Such poverty isn't necessarily a problem though. I live in relative poverty compared to most people in my city. Basically all I spend money on is rent (of a cheap apartment), food, electricity, and Internet. Yet I find this lifestyle quite acceptable, and a good trade-off as I can avoid the need to work. What do I care if my neighbours are wasting a fortune on cars, boats and overseas travel?
Yes, but can you advance or are you hamstrung by living hand-to-mouth?
If you felt you had to get an advanced degree to get a better job, is that an option or would you be economically devastated by working fewer hours to fit schoolwork in?
If you had to move to a different city, is that an option for you? Would you be homeless when you got there?
If you got seriously ill, is that it for you? Could you recover economically?
In short: Relative poverty the way I used the term involves running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. Advancement is impossible. Any major disaster sinks you.
You are still talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty. If somebody got seriously ill and could no longer afford food, for example, then that's not just relative poverty, they actually have a serious problem.
As for "running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place", well that depends. Why would I need to advance? I already have everything I need. I don't work at all, and disasters aren't likely to be much of a problem since I don't have a lot of expensive assets to lose. If I ever need healthcare I can use a government scheme (I don't live in the USA btw). So in this regard, you could say my lifestyle is partly subsidised by the government.
