To think the word "vulnerable" is being overused and has lost it's meaning?

[atlassneezed]

I hear the word vulnerable being used a lot and mostly in a very specific context, such as those that have to pay the bedroom "tax" and those that are affected by the benefit cap and other welfare related issues. Although I don't think any of these things are good, I think that most people are vulnerable to a certain extent and that you don't need to be in social housing or on benefits to be called vulnerable. Most people are suffering in the economic crisis and there are plenty of middle class people who are struggling economically or who have depression or other mental problems but they are never seen as vulnerable for some reason. Why is this?

It is referring to extreme financial vulnerability. Often coupled with other issues, which in the main make these people more vulnerable than average.

To me it always sounds a bit condescending and champagne socialisty. Not all poor people are vulnerable, not all vulnerable people are poor. It smacks of romanticising 'these people' (such an othering phrase) as a single bloc in a way that implies the person using the phrase 'poorest and most vulnerable' a) isn't themselves poor or vulnerable and b) feels entitled to generalise about people who are.

You never hear bankers described as vulnerable.

I think vulnerable is a good word to use in a lot of cases because it can describe a persons state well but without linking them to any specific category like age, sex etc.

Someone in the 'middle classes' isn't going to experience the same poverty as someone who's struggling on benefits and has done for years.

Grinding absolute poverty can have knock on effects for so many parts of a persons life, it's just nothing like the relative poverty of a homeowner having trouble paying their mortgage.

A banker who's had a breakdown because of stress could be described as vulnerable harticus.