Comfortable Poverty in the Social Imagination

What does comfortable poverty mean? Its really a very polite and politically correct way to describe what is or will be the lifestyle of the majority in the 21st century post modern social imagination.

It may very well be that in the new world order or global economy, if you can't work or can't find work or even don't want to work, you can be taken care of by the state. That was/is a comfortable situation for everyone. There was/is no reason to worry about work as in getting a job or not having one and no reason to report unemployment because essentially there is always full employment for those who can work, are able to find work and want to work.

For those not working, life is the situation of comfortable poverty. In this situation, one has the basic needs satisfied by the government; place to live (no homeless), food to eat, health care, education and recreation. Clothing is rather exchanged among people or sought at civil society organizations which provide donated clothes passed on by workers. Not a bad situation. The question is and has been... is it sustainable? 

Perhaps it is sustainable as long as the majority is on board with this kind of social imagination. Why not provide housing in apartment complexes that have additional health and well being attributes that will make life for everyone easier and comfortable. As for recreation, it is pretty much available to all; namely, the Great Outdoors, nothing could be better than fresh air and blueberries just outside your door.

Transportation, bicycles...for all and so is or would  be basic education and higher education for those that qualify. Why not higher education for everyone? What for, when secondary schools would be improved to the point that most jobs would only require training.  That sounds pretty comfortable, doesn't it?

Why call this comfortable poverty? Because in this new world order, no one is/will be above anyone else as far as the majority is concerned. Comfort is sustainable where wealth is not; unless, you exploit other people. Yet, do we really do our brother good by providing for him or by providing a means for him? If we constantly provide for him, he will surely and always be poor in spirit though comfortable and surely he will be with us in the land for as long as we sustain him/her there. Yet, if we freely open our hands, to say "here, see what you can do"... then surely our brother will no longer be poor in spirit nor just comfortable with what is and no longer held in/by those in the land.