…not being able to afford good hygiene products (i.e. skin care, hair care), can’t afford good makeup (which can cause bad skin),…
Ooookay……
From Buzzfeed (I know, I know, I have to read it for a piece of work….
…not being able to afford good hygiene products (i.e. skin care, hair care), can’t afford good makeup (which can cause bad skin),…
Ooookay……
From Buzzfeed (I know, I know, I have to read it for a piece of work….
This doesn’t seem to be a “definition of poverty” at all. It’s not like William Booth’s survey, or Peter Townsend. Poverty is claimed to be one of the things which age people, and the lack of good hygiene products is one of the ways it allegedly does that. That lack doesn’t define the poverty line, but it’s merely reckoned here to be a feature of living below it.
Tangentially related: in the 2011 movie “In Time”, the economy uses lifespan as currency. The rich can essentially live forever; whereas the poor have to sell their life-minutes just to eat. It’s quite interesting from an economics perspective; but it also works as a straightforward action movie. Available on Disney+.
That’s a surprise. I didn’t know Buzzfeed is still in business.
@ Simon Neale
“allineedis this chair” says “Poverty” is what ages her faster because she cannot afford these things and she is defining “poverty” as the inability to afford these things.
As a no-longer young middle-class individual who thinks skin-care is a bar of soap (plus, very occasionally, Savlon if I have a cut/graze that could get infected if I don’t treat it) and hair-care is called “shampoo”, I don’t believe (i) that her choices are essential to slow ageing or (ii) that any sane person defines poverty in this way – being able to afford food, clothing, housing for oneself and one’s family is what matters and then the quality of such (Adam Smith’s linen shirt test). Cosmetics belong in the category of luxuries.
“Poverty.”
SimonNeale
“Merely a feature of living below it”
1) yeah but add up enough of the features of living below it and you’ve got the basis of a definition. And Tim’s point is that it certainly seems to be this person’s subjective definition.
2) You do have a point in that this person lists stuff which are not exclusive to not having much money. Many people “suffer stress, Lack of sleep, strenuous jobs” for good, alright and bloody good pay too . So in that cases affluence could be given as an underlying cause of aging too.
3) But “not being able to afford good hygiene products (i.e. skin care, hair care), can’t afford good makeup (which can cause bad skin),” very definitely seems to go into this person’s definition of poverty. – I think this part of it has potential to make it into Adam Smith’s linen shirt criteria. If enough people believe it then yeah it becomes a good definition. But i don’t think most people currently do, and this user’s not being that persuasive to Tim, me or John77 from what i gather.
4) Poverty has anti ageing points as well. Not being able to afford fags does wonders for the skin.
A little picked-up feature of the Adam Smith and his linen shirt argument is that it was for occasions. I’m guessing a wedding, funeral or just Sunday service. I saw tramps and village idiots in suits for Catholic Mass when woz a kid in central France. Compared to the US tourists who wore jeans or shorts for everything, the tramps looked like God had a special place for them when their time came.
So if not being able to afford a shower with soap and then apply your make-up for a Friday night out, or an occasional event, marks you out as poor in society, then you are indeed a poor person.
Imv of course.