Therefore yes, it's possible to make meaningful comparisons of the numbers of people who are poor. It's possible to ask questions like: "Is poverty a temporary condition, or a permanent characteristic of a subpopulation?", and "Is it due to the inability of the culture to generate enough resources, or is it due maldistribution of those resources?"
It's not easy. But your view seems to be that the definition changes so quickly that a person in 1991 and the same person now can't judge if they were poorer now or then. Factors like "income security, economic stability and the predictability of one's continued means to meet basic needs all serve as absolute indicators of poverty", yet you insist that because more people have access to a full kitchen, running water, internet, penicillin, or whatever then it's simply not possible to make valid comparisons.
While I disagree, and am dumbfounded that you don't recognize those non-material, absolute factors as the essential characteristic of poverty.
Therefore yes, it's possible to make meaningful comparisons of the numbers of people who are poor. It's possible to ask questions like: "Is poverty a temporary condition, or a permanent characteristic of a subpopulation?", and "Is it due to the inability of the culture to generate enough resources, or is it due maldistribution of those resources?"
It's not easy. But your view seems to be that the definition changes so quickly that a person in 1991 and the same person now can't judge if they were poorer now or then. Factors like "income security, economic stability and the predictability of one's continued means to meet basic needs all serve as absolute indicators of poverty", yet you insist that because more people have access to a full kitchen, running water, internet, penicillin, or whatever then it's simply not possible to make valid comparisons.
While I disagree, and am dumbfounded that you don't recognize those non-material, absolute factors as the essential characteristic of poverty.