Are poor people real?

Poor , like so many other things, is a comparison. Without rich people, you cannot be poor, without poor people, you cannot be rich. Thus, technically, poor people are poor because more people are richer than poorer. (if richdom can be described by a number)

If I read about poor people, I have the starving African and Asians in mind, you mean homeless people, right?
About the causes of poverty, if my first section was correct, then there is only one cause of poverty: other people being rich.

Comparing a nowaday's homeless with a medieval peasant would be the same as laughing about the best 8 year old chess player not being able to defeat a gm - different environment and different amount of resources only allow limited development. Poor means lack of resources for development and lack of development means lack of resources (answering 'why are people poor')

I'm sorry, joking aside, this is one of the most horrendous, horrific, and unimaginably senseless and idiotic posts I've seen in a long time.

My opinion about it: there is no such thing as dumb questions, as long as an opinion is validly enriched arguments, it is, for me, okay if such a question is asked.

Even for nazi themes...

What I don't like is spreading incorrect arguments, but everyone may occasionally say something incorrect so as long as it does not try to make people do stuff, (calling for violence, or unlawful or unaccepted (by the people) actions) it seems okay to find new ideas and ways to think and argue. That's where the fun lies

@RoseOfSharonCassidy said in #1:
> Poor should mean people who literally have nothing, and can barely find food to eat.

In my country (Mexico) an interesting phenomenon happened.

Since the years of colonization and after, there was a deep religious culture. Mostly catholic. While i wont talk about religion, i will say that most families were formed in the traditional way. And since Mexicos economy wasnt the greatest, it just needed the head of the family (the man according to tradition) to sustain said family, and man, those families were big back then.

But since Women were going to marry and be taken care of, they didnt actually had to study, nor work. So they were taught to be housewives, without studies of any kind.

After devaluations, financial struggles, fraud and corruption, the retirement money from the heads of the families dissapeared. And when the head of the family dies, on his 60's or 70's, the wife, also in her 60's-70's is left alone, with no study, no work experience, no pension, no income. They have the house, but they cant pay the electrical bill, nor water, nor food, nor clothing or anything.

Something similar happens to disabled people. They cant get jobs, so no income. Even if they inherited a house, or they have one for whatever reason, without income, kinda hard to buy stuff.

Obese people often fall in the category of disabled, though self inflicted 99% of the cases. They just cant do a thing before hyperventillating. And they cant get a job either.

So yeah, there are many factors, either self inflicted or due to external circumstances where people cant get income. And whey they cant, they cant buy stuff. Regardless if they have a roof or not. If they cant cover for their basic needs, they fall in the "poor" category. It is just delusional and so detached from reality (wanting to avoid the word idiotic, but ima throw it anyways) to not aknowledge this socioeconomic class.

Each country has their own unique phenomena that lead to the same result. While the circumstaces are not necessarily equal, people tend to have no income. But it happens.

@MoketheGeniusDog said in #11:
> Maybe the op is a 7 year old kid who is actually looking for good advice?
I would indeed hope they're not older than 7.

@mR-HAl-9000 said in #13:
> Poor , like so many other things, is a comparison. Without rich people, you cannot be poor...

This line of logic is exactly why the word "poor" should reflect it's historical meaning of having nothing, instead of it being "having less than the ultra rich" like you describe it.
Conflating these two groups is deceptive, if someone has nothing then some compassion should be shown, and something should be done to help them. But if someone just happens to have less stuff than me then idc, i have less stuff than some other people and nobody cares about that either, I don't want to have a society that always caters to people who just happen to have less than rich people.

@RoseOfSharonCassidy said in #19:
> This line of logic is exactly why the word "poor" should reflect it's historical meaning of having nothing, instead of it being "having less than the ultra rich" like you describe it.
> Conflating these two groups is deceptive, if someone has nothing then some compassion should be shown, and something should be done to help them. But if someone just happens to have less stuff than me then idc, i have less stuff than some other people and nobody cares about that either, I don't want to have a society that always caters to people who just happen to have less than rich people.
You are meaning the absolute amount of wealth, I mean the relative. Hence why I wrote 'technically'.

So my answer to your question 'do poor people exist' is 'they may, depending on your definition of' poor'. '
If your definition is have nothing in absolute terms, then they do, everywhere there are starving people.
If your definition is having less relative to the norm, then they too exist, and are probably not seen in their numbers.