“If the gradient [for child outcomes] is curvilinear, we want to know where it begins to level off, as this point has important implications for how we define poverty and how we attempt to abate it.” J.D. Willms - Vulnerable Children

"This report considers the definition of poverty from the perspective of children. It attempts to define an unacceptable level of inequality among families - that is, one which fails to ensure roughly equal life chances for all children. By establishing an income level at which children experience "poverty of opportunity," the discussion can then turn to how best to change these circumstances so that children will have optimal chances of developing to their potential and becoming successful adults. " D.P. Ross and P. Roberts Income and Child Well-being

I don't expect anyone to understand these quotes out of context, so let me explain. The idea of poverty lines is heavily debated. What is an appropriate way to define who is in poverty? Organizations such as Fraser Institute have a very low level when they define poverty, in which someone doesn't have enough for the barest of essentials. Others have a higher level, believing that it is not just food, clothing and shelter that is needed but a certain amount of social opportunities (e.g. the ability to provide recreational opportunities to children).

The above authors look at children's outcomes. It is a well-known fact that in general, children have better outcomes the higher their families' incomes are. The first author is saying that if there is a certain income at which children's outcomes don't become better, that might be the level we should pay attention to when we consider what poverty is. Both these quotes are turning the poverty debate around - we shouldn't just be looking at what people can buy, but on how people turn out.

It's a perspective I very much appreciate. What good is it to select some predetermined level of what poverty means without tying it to what we want society to be?