I think poverty is a part that will never go away, we need the poor to work washing clothes or cleaning the house, if they are rich people certainly won't want to work cleaning the house, and all the food on the dining table is the result of farmers, fishermen, drivers and many poor people who play a role in providing the necessities of life.
I prefer to say it with cycles. if someone is rich, it means there is someone who is poor. but in this modern era, poverty can be defined broadly depending on how the individual is. some are poor in heart, poor in feelings, poor in attitude and the last is poor in wealth. Likewise with rich, we can define it differently. there are many people who are rich in wealth, but poor in mind. there are also people who are poor in wealth, but rich in heart. I mean, rich in character, tolerance, kindness and a soft heart. we can define everything, according to the way we see it from different points of view.
But when it comes to the title of this thread, we agree with what you're saying. that in truth, poverty is a part that can never be separated and will never disappear. and, some of the examples you have mentioned.another problem is what keeps people poor, the human capital itself. opportunity, lack of privilege, education, culture, and all kinds of things. that in essence, the rich need the poor and the poor need the rich. we usually call it, symbiosis mutualism.
The grand old question of rich-and-poor, drawn in the wild color palette of heart, mind, and cold hard cash! Kinda feels like a Picasso piece on a rollercoaster, wouldn’t you say? Indeed, the terms 'wealth' and 'poverty' wear more hats than a milliner on derby day. It's not all about the Benjamins, my friends. Your perspective - extolling the treasures of character, tolerance, and benevolence as genuine gold - gets a solid thumbs-up from yours truly. Yet, it's also vital to peer through the looking glass at the societal scaffolding that keeps economic disparities on life support. The scarcity of educational prospects and privileges? They're buried deeper than a meerkat’s breakfast, influencing this game of wealth divide.
Yet, this talk of 'mutual back-scratching' between the haves and have-nots - now, that's a tightrope act! It could be seen as justifying a status quo that only expands the wealth gap. Instead, how about we dream up a utopia where opportunities are handed out not based on one's bank balance but their grit and potential? Wouldn't that be a cocktail of silly and profound?