I'm sceptical about the concept of poverty as defined by the economists. They seem to define poverty as being unable to live a consumerist lifestyle, and not being genuinely poor. In the US, the poverty threshold for a single person is about $1000 per month. However, for that amount of money, I think you can get shelter, food, clothing and live in material comfort (or at least lack of evident discomfort) - you're clothed, fed, warm, dry and have a safe place to rest and sleep. Is that what poverty looks like?
It looks like, to economists, poverty is more about being unable to have a bigger place for yourself, newish car, newish electronics, rich variety in food etc. - but it's hardly end of the world if people don't have those things, so why should the public care?
I'd be rather sceptical about poverty comparisons between the US and other countries, because the US is one of the few countries that doesn't officially accept relative poverty measures. This means that in reality poor people in the US may be much poorer in international comparison than it might seem on paper. Sometimes the comparisons are adjusted or correct, because they are not based on absolute measures, but I'd rather check the source of the figures first to see how poverty was measured in each country.
The public should care about relative poverty, since social mobility and social stigma hinge almost solely on that and not on absolute poverty (for which the threshold is usually set in whatever lowest possible way that pleases politicians). Children of the poorest families have almost no chances of breaking out of that life, leading to ghettos, social unrest, criminal gangs, drug abuse, etc. You just have to go to Skid Row in L.A. to see the effects of poverty in action. There is a photographer who currently documents poverty and other problems in the US on Youtube, it's a very interesting watch.[1]
That is, poverty is relative to the environment in which one finds oneself. And we should care if only because someone without a reliable car, a mobile capable of doing the things that need to be done like banking, tolerable accommodation, etc., eventually becomes a burden for the rest of us, disaffected, disenfranchised, unable to participate in society. And that goes double for their children.
And of course we should care because they are humans too.
Where can $1k/mo. provide that? I live in nowhere Montana and the cheapest rent I could just find was $650/mo before utilities ($900/mo. in the town I went to high school at in California in a mobile home park, so it likely did not count space rent). Utilities: I'm not sure. I have a big place; I can spend as much as $600/mo in winter or $200/mo in summer. Let's say someone can get by on $100/mo. That $1k is gone in nowhere California and down to $250 in nowhere Montana. Let's say you can eat for $5/day, so there goes $150. You are now left $100 to manage everything else: transportation, clothing, phone, potentially internet, any unexpected expenses, and nevermind trying to save up first and last months rent and a deposit for utilities. I'd say $1k/mo is hard living. Heck, $3k/mo was really hard on my wife, kids, and I 15 years ago. $1k/mo might keep you from abject poverty, put I feel it is within poverty level.
Quick lookup revealed rooms for rent in Montana from $275/month. You won't have a whole place for yourself, but that in itself is an inflated modern standard.
Maybe the key difference is that poverty is better hidden in Finland with more available shelters?