5 ms·

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 wo

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.
  - AlisdairO 11y ago
    Just guessing here, but it would seem reasonable to define extreme poverty as deprivation that substantially impedes one's ability to maintain a decent life expectancy. I might also include very poor access to (say) basic education. 'Poverty' is a rather broader definition, including issues like housing affordability, decent food variety, access to secondary/higher education, perhaps life stability (for example, no access to permanent employment).
devinhelton 11y ago
Yes, exactly. The numbers I would like to see measured would be: - percent of people who can afford 2,500 calories of food and 60 grams of animal protein a day (where afford has some standard definition, such as can pay for the consumption using less than half of their income). - percent of people who have access to clean water - percent of people with indoor plumbing - percent of people with access to electricity in the home. - percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month It is impossible to know what "$2 a day" actually means. The number gets adjusted for purchasing power, but there is an infinite amount of room in that calculation for governments to fudge the data. Many people in the third world can afford a cell phone, but not afford enough protein in their diet, does that mean they are richer or poorer than someone one hundred years ago without a cell phone but who can afford meat? There is no objective way to answer that question. Since I do not know all the subjective decisions made in doing the purchasing power adjustment, the ultimate number tells me nothing.
- GordonS 11y ago
  Why specifically animal protein and not just protein? (I'm not a vegetarian or anything like that, it's a serious question)
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Animal protein is generally both more desirable and more expensive. Generally animal protein is a complete protein source, whereas most plants are not.
  - devinhelton 11y ago
    Well, ideally we could measure and track the stats for both. Animal protein is generally a more complete protein. If we tracked just "protein" do we count incomplete proteins? Do we count textured vegetable protein?
- GordonS 11y ago
  > percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month I don't think I'd include Internet access in any definition of 'extreme poverty'.
lhorie 11y ago
In south american countries, there's a concept called a "basic basket" ( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canasta_b%C3%A1sica_de_alimentos https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canasta_b%C3%A1sica_de_aliment... ) ( https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_b%C3%A1sica https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_b%C3%A1sica ), which, while not standardized, can at least give you a ballpark cost of the basic food needs of an average household for a month. One could conceivably figure out a reasonably not-out-of-thin-air number for each country by cross referencing the items in an arbitrary basic basket package and supermarket food prices in each country.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  "Market basket" is in fact how inflation is typically measured universally.
maxerickson 11y ago
That's more or less what the World Bank is doing. The dollars per day are PPP adjusted, which attempts to account for all of those things you are talking about. http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/international-poverty-line-has-just-been-raised-190-day-global-poverty-basically-unchanged-how-even http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/international-pov... I guess there is lots of room to quibble over how objective it is, but it is at least starting from the idea of doing an objective quantative analysis of the issue.
cuchoi 11y ago
There has been lots of discussion on this topic. Many countries have a multidimensional measure of poverty, and there is also an international measure for it (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/multidimensional-poverty-inde...). The biggest problem is measuring it, so one standard income-based extreme poverty line makes sense in order to compare across countries. Also, like I said in another comment, this measure of poverty is power purchase parity adjusted, so currency changes should not affect.
Wintamute 11y ago
Where are your references that this, or some similar methodology, isn't how the World Bank arrived at its figures? Don't you think they would have thought pretty seriously about what an objective measure for "extremely poor" is? Perhaps $1.90/day is a statistically valid proxy when thinking globally based on their methodology, perhaps it isn't ~ I don't know and I'm none the wiser from your comment. And where's your evidence that the numbers were "fudged"?
- ctdonath 11y ago
  You're asking me to prove a negative in response to me asking for establishment of positive standards. Sure, the WB probably has some well thought out criteria - and I don't know where to find them, and have reason to believe most everyone else pontificating on the subject aren't sharing those criteria. I've not seen evidence ANYONE has worked out basic human needs to the point that anyone being given such satisfying resources can, and is, declared "not poor". Of course you're none the wiser from my comment. It was a question (admittedly not bluntly phrased as such): what objectively constitutes "poor"? Many in this thread decry the fudging of numbers in the discussion; I'd like something objective which can't really be fudged. ETA: following another posters' suggested link, seems the WB admittedly arrived at that $1.90/day number by averaging the declared poverty lines of low-GDP/capita countries. That's not the quantitative objective analysis I'm looking for.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Most of the low GDP poverty lines were established using a cost of basic needs methodology. This looks like the same pdf that World Bank paywalls: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf
mc32 11y ago
You make some great points that measuring could be improved. Never the less so long as their method remains consistent, it shows the world getting richer or poorer relatively speaking. For all the antiglobalization sentiment, I can't imagine this happening without globalization. If the workers of the developed world had put an economic moat around themselves and preserved their trend in rising purchasing power and had wages increase undeterred by labor competition from both shipping jobs overseas and allowing mass immigration of unskilled labor, we'd not have seen these improvements and those places, given the pop growth they experience over the last sixty years, would have been severely more impoverished.
keithwhor 11y ago
Sure, the poverty line is somewhat arbitrary. Poverty and general well-being are multi-dimensional concepts that are hard to reduce to a single number. I think you're being a bit pedantic, though. The absolute number of those living in poverty can change with the stroke of a pen according to an arbitrary definition, sure. My interpretation is that the point of the article, and the thing that should be celebrated, is that life is on average getting better for the world community (even if only according to one metric). I'm sure the data scientist in all of us wants to see "well-being" broken down by vertical. For one, I'm sure the data you're looking for exists, is likely accessible, and it would be intellectually satisfying to our curiosity (who wants to do the legwork? :)). Two, I'd be skeptical of the assumption that they'd show anything but a trend in the same direction (though maybe not all at the same rate).
ctdonath 11y ago
Aside: I wish HN had sparklines alongside the "points" for one's posts. The up/down-voting on this thread has been pretty impressive.

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.
- AlisdairO 11y ago
  Just guessing here, but it would seem reasonable to define extreme poverty as deprivation that substantially impedes one's ability to maintain a decent life expectancy. I might also include very poor access to (say) basic education. 'Poverty' is a rather broader definition, including issues like housing affordability, decent food variety, access to secondary/higher education, perhaps life stability (for example, no access to permanent employment).

devinhelton 11y ago

Yes, exactly. The numbers I would like to see measured would be: - percent of people who can afford 2,500 calories of food and 60 grams of animal protein a day (where afford has some standard definition, such as can pay for the consumption using less than half of their income). - percent of people who have access to clean water - percent of people with indoor plumbing - percent of people with access to electricity in the home. - percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month It is impossible to know what "$2 a day" actually means. The number gets adjusted for purchasing power, but there is an infinite amount of room in that calculation for governments to fudge the data. Many people in the third world can afford a cell phone, but not afford enough protein in their diet, does that mean they are richer or poorer than someone one hundred years ago without a cell phone but who can afford meat? There is no objective way to answer that question. Since I do not know all the subjective decisions made in doing the purchasing power adjustment, the ultimate number tells me nothing.

GordonS 11y ago
Why specifically animal protein and not just protein? (I'm not a vegetarian or anything like that, it's a serious question)
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Animal protein is generally both more desirable and more expensive. Generally animal protein is a complete protein source, whereas most plants are not.
- devinhelton 11y ago
  Well, ideally we could measure and track the stats for both. Animal protein is generally a more complete protein. If we tracked just "protein" do we count incomplete proteins? Do we count textured vegetable protein?
GordonS 11y ago
> percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month I don't think I'd include Internet access in any definition of 'extreme poverty'.

lhorie 11y ago

In south american countries, there's a concept called a "basic basket" ( https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canasta_b%C3%A1sica_de_alimentos https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canasta_b%C3%A1sica_de_aliment... ) ( https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_b%C3%A1sica https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_b%C3%A1sica ), which, while not standardized, can at least give you a ballpark cost of the basic food needs of an average household for a month. One could conceivably figure out a reasonably not-out-of-thin-air number for each country by cross referencing the items in an arbitrary basic basket package and supermarket food prices in each country.

dredmorbius 11y ago
"Market basket" is in fact how inflation is typically measured universally.

maxerickson 11y ago

That's more or less what the World Bank is doing. The dollars per day are PPP adjusted, which attempts to account for all of those things you are talking about. http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/international-poverty-line-has-just-been-raised-190-day-global-poverty-basically-unchanged-how-even http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/international-pov... I guess there is lots of room to quibble over how objective it is, but it is at least starting from the idea of doing an objective quantative analysis of the issue.

cuchoi 11y ago

There has been lots of discussion on this topic. Many countries have a multidimensional measure of poverty, and there is also an international measure for it (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/multidimensional-poverty-index-mpi http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/multidimensional-poverty-inde...). The biggest problem is measuring it, so one standard income-based extreme poverty line makes sense in order to compare across countries. Also, like I said in another comment, this measure of poverty is power purchase parity adjusted, so currency changes should not affect.

Wintamute 11y ago

Where are your references that this, or some similar methodology, isn't how the World Bank arrived at its figures? Don't you think they would have thought pretty seriously about what an objective measure for "extremely poor" is? Perhaps $1.90/day is a statistically valid proxy when thinking globally based on their methodology, perhaps it isn't ~ I don't know and I'm none the wiser from your comment. And where's your evidence that the numbers were "fudged"?

ctdonath 11y ago
You're asking me to prove a negative in response to me asking for establishment of positive standards. Sure, the WB probably has some well thought out criteria - and I don't know where to find them, and have reason to believe most everyone else pontificating on the subject aren't sharing those criteria. I've not seen evidence ANYONE has worked out basic human needs to the point that anyone being given such satisfying resources can, and is, declared "not poor". Of course you're none the wiser from my comment. It was a question (admittedly not bluntly phrased as such): what objectively constitutes "poor"? Many in this thread decry the fudging of numbers in the discussion; I'd like something objective which can't really be fudged. ETA: following another posters' suggested link, seems the WB admittedly arrived at that $1.90/day number by averaging the declared poverty lines of low-GDP/capita countries. That's not the quantitative objective analysis I'm looking for.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Most of the low GDP poverty lines were established using a cost of basic needs methodology. This looks like the same pdf that World Bank paywalls: http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6645038.pdf

mc32 11y ago

You make some great points that measuring could be improved. Never the less so long as their method remains consistent, it shows the world getting richer or poorer relatively speaking. For all the antiglobalization sentiment, I can't imagine this happening without globalization. If the workers of the developed world had put an economic moat around themselves and preserved their trend in rising purchasing power and had wages increase undeterred by labor competition from both shipping jobs overseas and allowing mass immigration of unskilled labor, we'd not have seen these improvements and those places, given the pop growth they experience over the last sixty years, would have been severely more impoverished.

keithwhor 11y ago

Sure, the poverty line is somewhat arbitrary. Poverty and general well-being are multi-dimensional concepts that are hard to reduce to a single number. I think you're being a bit pedantic, though. The absolute number of those living in poverty can change with the stroke of a pen according to an arbitrary definition, sure. My interpretation is that the point of the article, and the thing that should be celebrated, is that life is on average getting better for the world community (even if only according to one metric). I'm sure the data scientist in all of us wants to see "well-being" broken down by vertical. For one, I'm sure the data you're looking for exists, is likely accessible, and it would be intellectually satisfying to our curiosity (who wants to do the legwork? :)). Two, I'd be skeptical of the assumption that they'd show anything but a trend in the same direction (though maybe not all at the same rate).

ctdonath 11y ago

Aside: I wish HN had sparklines alongside the "points" for one's posts. The up/down-voting on this thread has been pretty impressive.