to get themselves out of poverty; they just have to cut down on their luxury expenses (and realise the difference between 'need' and 'want').

Some of these people need life skills training - they may have no idea how to budget, or how to distinguish between a need and a want. Others just need a firm kick up the backside.

[ebonyknight]

There is a level of poverty where no amount of drive will actually help. Few people in any state with an effective welfare system actually reach that level, but there are millions, perhaps billions, of people in the world who are at that level.

Some of these people need life skills training - they may have no idea how to budget, or how to distinguish between a need and a want. Others just need a firm kick up the backside.

While that maybe true, lets say Angelina Jolie can take that family out of their poverty and give them a chance. When you are disabled, that can't happen. You can't grow a new limb (yet), you can't return normal brain function, in other words, you can't reverse a disability. Poverty can be reversed even in the most extreme cases.

Poverty isn't a disability, it's unfortunately, just life for certain segments of the population.

[Boozy]

But since when have we started defining physical and mental disabilities as "incurable"?

I can think of tons of disabilities that are treatable to the point where the sufferer is virtually symptom-free. You have to stay on top of your health regimen to maintain those results, just as people who have crawled out of poverty have to monitor their budgets.

Neither disability nor poverty is a necessarily a hopeless situation, at least not in the developed world.

(All bets are off for the millions living in abject poverty with no access to health care in developing countries.)

[Slytovhand]

Which sort of brings us to the original question.... the disability might be treatable, but you've got to have the finances to afford it....

[ebonyknight]

But since when have we started defining physical and mental disabilities as "incurable"?

Because they are.

I can't think of any disabilities off the top of my head that we can cure (doesn't mean there aren't).

I can think of tons of disabilities that are treatable to the point where the sufferer is virtually symptom-free. You have to stay on top of your health regimen to maintain those results, just as people who have crawled out of poverty have to monitor their budgets.

"treatable" and "symptom-free" are not reversals. The disabilities are still there...not "cured". It's like people taking cold/flu medicine and believe that the medicine is killing the virus. Doesn't work that way.

I have asthma, just because I take care of it and I am symptom free, doesn't mean I don't have the disease anymore.

[protege]

I have asthma, just because I take care of it and I am symptom free, doesn't mean I don't have the disease anymore.

Depression, and other mental conditions, are like that too. You can *control* them with medication, but they never truly go away....contrary to what the commercials claim. I'm speaking from experience here, folks. I might not seem to be 'depressed' and no longer take the meds, but it's still there. I have to deal with that *every* day.

[rahmota]

Well while I wouldnt call poverty a disability I would definately say its a disadvanatge to be able to do anything in america. Poor people are looked down upon, given second and third rate treatment at hospitals and doctors offices, looked over for jobs they may be qualified for just because they have poor credit, are not given a fair trial or equal treatment in the legal system, and a lot of other discriminatory procedures that the rich and elite inflict on poor people just because they can get away with it.