When the divide between the (relatively few) “haves” and the (relatively many) “have nots” ...

[milan2003_07]

Hello everyone,

I'm reading an online article in the journal "the National Interest". Here is the link:

New Technologies Could Spark Global Uprisings

When the divide between the (relatively few) “haves” and the (relatively many) “have nots” is in a perpetual state of growth, a breaking point is inevitably reached.

nationalinterest.org

There is a sentence there at the very beginning:

"When the divide between the (relatively few) “haves” and the (relatively many) “have nots” is in a perpetual state of growth, a breaking point is inevitably reached".

What do they mean by "haves" and "have nots"?

 

[jutfrank]

To put it crudely—the rich and poor.

 

[milan2003_07]

To put it crudely—the rich and poor.

Oh, I see now. They call people who have everything as "haves" and those are deprived of many things and facilities as "have nots".

 

[Tarheel]

Oh, I see now. They call people who have everything as "haves" and those are deprived of many things and facilities as "have nots".

That's the way some would put it, yes.

What is meant by "facilities"?

 

[milan2003_07]

That's the way some would put it, yes.

What is meant by "facilities"?

By 'facilities' I mean some casual things people normally have. This can include homes for living, enough room the house where they live, a good kitchen, clothes, etc. The poor can be deprived of all that while people who earn enough usually have all this and there is even no need to belong to the rich. For instance, people in South America who live in slums in Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro sometimes don't even have good homes and some are forced to live on the streets. These people are devoid of even elementary facilities.

 

[Tarheel]

I wouldn't use "deprived" there. That suggests to me that somebody's keeping them from having it. I would just say they don't have that. I would just say they don't have what most people consider basic necessities.