0
Compare time use of a wealthy person with that of a poor person?
Frz123
Be gone, peasant.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is comparative poverty?
Comparative poverty is a measure of poverty, which is also used as a measure of inequality. It refers to looking at poverty in comparison with others. For example, if you live in a country where there is a lot of inequality, where there are very rich people living in proximity to very poor people, it is argued, that the poor in countries like these are more aware of their poverty as they can compare it with the wealth of others living relatively close to them. At the same time, if you are poor in a country where most other people are poor, it is further argued, that you will not be as aware of your poverty as you are comparing yourself to other poor people. Therefore comparative poverty refers to what poor people can compare themselves with and how that affects their own perceptions of their poverty.
Tenant farming created a new class of wealthy southerners called?
Tenant farming created a new class of wealthy southerners called merchants. Tenant farmers paid a landowner rent for farmland and a house, The tenant farmer owned the crops, and at harvest time would sell the crops for income to pay rent. However, due to poor crops and various other issues, tenant farmers often borrowed on credit to make the rent. It became a vicious cycle for the tenant farmer, but advantageous for the merchants.
Why the rich should pay higher taxes?
The rich should pay higher taxes because they exploited the poor and that is how they got rich. If the rich pay the poor accordingly the poor wouldn't be as poor and maybe not even poor at all. And the rich would still be rich just not as rich. Some rare historical periods regulated exploitation and provided for building middle class, the rich hate the middle class because middle class competes with them. So because of this there is always a struggle between rich and poor. In a perfect world there would be more fairness and less disproportion. I am not calling for absolute equality but one making 400 - 500 times over another is not right. No one works that hard. I am sure the comments below were written by the wealthy and privileged person. They shouldn't. I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that richer people pay a higher % of taxes because they are assumed to "consume" more. Put a person making $25,000 next to a person making $500,000, both consuming the same amount in life and tell me why the more assertive, more persistent, harder working human being making more money should be penalized for his/her effort. Anyone? There's no answer on the internet and this is a sheep concept -- in other words, it is what it is because it's been this way for such a long time. When the top 5% of our nation goes on strike, goes out of business, stops working and puts up a fight, only then will America really address the issue (when the rich are done paying for the poor and unlucky)
How was the economy in Pennsylvania in the 1700s?
Pennsylvania was very wealthy in the 1700s. In fact Pennsylvania was one of the wealthiest in America at the time because of Penn's policies.
What real world problem from swift and time is the narrator referring?
Poor management of Irish lands by English lords.
Was Luther martin wealthy?
He came from a middle class family but dedicated himself to a monastic life. Though well educated (for the time 15th century) he was never a wealthy man.
Was Franklin Pierce brought up in a poor or wealthy family?
Wealthy. His Father was two time Democratic-Republican Governor of New Hamphire
Was Florence Nightingale wealthy or poor?
Florence Nightingale came from a wealthy family and had access to resources to pursue her nursing education.
What was daily life like for roman women describe two differences that existed between women who were wealthy and those who were poor?
The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.The Romans, like us, were individuals and their daily lives varied with their occupations and their interests. This is true for both rich and poor. Each group had to make a living, provide for their families and take care of daily needs. The difference was that the wealthy had more slaves to help them out and consequently more leisure time. The poor person had to devote more time to his everyday concerns. It goes without saying, that the housing differed between the rich and poor and the wealthy could afford luxuries that the poor guy could not, but this was a matter of finances, (or lack of them) not a matter of their basic lives.
What statements best describes a differences between the wealthy and the poor in Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution?
The wealthy were able to enjoy a great deal of leisure time, while the poor worked extremely long hours each week.
Were the templars rich or poor?
The knighs Templar were poor when they started off became more wealthy through time. They gained money through wages and theft.
What did children do in their spare time?
poor children worked wealthy children went to the theatre or played and dabbed on jeff
What was the attitude of the wealthy toward the poor in the 1920's?
In the 1920s, the attitude of the wealthy towards the poor was often characterized by a lack of empathy and understanding. Many wealthy individuals believed in the idea of social Darwinism, which suggested that the poor were responsible for their own situations and that helping them would impede personal progress. This attitude contributed to a lack of support for social welfare programs and exacerbated the challenges faced by the poor during that time.
What is the percent of the deaths of the poor people in the Victorian era?
the percentage of poor people that died in the victorian time, compared to the wealthy members of the population was: poor people 78% wealthy people 22% the reason for this is the poor people in the victorian times had to work, extreamly hard to earn money for possetions therefore leading to a early death becsaue of over working the muscles and bones ect. wealthy people had a great life they laid back and enjoyed the use of the servents whic did everything for them. the servents were the poor people.
Was Hoover poor?
He was poor as a boy. Both of his parents died and he was raised by an uncle. He made a lot of money as a mining engineer and was independently wealthy by the time he was president. He donated his salary as president to charity.
Is Michael Jackson had experienced poverty before he became famous?
Well his family was very poor when he was really young. But by the time he was 12 they were already wealthy.
How were patricians and plebeians diffreint?
Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.Patricians and plebeians were two social classes. At the beginning of the city the patricians were the wealthy and the plebeians were the poor. However over time the plebeians gained civil rights and wealth and by the late republic they were considered the nobility along with the patricians.
