18 ms·

'Extreme poverty' to fall below 10% of world population for first time

283 points by hliyan 11y ago

amelius 11y ago
A lot of numbers in this article, but how much would it cost us to solve poverty? And for different values of the poverty line?
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  Cost us? Are you crazy? You mean you want to take a lot of money and throw at something and you imagine it will solve anything?
  - Matumio 11y ago
    Obviously the extreme lack of money, also known as "poverty", can be solved with money. Assuming that you don't throw the money at "something" but at "somebody", this "somebody" will by definition not be poor any more.
    - fiatjaf 11y ago
      If the criteria for "poverty" is "to not be able to get at least x quantity of money per month", to "solve" this you'll need at least to provide that x quantity of money every month. But your definition of "solution" will still be crazy if you do that.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        The point was to make it clear why it is obviously possible to solve poverty by throwing money at it. Now you have a worst case cost. Then the question is how much cheaper can you make it. E.g. how much investment and in what would it take before the network effects and increased trade will ensure there are enough jobs to lift those who can work out of poverty, and provide enough tax revenues for governments in question to care for those who can't work.
      - Matumio 11y ago
        Evidence actually shows that direct cash transfers to the poor can be quite effective and lasting. Have a look at the research done by givedirectly, or this one: https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
  - xj9 11y ago
    Responsibly throwing money at problems is exactly how you solve them. There are a lot of factors that we know of that contribute to continued poverty and cause suffering for those subject to it. This would include, among other things: 1. Universal education (free for anyone interested) 2. Universal healthcare (also free) 3. Improved housing 4. Reliable, clean utilities Sure, this stuff might be expensive, but the long term benefit of having more healthy, educated people around significantly outweighs the cost.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  you solve property by having governments that respect citizen's property rights, having good rule of law, and a sound money policy usually with freedom of exchange. government managed economies tend to only benefit those in power or already well off. in other words, you create an environment where entrepreneurs can successfully operate as people tend to strive more when they see their efforts pay off and those pay offs are not subject to the whims of others
  - amelius 11y ago
    Obviously, yes, this is the preferred long-term solution. This doesn't buy anything for the people suffering at this very instant. Also, if you are struggling to survive, how are you going to even think about getting education?
    - jpadkins 11y ago
      Give a man a fish, he becomes dependant on your fish. Yes, teaching him to fish takes longer, but it's better. > how are you going to even think about getting education? You start with an education on how to survive better. You don't need to start with an advanced education.
      - Matumio 11y ago
        You can teach people how to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but some of them have no boots, so it's not entirely fair.
        swasheck 11y ago
        life's not fair ... but expecting someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots is cruel and denies the advantage that "you" (the teacher) most likely started with a pair of boots, at least.
      - swasheck 11y ago
        the whole teach-a-man-to-fish thing is a nice saying that really helps with things outside of the jurisdiction of macroeconomics. at its core, it makes more sense to me to interpret it from the one lending aid than the one being aided. in other words, it's advice given to the teacher to seek systematic justice and fairness and not simply engage in simple, punctiliar acts of mercy. however, neither of these should exist in a vacuum. act with mercy and work toward justice. the hard part about this is that there needs to be more of an emphasis on understanding and contextualizing justice within any given culture. "fishing" in guyana may look very different than "fishing" in guinea which may look very different than "fishing" in the philippines.
- crdb 11y ago
  To help you answer that literally: according to Simon Mann who did it successfully twice and failed once [1], a successful mercenary invasion and peace-keeping effort in a country like Sierra Leone cost around 1 million GBP in the mid-1990s. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Havoc-Simon-Mann/dp/1743142307 http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Havoc-Simon-Mann/dp/1743142307
- corysama 11y ago
  With some creativity, reducing poverty can be a profitable enterprise. http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/may/21/technology-empowers-the-poorest/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/may/21/technology-empowers...
briantakita 11y ago
Their definition of poverty is earning below a certain dollar amount ($1.90/day). Their measure of poverty has nothing to do with the access to quality water, quality food, land, quality of life, freedom, personal autonomy, health, safety, etc. Many indigenous people lived on $0.00/day yet had a higher quality of life; before outside influences (i.e. civilization, imperial, western) disrupted their ecosystems & way of life.
- cuchoi 11y ago
  Income is a proxy. There are multidimensional definitions of poverty, but they are too hard to measure and compare across countries.
  - msandford 11y ago
    Right, but I think that's partially the point. When you try and boil things down to a simple number, you lose a ton of information. Perhaps it's not wise to do this extreme metric-izing as it will probably just lead to the metrics being gamed rather than actual improvements.
- mason240 11y ago
  They were also living as hunter gathers in very sparsely populated areas. The earth can't support 8 billion people with berry gathering and deer hunting.
- afsina 11y ago
  Still, this is a relative improvement. There are many other indications (such as infant death ratio) supporting this.
  - briantakita 11y ago
    As some of the quantitative metrics improve, many of the metrics (particularly of qualitative nature) degrade. Think ecosystems, our usage of resources, quality of life for the average person, etc. > There are many other indications (such as infant death ratio) supporting this. This is one of the many metrics that matter; much more than the percentage of people making > $1.90/day.
alienjr 11y ago
Thank you globalization.
- afsina 11y ago
  Perhaps better is to say, "Thank you for opening the trade gates".
  - vlan0 11y ago
    Is this the primary force behind a change such as this? After watching the documentary called 'Life and Debt', I found the idea of "free trade" in poorer countries to be very different than i would have first thought. It seems free trade in the case of Jamaica resulted in a large import of goods, to the point where local Jamaica could not compete with the huge multinational corps from other countries.
    - afsina 11y ago
      >Is this the primary force behind a change such as this? I read this in many places, granted, they all may have some bias (You can make a search with "reasons declining extreme poverty"). But, I personally do believe it is the main reason.
    - afsina 11y ago
      The real question is, how did this change the overall population's well being in Jamaica? I think most of the time some suffers from the results of the free trade but much more go to a better state than before.
    - UK-AL 11y ago
      Well that benefits the consumers. And due to comparative advantage, even competing against imports with free open trade is better than being closed off.
      - vidarh 11y ago
        It only benefits consumers if they still have jobs, and assuming the jobs still pay well enough for the cheaper goods to actually also be cheaper in relative terms. That may be the case, and one would hope the local businesses are able to adjust or that new jobs follow. But it is certainly not automatically the case that having your local market flooded with cheaper goods is better for consumers.
lumberjack 11y ago
>Extreme poverty has long been defined as living on or below $1.25 a day, but the World Bank’s adjustment now sets the poverty line at $1.90 a day. That is intentionally misleading. How about "extreme poverty" = "still suffering malnutrition" + "still lacking even basic education" + "still lacking any access to healthcare" The $1.90 tells nothing and it is also dependant on purchasing power. If somebody was making $200/month in the US that would also be extreme poverty.
- cuchoi 11y ago
  The poverty and extreme poverty line are adjusted in each country according to purchasing power. You are right that somebody making $200/month in the US would be classified as extreme poor (and someone in India would not be considered extreme poor if he earns $200/month). I don't see the problem with this.
- hansjorg 11y ago
  > still lacking even basic education The world literacy rate and trend is supposedly pretty good. However, there are large differences in how literacy is measured and huge uncertainties in the numbers. In some countries you're considered to be literate if you can sign your name, in others they just report 99-100% without doing any measurements. UNESCO have plans for a better test to be applied globally, but I'm not sure any test that would lower the numbers would ever be welcomed.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  You really should watch this Hans Rosling's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg It's not misleading. Malnutrition is going down, lack of education is going down, lack of access to healthcare is going down. The more you read the Guardian, the more you have misconceptions about how bad the world is developing.
fiatjaf 11y ago
That's crazy. Inflation is enourmous (and inflation is not the same as GDP variations). Any criteria that uses dollars cannot have any value in a historical series. If you get a chart of how many people live with less than $2 per month you'll probably see a continuous steady decline. Why? Inflation.
- ekiru 11y ago
  The World Bank periodically adjusts the threshold upwards for this reason. In 1990, they used $1/day. In 2008, they adjusted it to $1.25/day. Now they are adjusting it to $1.90/day.
  - fiatjaf 11y ago
    And you imagine that in 25 year the total inflation was only of 90%?
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      I tend to think that the World Bank adjusts this amount in an appropriate manner. If you think their methodology is wrong, you should explain why.
      - fiatjaf 11y ago
        Why shouldn't be you explaning why do you believe in their methodology? That's crazy. You don't even know what methodology they use and you are taking your time to defend them here.
        rconti 11y ago
        Because the World Bank is a large organization with many paid staff tasked with devising and implementing their methodology. You're two random people on the Internet. I'm siding with the World Bank, not with the internet commenter who demands another internet commenter defend experts. You're the one making the extraordinary claim here.
arca_vorago 11y ago
While the middle class is being gutted, pushing more people into "just barely poverty".
- nugget 11y ago
  That's the thing though: in the US, inequality between rich and poor is widening, but globally, it is narrowing. There are more global middle class now than ever before. It's hard to have this both ways until we approach closer to a post scarcity economy.
  - clavalle 11y ago
    I don't think post scarcity is a precondition of post poverty. The more economically advanced nations need to reach income and worker/environmental protection parity with less economically advanced nations. I'd prefer that be done by raising the level of the less advanced nations rather than lowering the level of the more advanced nations but that's a different discussion.
    - arca_vorago 11y ago
      I don't think it's a different discussion, I think it's the discussion we should be having, because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Due to globalism other nations are rising, it's true, but the argument I keep hearing is that, "well, now they are rising they are going to compete with us and America just has to get used to a lower level of living standards than it's used to..." and I have major issues with this point of view, largely because of the pretense that globalism was good for America and just now suddenly won't be. I think that NAFTA (and the soon to pass travesty that is the TPP) are globalization tools that negatively affect the American worker, and largely this is due to the undermining of the idea of national sovereignty and the dismissal of protectionism that I think is premature. I think protectionism should be a duty of a nation-state to it's citizens, because until I can call myself a citizen of the world, I think my own government has a duty to protect it's and my self-interests, one of those being economic stability and growth. In this case this is my primary issue with the supranational oligarchy. They operate on a global scale, without regard to borders, and while they formerly exploited the third world, now that the third world has been ravaged so much, they are turning inward to their own populaces, and have begun eating us from the inside out, extracting wealth. Corporations have a charter from the government, and corporations that undermine national sovereignty and interests should have their charters revoked (as Max Keiser would say,executed). If we don't curtail these powers now we are going to wake up with a global government of oligarchy unaccountable to the people. (who are sure to say "but look at how much better off everyone is now! it was all for the greater good!") The key element to remember is is that class warfare is real, and the rich are winning. Globally. It's not just about money either, it's about freedoms and liberties.
cjbenedikt 11y ago
"More and more analysts, though, are pointing out that this claim is little more than an accounting trick: UN officials have massaged the numbers to make it seem as though poverty has been reduced, when in fact it has increased." http://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_design_thinking_to_eradicate_poverty_creation http://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_design_thinking_to_erad...
- vidarh 11y ago
  This one (linked from yours) is even more directly addressing the trickery involved: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-gr...
  - Isamu 11y ago
    > the Bank shifted the IPL from the original $1.02 (at 1985 PPP) to $1.08 (at 1993 PPP), which, given inflation, was lower in real terms. I don't understand this, and they don't explain. What is PPP, if not "real terms"? Plus I hate it when somebody makes a claim like this without actually showing the numbers, or creating a graph - it makes the claim less plausible than what they are complaining about. Otherwise the article has valid points, mostly about watering down goals, and the lack of real progress in poverty reduction. Note also that the OP is about the poverty rate, not about poverty being in decline, which is in fact increasing all too quickly.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      I believe what he's saying is that 1.02 1985-dollars (PPP adjusted) is greater than 1.08 1993-dollars (PPP adjusted). Clicking the first two inflation calculators I found on Google and assuming their numbers are right (they both gave the same result), it does seem that if they had inflation adjusted the number using US rates, the original USD 1.02 should have been USD 1.37 by 1993. EDIT: It's of course important to keep in mind that inflation rates are different across the world, and presumably the world bank at least will insist that they accounted for real term price changes for the relevant goods, so I still don't know how relevant this point in the article actually is.
knieveltech 11y ago
You could set an arbitrary dollar amount and simply wait for inflation to bring that number into range. How much of this is real improvement?
- tim333 11y ago
  It's inflation adjusted kind of.
cjbenedikt 11y ago
The Hypocrisy of ‘Helping’ the Poor http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocrisy-of-helping-the-poor.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocri...
- tim333 11y ago
  That's kind of on a different thing - rich americans giving a bit to charity after outsourcing US jobs.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    That article paints rich Americans as pretty awesome people. First they lift millions of Chinese out of poverty and reduce inequality by shipping jobs in China. Then they donate some of the profits to less valuable causes like reducing relative poverty in the US. The author of that article is kind of clueless, though - US-style "poverty" is not remotely like Zimbabwe poverty.
    - cjbenedikt 11y ago
      Actually it is. Having worked with NGOs in Africa as well as in Baltimore now - it's pretty much the same. Life expectancy, purchasing power and income inequality. Sad to say!
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        In Zimbabwe, 33% of the country has a flush toilet and over 10% of the country does open defecation. 75% have access to clean water. (Stats from the first hit on google.) Are you asserting that Baltimore has less than 99% flush toilet usage or 99% clean water access? http://www.urbangateway.org/news/more-million-people-without-toilets-zimbabwe http://www.urbangateway.org/news/more-million-people-without...
werber 11y ago
Have any groups outside of the World Bank confirmed this statistic?
myth_buster 11y ago
I'm always wary of the numbers that are put out. There has been long history of fudging numbers to fit a narrative. The unemployment numbers in the US comes to mind as such an example. So, the question is how realistic is the extreme poverty line. And this doesn't help it much: The World Bank first introduced a global poverty line in 1990, setting it at $1 a day. It was adjusted last in 2008, when the group raised it to $1.25 a day. $1 seems like such a convenient number to pick! An interesting graph will be to plot the extreme poverty threshold against inflation _in_emerging_countries_. With the falling emerging market currencies and extreme inflation (hyper-inflation perhaps), I don't think that $1.90 a day cuts it.
- abhishivsaxena 11y ago
  WB fixed it in terms of constant International $, with base year 2005 - if I can remember correctly. So it's already inflation adjusted because it's at constant prices and not nominal prices. Having said that, in most developing countries, being on the poverty line would mean that you have just enough for clothing and feeding yourself. Nevertheless, it's exciting to see millions graduating out of it in just a decade. Specially for me, because I'm Indian. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY Population below $1.25 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.25 a day at 2005 international prices Also you might find this interesting - http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:22510787~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH... Moreover, the choice between $1.00 a day and $1.25 a day (or even higher lines) makes no difference to the Bank’s claim that measures of absolute poverty have fallen in the developing world over 1981-2005.
- cjbprime 11y ago
  It's the purchasing power of $1.25/day, rather than the absolute value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
- dragontamer 11y ago
  > The unemployment numbers in the US comes to mind as such an example. The unemployment numbers in the US are reported as such (ie: only reporting the number of people looking for jobs vs people employed) because they've been consistently reported like that since the late 1800s. The "real" unemployment numbers are still taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/cps/ http://www.bls.gov/cps/ Every statistic you want is there.
theworstshill 11y ago
Thats a good measure, but I am pessimistic about poverty ever being rooted out completely (absent of a technological invention that creates abundant energy for very cheap, e.g. fusion, antimatter later on). The reality is, poverty can be cultural. In the west a saying like "they can pay me little but I'll work even less" would be considered absurd. In certain countries - its a folk tradition. Another problem is a self-inflicted brain drain. Smart people with potential don't want to live in festering shitholes where property rights are not respected, rule of law unexistant and hence economic opportunity absent.
mrbig4545 11y ago
that's terrible. 10% is far too high
bluthru 11y ago
Thank you automation.
ctdonath 11y ago
For all the discussion (i.e.: heated biased arguing) about poverty, seems nobody has addressed an objective definition of what constitutes "poor". Why is the world poverty line at $1.25/day, but the US poverty line is 20x that? We need a quantitative analysis, starting with basic caloric/nutritional/BTU/water/power/data/etc needs (independent of arbitrary numbers imputed by fiat/floating currencies) for cost of bare sustenance, then work from there recognizing that varying geography, demographics, et al adjusts that cost, then admitting that different cultures further adjust those basic costs. Without such objective analysis of basic sustenance, fudging numbers is trivial.
- AlisdairO 11y ago
  Note that this is discussing 'extreme poverty', which is distinct from 'poverty'.
  - ultramancool 11y ago
    Very good point, still, what does this include. I would think of extreme poverty as those who have extremely limited access to food, water and shelter. Fortunately that is legitimately becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the world I believe so this is a useful stat to track. Still, I have no idea if that's what's being represented here.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      It's a well defined term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty (of course, they are redefining it, but there is lots of information available about how the number is set)
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    Indeed, my next question would involve objectively differentiating the two. I'm starting with the presumption that being above the bottom line at least constitutes a sustainable[1] existence, if not a comfortable one. [1] "sustainable" as in one can live indefinitely unto a normal lifespan, assorted diseases & incidents aside; don't confuse with "green" energy & resources.
leroy_masochist 11y ago
I think a per-capita statistic is a bit flawed in this case, although I understand why they use it -- the math is very simple. The problem with per-capita measurement of income for very poor people is that what you really care about is per-family income because of the economies of scale involved in so many of the goods they consume -- cooking fuel, etc. In places where poverty like this exists, a family of 8 living on $8/day ($1 per capita) is often better-off than a family of 4 living on $5/day ($1.25 per capita). Regardless of whatever methodological flaws exist in various metrics, this is a positive trend that is (hopefully) only going to get better as technology increases the efficiency of various systems of distributing goods and services.
littletimmy 11y ago
Very skeptical of this idea. Were more than 10% of humans were in "extreme poverty" when we lived as hunter-gatherers? Were all humans in "extreme poverty" at that time? "Extreme poverty" is caused when capitalism invades an area, appropriates all assets, and then the people basically either have to sell themselves into extremely-low-paid labor or starve.
- wyager 11y ago
  >"Extreme poverty" is caused when capitalism invades an area, I take it you haven't read any pre-industrial-revolution history books lately?
- Arnt 11y ago
  Two comments: You could make the same point about nobility, all the way back to the rulers of the first cities. And hunter-gatherers too live in dire poverty when the hunting and gathering fails, as it does some years. Fewer than 10% of years?
- raymondgh 11y ago
  Agreed! First time below 10% since mankind's creation of poverty. I can't comment on the causality of capitalism, but I agree with Mandela that poverty is manmade.
  - wyager 11y ago
    Are you one of those people who believes in the biblical history where people lived to be 200 years old and such? At what point in the past was the average person better off than they are now?
    - raymondgh 11y ago
      Before you posted this comment :) In all seriousness, I'm interpreting poverty as lacking the basic capacity to participate in society. In that sense, the average score of something like the human development index is not relevant to whether or not systemic exclusion of classes of people in society is prevalent. The organization of resource-controlling groups in industry and government are generally what determines the social and economic mobility of a population. Before some point in civilized history, these constructs did not exist to create such vast disparity in human dignity and wealth. In other words, neither the cause nor the existence of poverty is measurable by the average standard of living.
sp332 11y ago
Is it because they all died?
andrewmutz 11y ago
This is an issue where there is widespread misunderstanding. Here is a great opinion piece about how the way news is reported contributes to this chronic misinformation: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-t... "One survey found that two-thirds of Americans believed that the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost doubled over the last 20 years. Another 29 percent believed that the proportion had remained roughly the same. "That’s 95 percent of Americans — who are utterly wrong. In fact, the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty hasn’t doubled or remained the same. It has fallen by more than half..."
- jessaustin 11y ago
  There might be people who think reducing extreme poverty is more important than telling the truth about it. That is certainly the case with several other issues...
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    Dishonest for a good cause, wonderful, they have now lost the high ground.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      I'm not sure that there is a "high ground" for complicated issues like this. Everyone comes to the issue with preexisting opinions and will use measurement methods that conform to those opinions. So it is in a sense a reasonable shortcut to just ignore distractions like "truth".
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        This is the left's main problem, they need more and more people on government assistance or they lose power.
      - 11y ago
tkinom 11y ago
Does the "Amish" fit into the poor or Extreme poverty category? (by US standard) I believe they are happier than most of the population. Gov might not like them too much as their contribution to gdp/Tax might be less than the "normal" folks. On the other hand, their demand on "gov service" should be a lot less too.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  What makes you think that Amish are poor? Many of them are quite wealthy.
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    I don't think the GP was saying the Amish are poor per se. I think the GP's point is that, from the perspective of the survey, the Amish's income and/or expenditures might look the same as someone in poverty, even though their quality of life is much better.
    - lkbm 11y ago
      The line they use isn't "what percentage of people can't afford a TV". It's more along the lines of "what percentage of people can afford adequate food and clean water".
henryaj 11y ago
It's incredibly exciting to think that an end to global poverty could be in sight. Shameless plug: GiveWell [0] and Giving What We Can [1] are non-profits that evaluate the effectiveness of development and global poverty charities. Some are hundreds or thousands of times as effective as others when it comes to saving and extending lives. Those groups help you decide where your money should go to maximise your impact. [0]: http://www.givewell.org/ http://www.givewell.org/ [1]: http://givingwhatwecan.org/ http://givingwhatwecan.org/
marincounty 11y ago
Two days ago we had an article about this topic, maybe the same article? This article claims they just changed the baseline poverty rate. I think they changed other numbers, but can't prove it. Two days ago, I went to the world bank calculator and the poverty calculations were based on $1.25. I and other HN'ers noticed the calculator didn't seem to account for inflation. Two days ago I played around with the calculator and used $1.90 and $2.00 as a "the input for the poverty line". I was getting final poverty levels that were doubling. With my numbers the poverty level was not below 10%. I did the same experiment today, and someone updated all the numbers, or just changed them? Or, I my memory is wrong. (I have not confirmed this on The wayback machine.) My point is two days ago at $1.90 the poverty rate was close to 20%? Today, my calculations are not close to what they were two days ago? http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1 http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1
DigitalSea 11y ago
I hate to sound cynical here, but is it possible that "extreme poverty" is expected to drop below 10% because many of those unfortunately in such a bracket have low life expectancy due to poor diet and living conditions? I hope not.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  I was thinking the same. Maybe poors are dying faster than before. Or maybe the world bank is simply wrong. "The number of people in extreme powerty could be greatly underestimated": http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2015/apr/21/number-people-extreme-poverty-overseas-development-institute-report-could-be-greatly-underestimated http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2015/...
- lkbm 11y ago
  Access to clean water has improved. Infant mortality has dropped. Infectious disease rates have dropped. Nope. It's because poor people are getting access to better infrastructure, better healthcare, better education, and better job opportunities.
waroc 11y ago
While the statistics are updated, the definition of "extreme poverty" just fails to keep up. The moment people have food, they want lots of food, then they want delicious food, then they want more exclusive food, and so on. There'd be no problem if the supply of food (resources) can keep up with human's greed, which never happens.
gpestana 11y ago
According to this article what's the extreme poverty threshold for World Bank, after all? It says first: "Extreme poverty has long been defined as living on or below $1.25 a day, but the World Bank’s adjustment now sets the poverty line at $1.90 a day." And then, at the end: "The World Bank first introduced a global poverty line in 1990, setting it at $1 a day. It was adjusted last in 2008, when the group raised it to $1.25 a day." Got a bit confused.
- gpestana 11y ago
  More info about it (and clearer) here: http://data.worldbank.org/news/extreme-poverty-rates-continue-to-fall http://data.worldbank.org/news/extreme-poverty-rates-continu...

283 points by hliyan 11y ago

A lot of numbers in this article, but how much would it cost us to solve poverty? And for different values of the poverty line?

fiatjaf 11y ago
Cost us? Are you crazy? You mean you want to take a lot of money and throw at something and you imagine it will solve anything?
- Matumio 11y ago
  Obviously the extreme lack of money, also known as "poverty", can be solved with money. Assuming that you don't throw the money at "something" but at "somebody", this "somebody" will by definition not be poor any more.
  - fiatjaf 11y ago
    If the criteria for "poverty" is "to not be able to get at least x quantity of money per month", to "solve" this you'll need at least to provide that x quantity of money every month. But your definition of "solution" will still be crazy if you do that.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      The point was to make it clear why it is obviously possible to solve poverty by throwing money at it. Now you have a worst case cost. Then the question is how much cheaper can you make it. E.g. how much investment and in what would it take before the network effects and increased trade will ensure there are enough jobs to lift those who can work out of poverty, and provide enough tax revenues for governments in question to care for those who can't work.
    - Matumio 11y ago
      Evidence actually shows that direct cash transfers to the poor can be quite effective and lasting. Have a look at the research done by givedirectly, or this one: https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39 https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...
- xj9 11y ago
  Responsibly throwing money at problems is exactly how you solve them. There are a lot of factors that we know of that contribute to continued poverty and cause suffering for those subject to it. This would include, among other things: 1. Universal education (free for anyone interested) 2. Universal healthcare (also free) 3. Improved housing 4. Reliable, clean utilities Sure, this stuff might be expensive, but the long term benefit of having more healthy, educated people around significantly outweighs the cost.
Shivetya 11y ago
you solve property by having governments that respect citizen's property rights, having good rule of law, and a sound money policy usually with freedom of exchange. government managed economies tend to only benefit those in power or already well off. in other words, you create an environment where entrepreneurs can successfully operate as people tend to strive more when they see their efforts pay off and those pay offs are not subject to the whims of others
- amelius 11y ago
  Obviously, yes, this is the preferred long-term solution. This doesn't buy anything for the people suffering at this very instant. Also, if you are struggling to survive, how are you going to even think about getting education?
  - jpadkins 11y ago
    Give a man a fish, he becomes dependant on your fish. Yes, teaching him to fish takes longer, but it's better. > how are you going to even think about getting education? You start with an education on how to survive better. You don't need to start with an advanced education.
    - Matumio 11y ago
      You can teach people how to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, but some of them have no boots, so it's not entirely fair.
      - swasheck 11y ago
        life's not fair ... but expecting someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots is cruel and denies the advantage that "you" (the teacher) most likely started with a pair of boots, at least.
    - swasheck 11y ago
      the whole teach-a-man-to-fish thing is a nice saying that really helps with things outside of the jurisdiction of macroeconomics. at its core, it makes more sense to me to interpret it from the one lending aid than the one being aided. in other words, it's advice given to the teacher to seek systematic justice and fairness and not simply engage in simple, punctiliar acts of mercy. however, neither of these should exist in a vacuum. act with mercy and work toward justice. the hard part about this is that there needs to be more of an emphasis on understanding and contextualizing justice within any given culture. "fishing" in guyana may look very different than "fishing" in guinea which may look very different than "fishing" in the philippines.
crdb 11y ago
To help you answer that literally: according to Simon Mann who did it successfully twice and failed once [1], a successful mercenary invasion and peace-keeping effort in a country like Sierra Leone cost around 1 million GBP in the mid-1990s. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Havoc-Simon-Mann/dp/1743142307 http://www.amazon.com/Cry-Havoc-Simon-Mann/dp/1743142307
corysama 11y ago
With some creativity, reducing poverty can be a profitable enterprise. http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/may/21/technology-empowers-the-poorest/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02008/may/21/technology-empowers...

briantakita 11y ago

Their definition of poverty is earning below a certain dollar amount ($1.90/day). Their measure of poverty has nothing to do with the access to quality water, quality food, land, quality of life, freedom, personal autonomy, health, safety, etc. Many indigenous people lived on $0.00/day yet had a higher quality of life; before outside influences (i.e. civilization, imperial, western) disrupted their ecosystems & way of life.

cuchoi 11y ago
Income is a proxy. There are multidimensional definitions of poverty, but they are too hard to measure and compare across countries.
- msandford 11y ago
  Right, but I think that's partially the point. When you try and boil things down to a simple number, you lose a ton of information. Perhaps it's not wise to do this extreme metric-izing as it will probably just lead to the metrics being gamed rather than actual improvements.
mason240 11y ago
They were also living as hunter gathers in very sparsely populated areas. The earth can't support 8 billion people with berry gathering and deer hunting.
afsina 11y ago
Still, this is a relative improvement. There are many other indications (such as infant death ratio) supporting this.
- briantakita 11y ago
  As some of the quantitative metrics improve, many of the metrics (particularly of qualitative nature) degrade. Think ecosystems, our usage of resources, quality of life for the average person, etc. > There are many other indications (such as infant death ratio) supporting this. This is one of the many metrics that matter; much more than the percentage of people making > $1.90/day.

alienjr 11y ago

Thank you globalization.

afsina 11y ago
Perhaps better is to say, "Thank you for opening the trade gates".
- vlan0 11y ago
  Is this the primary force behind a change such as this? After watching the documentary called 'Life and Debt', I found the idea of "free trade" in poorer countries to be very different than i would have first thought. It seems free trade in the case of Jamaica resulted in a large import of goods, to the point where local Jamaica could not compete with the huge multinational corps from other countries.
  - afsina 11y ago
    >Is this the primary force behind a change such as this? I read this in many places, granted, they all may have some bias (You can make a search with "reasons declining extreme poverty"). But, I personally do believe it is the main reason.
  - afsina 11y ago
    The real question is, how did this change the overall population's well being in Jamaica? I think most of the time some suffers from the results of the free trade but much more go to a better state than before.
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    Well that benefits the consumers. And due to comparative advantage, even competing against imports with free open trade is better than being closed off.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      It only benefits consumers if they still have jobs, and assuming the jobs still pay well enough for the cheaper goods to actually also be cheaper in relative terms. That may be the case, and one would hope the local businesses are able to adjust or that new jobs follow. But it is certainly not automatically the case that having your local market flooded with cheaper goods is better for consumers.

lumberjack 11y ago

>Extreme poverty has long been defined as living on or below $1.25 a day, but the World Bank’s adjustment now sets the poverty line at $1.90 a day. That is intentionally misleading. How about "extreme poverty" = "still suffering malnutrition" + "still lacking even basic education" + "still lacking any access to healthcare" The $1.90 tells nothing and it is also dependant on purchasing power. If somebody was making $200/month in the US that would also be extreme poverty.

cuchoi 11y ago
The poverty and extreme poverty line are adjusted in each country according to purchasing power. You are right that somebody making $200/month in the US would be classified as extreme poor (and someone in India would not be considered extreme poor if he earns $200/month). I don't see the problem with this.
hansjorg 11y ago
> still lacking even basic education The world literacy rate and trend is supposedly pretty good. However, there are large differences in how literacy is measured and huge uncertainties in the numbers. In some countries you're considered to be literate if you can sign your name, in others they just report 99-100% without doing any measurements. UNESCO have plans for a better test to be applied globally, but I'm not sure any test that would lower the numbers would ever be welcomed.
ptaipale 11y ago
You really should watch this Hans Rosling's TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg It's not misleading. Malnutrition is going down, lack of education is going down, lack of access to healthcare is going down. The more you read the Guardian, the more you have misconceptions about how bad the world is developing.

fiatjaf 11y ago

That's crazy. Inflation is enourmous (and inflation is not the same as GDP variations). Any criteria that uses dollars cannot have any value in a historical series. If you get a chart of how many people live with less than $2 per month you'll probably see a continuous steady decline. Why? Inflation.

ekiru 11y ago
The World Bank periodically adjusts the threshold upwards for this reason. In 1990, they used $1/day. In 2008, they adjusted it to $1.25/day. Now they are adjusting it to $1.90/day.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  And you imagine that in 25 year the total inflation was only of 90%?
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    I tend to think that the World Bank adjusts this amount in an appropriate manner. If you think their methodology is wrong, you should explain why.
    - fiatjaf 11y ago
      Why shouldn't be you explaning why do you believe in their methodology? That's crazy. You don't even know what methodology they use and you are taking your time to defend them here.
      - rconti 11y ago
        Because the World Bank is a large organization with many paid staff tasked with devising and implementing their methodology. You're two random people on the Internet. I'm siding with the World Bank, not with the internet commenter who demands another internet commenter defend experts. You're the one making the extraordinary claim here.

arca_vorago 11y ago

While the middle class is being gutted, pushing more people into "just barely poverty".

nugget 11y ago
That's the thing though: in the US, inequality between rich and poor is widening, but globally, it is narrowing. There are more global middle class now than ever before. It's hard to have this both ways until we approach closer to a post scarcity economy.
- clavalle 11y ago
  I don't think post scarcity is a precondition of post poverty. The more economically advanced nations need to reach income and worker/environmental protection parity with less economically advanced nations. I'd prefer that be done by raising the level of the less advanced nations rather than lowering the level of the more advanced nations but that's a different discussion.
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    I don't think it's a different discussion, I think it's the discussion we should be having, because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Due to globalism other nations are rising, it's true, but the argument I keep hearing is that, "well, now they are rising they are going to compete with us and America just has to get used to a lower level of living standards than it's used to..." and I have major issues with this point of view, largely because of the pretense that globalism was good for America and just now suddenly won't be. I think that NAFTA (and the soon to pass travesty that is the TPP) are globalization tools that negatively affect the American worker, and largely this is due to the undermining of the idea of national sovereignty and the dismissal of protectionism that I think is premature. I think protectionism should be a duty of a nation-state to it's citizens, because until I can call myself a citizen of the world, I think my own government has a duty to protect it's and my self-interests, one of those being economic stability and growth. In this case this is my primary issue with the supranational oligarchy. They operate on a global scale, without regard to borders, and while they formerly exploited the third world, now that the third world has been ravaged so much, they are turning inward to their own populaces, and have begun eating us from the inside out, extracting wealth. Corporations have a charter from the government, and corporations that undermine national sovereignty and interests should have their charters revoked (as Max Keiser would say,executed). If we don't curtail these powers now we are going to wake up with a global government of oligarchy unaccountable to the people. (who are sure to say "but look at how much better off everyone is now! it was all for the greater good!") The key element to remember is is that class warfare is real, and the rich are winning. Globally. It's not just about money either, it's about freedoms and liberties.

cjbenedikt 11y ago

"More and more analysts, though, are pointing out that this claim is little more than an accounting trick: UN officials have massaged the numbers to make it seem as though poverty has been reduced, when in fact it has increased." http://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_design_thinking_to_eradicate_poverty_creation http://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_design_thinking_to_erad...

vidarh 11y ago
This one (linked from yours) is even more directly addressing the trickery involved: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-great-poverty-reductio-201481211590729809.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/08/exposing-gr...
- Isamu 11y ago
  > the Bank shifted the IPL from the original $1.02 (at 1985 PPP) to $1.08 (at 1993 PPP), which, given inflation, was lower in real terms. I don't understand this, and they don't explain. What is PPP, if not "real terms"? Plus I hate it when somebody makes a claim like this without actually showing the numbers, or creating a graph - it makes the claim less plausible than what they are complaining about. Otherwise the article has valid points, mostly about watering down goals, and the lack of real progress in poverty reduction. Note also that the OP is about the poverty rate, not about poverty being in decline, which is in fact increasing all too quickly.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    I believe what he's saying is that 1.02 1985-dollars (PPP adjusted) is greater than 1.08 1993-dollars (PPP adjusted). Clicking the first two inflation calculators I found on Google and assuming their numbers are right (they both gave the same result), it does seem that if they had inflation adjusted the number using US rates, the original USD 1.02 should have been USD 1.37 by 1993. EDIT: It's of course important to keep in mind that inflation rates are different across the world, and presumably the world bank at least will insist that they accounted for real term price changes for the relevant goods, so I still don't know how relevant this point in the article actually is.

knieveltech 11y ago

You could set an arbitrary dollar amount and simply wait for inflation to bring that number into range. How much of this is real improvement?

tim333 11y ago
It's inflation adjusted kind of.

cjbenedikt 11y ago

The Hypocrisy of ‘Helping’ the Poor http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocrisy-of-helping-the-poor.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the-hypocri...

tim333 11y ago
That's kind of on a different thing - rich americans giving a bit to charity after outsourcing US jobs.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  That article paints rich Americans as pretty awesome people. First they lift millions of Chinese out of poverty and reduce inequality by shipping jobs in China. Then they donate some of the profits to less valuable causes like reducing relative poverty in the US. The author of that article is kind of clueless, though - US-style "poverty" is not remotely like Zimbabwe poverty.
  - cjbenedikt 11y ago
    Actually it is. Having worked with NGOs in Africa as well as in Baltimore now - it's pretty much the same. Life expectancy, purchasing power and income inequality. Sad to say!
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      In Zimbabwe, 33% of the country has a flush toilet and over 10% of the country does open defecation. 75% have access to clean water. (Stats from the first hit on google.) Are you asserting that Baltimore has less than 99% flush toilet usage or 99% clean water access? http://www.urbangateway.org/news/more-million-people-without-toilets-zimbabwe http://www.urbangateway.org/news/more-million-people-without...

werber 11y ago

Have any groups outside of the World Bank confirmed this statistic?

myth_buster 11y ago

I'm always wary of the numbers that are put out. There has been long history of fudging numbers to fit a narrative. The unemployment numbers in the US comes to mind as such an example. So, the question is how realistic is the extreme poverty line. And this doesn't help it much: The World Bank first introduced a global poverty line in 1990, setting it at $1 a day. It was adjusted last in 2008, when the group raised it to $1.25 a day. $1 seems like such a convenient number to pick! An interesting graph will be to plot the extreme poverty threshold against inflation _in_emerging_countries_. With the falling emerging market currencies and extreme inflation (hyper-inflation perhaps), I don't think that $1.90 a day cuts it.

abhishivsaxena 11y ago
WB fixed it in terms of constant International $, with base year 2005 - if I can remember correctly. So it's already inflation adjusted because it's at constant prices and not nominal prices. Having said that, in most developing countries, being on the poverty line would mean that you have just enough for clothing and feeding yourself. Nevertheless, it's exciting to see millions graduating out of it in just a decade. Specially for me, because I'm Indian. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY Population below $1.25 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $1.25 a day at 2005 international prices Also you might find this interesting - http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:22510787~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH... Moreover, the choice between $1.00 a day and $1.25 a day (or even higher lines) makes no difference to the Bank’s claim that measures of absolute poverty have fallen in the developing world over 1981-2005.
cjbprime 11y ago
It's the purchasing power of $1.25/day, rather than the absolute value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
dragontamer 11y ago
> The unemployment numbers in the US comes to mind as such an example. The unemployment numbers in the US are reported as such (ie: only reporting the number of people looking for jobs vs people employed) because they've been consistently reported like that since the late 1800s. The "real" unemployment numbers are still taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/cps/ http://www.bls.gov/cps/ Every statistic you want is there.

theworstshill 11y ago

Thats a good measure, but I am pessimistic about poverty ever being rooted out completely (absent of a technological invention that creates abundant energy for very cheap, e.g. fusion, antimatter later on). The reality is, poverty can be cultural. In the west a saying like "they can pay me little but I'll work even less" would be considered absurd. In certain countries - its a folk tradition. Another problem is a self-inflicted brain drain. Smart people with potential don't want to live in festering shitholes where property rights are not respected, rule of law unexistant and hence economic opportunity absent.

mrbig4545 11y ago

that's terrible. 10% is far too high

bluthru 11y ago

Thank you automation.

ctdonath 11y ago

For all the discussion (i.e.: heated biased arguing) about poverty, seems nobody has addressed an objective definition of what constitutes "poor". Why is the world poverty line at $1.25/day, but the US poverty line is 20x that? We need a quantitative analysis, starting with basic caloric/nutritional/BTU/water/power/data/etc needs (independent of arbitrary numbers imputed by fiat/floating currencies) for cost of bare sustenance, then work from there recognizing that varying geography, demographics, et al adjusts that cost, then admitting that different cultures further adjust those basic costs. Without such objective analysis of basic sustenance, fudging numbers is trivial.

AlisdairO 11y ago
Note that this is discussing 'extreme poverty', which is distinct from 'poverty'.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  Very good point, still, what does this include. I would think of extreme poverty as those who have extremely limited access to food, water and shelter. Fortunately that is legitimately becoming a smaller and smaller portion of the world I believe so this is a useful stat to track. Still, I have no idea if that's what's being represented here.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It's a well defined term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty (of course, they are redefining it, but there is lots of information available about how the number is set)
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Indeed, my next question would involve objectively differentiating the two. I'm starting with the presumption that being above the bottom line at least constitutes a sustainable[1] existence, if not a comfortable one. [1] "sustainable" as in one can live indefinitely unto a normal lifespan, assorted diseases & incidents aside; don't confuse with "green" energy & resources.

leroy_masochist 11y ago

I think a per-capita statistic is a bit flawed in this case, although I understand why they use it -- the math is very simple. The problem with per-capita measurement of income for very poor people is that what you really care about is per-family income because of the economies of scale involved in so many of the goods they consume -- cooking fuel, etc. In places where poverty like this exists, a family of 8 living on $8/day ($1 per capita) is often better-off than a family of 4 living on $5/day ($1.25 per capita). Regardless of whatever methodological flaws exist in various metrics, this is a positive trend that is (hopefully) only going to get better as technology increases the efficiency of various systems of distributing goods and services.

littletimmy 11y ago

Very skeptical of this idea. Were more than 10% of humans were in "extreme poverty" when we lived as hunter-gatherers? Were all humans in "extreme poverty" at that time? "Extreme poverty" is caused when capitalism invades an area, appropriates all assets, and then the people basically either have to sell themselves into extremely-low-paid labor or starve.

wyager 11y ago
>"Extreme poverty" is caused when capitalism invades an area, I take it you haven't read any pre-industrial-revolution history books lately?
Arnt 11y ago
Two comments: You could make the same point about nobility, all the way back to the rulers of the first cities. And hunter-gatherers too live in dire poverty when the hunting and gathering fails, as it does some years. Fewer than 10% of years?
raymondgh 11y ago
Agreed! First time below 10% since mankind's creation of poverty. I can't comment on the causality of capitalism, but I agree with Mandela that poverty is manmade.
- wyager 11y ago
  Are you one of those people who believes in the biblical history where people lived to be 200 years old and such? At what point in the past was the average person better off than they are now?
  - raymondgh 11y ago
    Before you posted this comment :) In all seriousness, I'm interpreting poverty as lacking the basic capacity to participate in society. In that sense, the average score of something like the human development index is not relevant to whether or not systemic exclusion of classes of people in society is prevalent. The organization of resource-controlling groups in industry and government are generally what determines the social and economic mobility of a population. Before some point in civilized history, these constructs did not exist to create such vast disparity in human dignity and wealth. In other words, neither the cause nor the existence of poverty is measurable by the average standard of living.

sp332 11y ago

Is it because they all died?

andrewmutz 11y ago

This is an issue where there is widespread misunderstanding. Here is a great opinion piece about how the way news is reported contributes to this chronic misinformation: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-t... "One survey found that two-thirds of Americans believed that the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost doubled over the last 20 years. Another 29 percent believed that the proportion had remained roughly the same. "That’s 95 percent of Americans — who are utterly wrong. In fact, the proportion of the world’s population living in extreme poverty hasn’t doubled or remained the same. It has fallen by more than half..."

jessaustin 11y ago
There might be people who think reducing extreme poverty is more important than telling the truth about it. That is certainly the case with several other issues...
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Dishonest for a good cause, wonderful, they have now lost the high ground.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    I'm not sure that there is a "high ground" for complicated issues like this. Everyone comes to the issue with preexisting opinions and will use measurement methods that conform to those opinions. So it is in a sense a reasonable shortcut to just ignore distractions like "truth".
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      This is the left's main problem, they need more and more people on government assistance or they lose power.
    - 11y ago

tkinom 11y ago

Does the "Amish" fit into the poor or Extreme poverty category? (by US standard) I believe they are happier than most of the population. Gov might not like them too much as their contribution to gdp/Tax might be less than the "normal" folks. On the other hand, their demand on "gov service" should be a lot less too.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
What makes you think that Amish are poor? Many of them are quite wealthy.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  I don't think the GP was saying the Amish are poor per se. I think the GP's point is that, from the perspective of the survey, the Amish's income and/or expenditures might look the same as someone in poverty, even though their quality of life is much better.
  - lkbm 11y ago
    The line they use isn't "what percentage of people can't afford a TV". It's more along the lines of "what percentage of people can afford adequate food and clean water".

henryaj 11y ago

It's incredibly exciting to think that an end to global poverty could be in sight. Shameless plug: GiveWell [0] and Giving What We Can [1] are non-profits that evaluate the effectiveness of development and global poverty charities. Some are hundreds or thousands of times as effective as others when it comes to saving and extending lives. Those groups help you decide where your money should go to maximise your impact. [0]: http://www.givewell.org/ http://www.givewell.org/ [1]: http://givingwhatwecan.org/ http://givingwhatwecan.org/

marincounty 11y ago

Two days ago we had an article about this topic, maybe the same article? This article claims they just changed the baseline poverty rate. I think they changed other numbers, but can't prove it. Two days ago, I went to the world bank calculator and the poverty calculations were based on $1.25. I and other HN'ers noticed the calculator didn't seem to account for inflation. Two days ago I played around with the calculator and used $1.90 and $2.00 as a "the input for the poverty line". I was getting final poverty levels that were doubling. With my numbers the poverty level was not below 10%. I did the same experiment today, and someone updated all the numbers, or just changed them? Or, I my memory is wrong. (I have not confirmed this on The wayback machine.) My point is two days ago at $1.90 the poverty rate was close to 20%? Today, my calculations are not close to what they were two days ago? http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1 http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/index.htm?1

DigitalSea 11y ago

I hate to sound cynical here, but is it possible that "extreme poverty" is expected to drop below 10% because many of those unfortunately in such a bracket have low life expectancy due to poor diet and living conditions? I hope not.

pvaldes 11y ago
I was thinking the same. Maybe poors are dying faster than before. Or maybe the world bank is simply wrong. "The number of people in extreme powerty could be greatly underestimated": http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2015/apr/21/number-people-extreme-poverty-overseas-development-institute-report-could-be-greatly-underestimated http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2015/...
lkbm 11y ago
Access to clean water has improved. Infant mortality has dropped. Infectious disease rates have dropped. Nope. It's because poor people are getting access to better infrastructure, better healthcare, better education, and better job opportunities.

waroc 11y ago

While the statistics are updated, the definition of "extreme poverty" just fails to keep up. The moment people have food, they want lots of food, then they want delicious food, then they want more exclusive food, and so on. There'd be no problem if the supply of food (resources) can keep up with human's greed, which never happens.

gpestana 11y ago

According to this article what's the extreme poverty threshold for World Bank, after all? It says first: "Extreme poverty has long been defined as living on or below $1.25 a day, but the World Bank’s adjustment now sets the poverty line at $1.90 a day." And then, at the end: "The World Bank first introduced a global poverty line in 1990, setting it at $1 a day. It was adjusted last in 2008, when the group raised it to $1.25 a day." Got a bit confused.

gpestana 11y ago
More info about it (and clearer) here: http://data.worldbank.org/news/extreme-poverty-rates-continue-to-fall http://data.worldbank.org/news/extreme-poverty-rates-continu...