[lilott8]

This reads sort of tone deaf to me. There is a clear definition of what it means to be impoverished. In the US it's income relative to dependents, [defined by HHS](https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines). TO say that someone isn't impoverished because they are living rent-free (legally or illegally) or don't have obligations to pay bills misses the point altogether; and quite frankly, is flat out insincere. It doesn't matter if the child moves back in with their parent and doesn't have bills to pay. I'm curious to know, what if the person that loses their job is 40 and moves in with their parents? My point is, I don't think it matters if it's a child moving in to their parent's second house -- they may never be able to recover from this, and that is the larger, systemic problem at hand.

How we, as a collective society, address issues pertaining to the poor, disenfranchised, forgotten, downtrodden, speaks volumes about our priorities and interests. And I think, given the types of relief that has happened during this moment, and looking at how society answers this historically, we are not doing well.