It's ~ 1/3. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households. It's defined that way because the poverty researchers quite literally want to create a society in which everyone has the same income. I've worked with these researchers.
I'm not sure that the politicians and media who report on these things fully comprehend what these researchers are saying. In fact, from what I've seen most of the media and politicians in New Zealand lack basic maths skills.
From a quick browse/research, I don't see anyone in NZ using that definition of poverty.
I see "below 60% of the median income", I see "Poverty should be defined as a situation where: a person or family lacks the material
resources to meet their minimal needs as recognised by most New Zealanders." (https://maxim.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2.Temp-Pover...), but not that.
Not by everybody in New Zealand: see the definition at the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services: 60% of the median household disposable income after housing costs. Based on that definition, the poverty rate in 1984 was 9%, rose to 22% in 2004, rose even more in the global recession, and has fallen since to 15% in 2016. See their site "Facts about Poverty in New Zealand" http://nzccss.org.nz/work/poverty/facts-about-poverty/
Note that I am an American who found that site after one DDG search, and have no idea whether it's full of BS or fully factual. The incomes they state for the poverty line (after housing), based on current exchange rates, were about 20K for a family of 4 (2 adults) and 14K for a one parent, one child household.
> It's ~ 1/3. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households.
Yes. It's fundamentally a rhetorical trick. If the bottom third had a median income of $500,000 per year, they'd still be counted as being in "poverty".
I strongly suspect that Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Bangladesh-level poverty (i.e., real poverty) doesn't exist anywhere in New Zealond.
No, a rhetorical trick is what you are doing by using words like "poverty" without defining what they mean.
Do you have any evidence that Haiti, Bangladesh, or North Korea-level poverty (i.e., what most people think of when they see the word "poverty") exists on any meaningful scale in New Zealand?
Hint: no, you don't. Because it doesn't.
Are you deliberately using the word "poverty" to mislead people?
in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the point.
the dollar amount of money is irrelevant. talk to someone from Zimbabwe..
money is a rhetorical device which describes power. if the spread of wealth or income is relatively flat, the power is mitigated. if it is sufficiently broad as to cause significant inequality, money can be used to enforce poverty.
so, let's say for the sake of argument I am using poverty to mean whatever it means where you live, let's assume the US, and $500k as the buying power of whatever it means where you live. give everyone a half million, give it a few weeks and then tell me how much it costs to get a place to live, or a cup of coffee for that matter..
> in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the point.
No, you are missing the point.
People pushing an agenda use the word "poverty" as an emotional appeal, because it makes people think of starving kids in Africa covered with flies, etc. It wouldn't have nearly the impact if it was made clear that someone in "poverty" can have a house, a car, and plenty to eat.
> money is a rhetorical device which describes power.
The word "rhetoric" does not mean what you apparently think it means.
So, in response to my assertion that perhaps you missed my point, you simply restate your own point. You clearly did not care to understand the argument, or but just pushed your own pet theory. Yes, you are being hostile and patronising, and you have now doubled down on that.
I can only imagine you have never met anyone living in poverty in New Zealand, or the US, given that you seem to have so little regard for them. If you actually think that the bar for poverty should be set so low as to be the point of actual starvation, then I really don't know what to say to you. My empathy, for one, extends a little further to my fellow man.
But anyway, my argument restated in case I am misreading you.. in fact, definitions of poverty do not matter once you understand that differentials in power create the conditions for poverty. It is lack of power then, not money which creates poverty. And once you understand that money is not an actual thing, but an agreement.. a societal construct to codify peoples access to power (to have control over their wealth). It is designed to be persuasive, it is a promise of your own power and the ability to confer it on someone else. But it lacks any content itself, ultimately, money only works because of the implicit threat of the state or group which creates the agreement. It is a device I would describe as rhetoric.
ie. rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
I'm not sure that the politicians and media who report on these things fully comprehend what these researchers are saying. In fact, from what I've seen most of the media and politicians in New Zealand lack basic maths skills.