Yes. Now, first of all, that actually doesn't matter for the sake of argument. Because Jake claims all poverty is RELATIVE. And the means that even if there were slums in France, as long as I don't see them, they don't count!

Because, why should we limit ourself to countries? Heck, I could claim that there is a large problem with poverty in the filmstar villas of Beverly Hills, by having a relative definition of poverty and then just looking at Beverly Hill, and ignoring the poor areas of Los Angeles.

And hey, if I'm not allowed to draw a line around Beverly Hills, why should I draw the line around the US? Shouldn't I include Mexico at least? Well, why, yes, I should.

This just once again shows how ridiculous relative poverty is as a concept.

Second of all: I didn't grow up in France. There were no slums in the country I grew up in. I really, honestly, were amongst the poorest of the country.

Regarding the stormy presents assumption that I think poverty doesn't exist because I haven't experienced it,
I'm seriously starting to believe that the reason you people believe the myths about relative poverty is because you haven't experienced it. Well. I have.