High poverty/Low inequality vs Low poverty/High inequality

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Discuss.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

US>>>>1960s China

[Antonio the Sixth]

It depends what you define as "low" and "high" on both accounts.

The ideal society is one where everyone is perfectly secure in all the necessities of life and has ample time and means to spend their lives in morally and intellectually elevating leisure activities. Everything that deviates from that, either upwards or downwards, is suboptimal.

[parochial boy]

I'd rather be average in Portugal than poor in the USA.

But Id rather be poor in the USA than average in Madagascar.

There is a cut off, in terms of economic development, where low inequality matters more than higher average income.

[Goldwater]

The second one, obviously.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The second one, obviously.

[Intell]

The second one, obviously.

[Boston Bread]

Low poverty obviously. Problem is high inequality comes with high poverty in practice, even in developed countries.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Inequality is only problematic insofar as it perpetuates poverty, and a society where few are poor is of course preferable to one where many or most are poor. Option 2.

[DavidB.]

Option 2 (normal), but low poverty and low inequality is even better and I'm glad I live in a country where that is the standard.

[RaphaelDLG]

Low poverty obviously. Problem is high inequality comes with high poverty in practice, even in developed countries.

[RINO Tom]

The second one, obviously.

[White Trash]

The second one, obviously.

[America Needs R'hllor]

The second one, obviously.

[Higgs]

The second one, obviously.

[White Trash]

I must say, I like the bipartisan support we have for the second option.

[Goldwater]

I must say, I like the bipartisan support we have for the second option.

I know, it's amazing that such a controversial statement as "poverty is bad" is getting so much support.

[White Trash]

I must say, I like the bipartisan support we have for the second option.

I know, it's amazing that such a controversial statement as "poverty is bad" is getting so much support.

It's sometimes difficult to remember that libertarians are people too

[Xing]

Definitely the second one. I think it would be easier (or perhaps "less difficult" would be more accurate) to address high inequality than high poverty.

[Devout Centrist]

Low poverty/high inequality. Wealth equality isn't necessarily a positive and what's needed more than that are measures that successfully eliminate generational poverty.

[Associate Justice PiT]

US>>>>1960s China

     This was my thought. The first option basically describes the old-fashioned Communist countries while the latter more describes the United States.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Definitely the second one. I think it would be easier (or perhaps "less difficult" would be more accurate) to address high inequality than high poverty.

As long as that inequality combat doesn't harm middle class families.

[Lechasseur]

Low poverty/high inequality. Wealth equality isn't necessarily a positive and what's needed more than that are measures that successfully eliminate generational poverty.

Absolutely. I agree.

[Mike88]

The second one. You can have very low poverty rates but, at the same time, a big gap between the more rich and the more poorer. Take my country, Portugal, for example. The poverty rate here stands at 19% and it's one of the lowest in south Europe but, at the same time, Portugal has one of the lowest HDI rates in Europe.