The 'poor' living in wealthy countries like the US or France are not poor in the sense of Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Uganda, Yemen or Malawi, where by-and-large there are not even paved streets to drive. It's deeply misleading to compare poverty in the developing world with how the bottom third of the US live. Think available health care, education etc.
No one said they were poor in that sense. However, there are still poor, even if they are not starving. Economic stress of living on small paycheck to small paycheck is poverty.
Sure if you took their several dollars to another poorer country they would be considered well off, but they can't get there and spend it. They are here, paying for food and lodgings that take almost their entire income.
Economic stress of living on small
paycheck to small paycheck is poverty.
No it's not.
There is a gigantic qualitative difference between living in a western country "paycheck to paycheck" enough money to afford driving a car, (not to mention all the other benefits that come with living in a first-world country, top health care, pension, unemployment insurance, working primary schools, working secondary schools, low corruption etc etc) in comparison with the crushing poverty one finds in poor countries, no streets, no schools, civil war, high corruption, no running water, no electricity etc.
What cognitive benefit do gain from conflating two entirely distinct phenomena? It's like calling both, a heart attack and flu, a heart attack, because both are unpleasant.
Once more, I invite you to spend some time in very poor countries.
