Wealth VS PovertyWhen the rich make war, it's the poor that die.I don't know how accurate this statement is,but I read it somewhere, and it just got me thinking.Those in poverty and those enjoying abundant wealth are two very different sides. One has money, and the other doesn't.But,what does that mean about the opposing sides' morals and their values?Poor people don't have much to live by.Maybe they have a family, and maybe they have a shopping cart with their few possessions,and maybe they even live in a box. Wealthy people have an insurmountable supply of cash that they can do whatever they want with.They usually have a family, along with countless other priceless objects.They live in mansions.It seems that there would be some divergence between what each side would think as wrong and right.Maybe those in poverty are the lucky ones.I'm sure they place a higher value on time well spent than on money well spent.They are probably just thankful to be alive.There's nothing wrong with that.They see the important things in life,like what good a nice walk and some fresh air can do for you.What's so bad about realizing how fortunate you are to have what you have?However,most of these people have less faith. It's a probability that they believe God isn't watching over them because of the misfortune that they have.Or maybe they just don't believe in God at all,because they figure He hasn't helped them out yet,so why should they believe He exists?In my opinion,that is an unfortunate outlook because I believe that everyone should have faith and God does always come through, even if it takes a little bit of time.The people who are at the top of the food chain,AKA rich,place a higher standard on material things.They are oftentimes distance from their family because they are always so busy,and forget what is really essential for a healthy and moral life.Then, sometimes they become conceited, arrogant, and braggadocios.Why is it that those who have everything lose sight of what really matters and those who have so little can still see the bright side of life?It amazes me to see that in everyday life.One of the nicest and most intellectual guys I know makes a living out of selling newspapers on a street corner downtown.He loves life and is a very social, giving guy.My neighbors actually make cookies for him sometimes.It's because he deserves better,but he enjoys selling those newspapers to everyone.Don't ask me why,because I know he could get a better job,but he just likes what he does and wouldn't hear a word against it.And as for the wealthy side.I know many of them give to charities and help the poor a lot, but what about the selfish ones who don't?It's not right that there are some

people out there with so much to give, but who are unwilling to offer anything to those who are really in need.So, tell me; which side is the lucky one?

Economists measure wealth and poverty in several ways. The three most common measures are income, assets (meaning accumulated wealth in the form of money, securities, and real estate), and socioeconomic metrics. Measures in the last category go beyond financial data to account for health, nutrition, infant mortality, sanitation, and other aspects of human well being.

In this section, I will usually examine wealth and poverty in terms of income. Data on income is readily available, reliable, and relevant, especially in discussing poverty in the United States, where inherited wealth is a minor factor and most people live on wages and salaries.

It's useful to think of wealth and poverty in relation to one another. That's because income inequality is really the underlying issue in poverty, especially in developed nations.

Human social systems being what they are, it is often the differences in wealth that make people feel rich or poor. In a Third World nation, a family with indoor plumbing, running water, decent food and clothing, and access to health care and education is quite well off. In the United States, however, millions of people who have those things are considered poor, because they have little else and those things constitute the bare essentials in America. In this most developed of economies, dwellings without plumbing are not legally fit for habitation; public assistance programs, such as Food Stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid, assure at least adequate levels of nutrition and health care; and public education is compulsory for children.

Perhaps Webster's Dictionary provides the most accurate definition of poverty, at least in America: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions (italics mine). This is not to minimize the plight of the poor in America. It's easily arguable that poverty of any kind is unacceptable in a society with the riches and opportunities of the United States. Also, many poor Americans do live without adequate nutrition, shelter, and health care. This is especially true of the rural poor, for instance in Appalachia, and for the physically, emotionally, and mentally disabled poor. I am only pointing out that poverty can be a relative condition.

For instance, the World Bank identifies areas of the world where significant portions of the population live on less than $1 a day. These are the poorest people in the world's poorest regions, where food, shelter, health care, and other necessities are in dangerously short supply.