if you have a substantial number of people whose lives are curtailed below the national average lifespan due to causes associated with deprivation -- malnutrition, exposure, life in insecure "war zones" rife with violence and virtually unpoliced, arbitrary violence from whatever police presence there is -- then I think it is safe to say that you have substantial poverty.
it is possible to be "wealthier" in terms of good diet, personal security, health and longevity as a cash-poor peasant in a supportive cultural matrix than as a working-poor American through whose hands more dollars flow each year. so I would stick to actuarial stats if I were trying to figure this out. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
As to the part about "life in insecure war zones" (and I'll have to find the link) a study came out not too long ago showing that children in some areas of our inner-cities do suffer ptsd and all the associated problems of living in this way.
Honestly, we can talk about jobs and the economy and education -- and those are all good things -- but I think if I could choose just two things to change that I believe would help the most, I'd choose national healthcare and ending the drug "war." Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
