4 ms·

That article is highlighting deeply misleading facts. For example: "between 1990 and 2010 there was an increase of 371 million people living on less than $5 a d

by ef4 11y ago

That article is highlighting deeply misleading facts. For example: "between 1990 and 2010 there was an increase of 371 million people living on less than $5 a day". But during the same time period, the world added 1.6 billion people, and even using your source's own data, that implies that the fraction of people living on less than $5 a day dropped from 75% to 60%. In short, the claim that poverty is getting worse is utter bullshit. It requires either climate-change-denialist levels of willful ignorance, or a xenophobic definition of "poverty" that only counts people living in your own much-richer-than-global-average country.

mbostleman 11y ago
"...or a xenophobic definition of "poverty" that only counts people living in your own much-richer-than-global-average country." In which case you are no longer measuring poverty. You are measuring inequality.
- collyw 11y ago
  Agan it probably depends how you define poverty. If you live somewhere where the land provides enough food for your needs every day, you probably don't need $2 per day. If you define poverty as never knowing if you will have enough for the next meal then the $2 cutoff is again probably fairly irrelevant.
webXL 11y ago
Good catch, but what does climate-change denial have to do with this? No, really, your "science is settled" attitude detracts from your case.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
You are looking at it in relative terms (total_in_poverty / total). However, according to your own analysis of the poster's source, the absolute number of people in poverty has increased a lot. >In short, the claim that poverty is getting worse is utter bullshit. 371 million more people in poverty is not "getting worse"?
- ef4 11y ago
  Worse vs which baseline scenario? You're implying that your baseline scenario is a constant absolute number of poor people in the world. But that scenario is not really constant. If things are getting neither better nor worse, the children of the poor are as poor as their parents, and the absolute number of poor people keeps climbing. If nothing got better, the number of additional poor people would have been at least 611 million, and that is an under-estimate because poorer people have higher fertility rates. So yes, "only" 371 million more people in poverty necessarily means things are getting better, when sheer demographics without economic growth would have pushed the number 2x higher.
squids 11y ago
Did you factor in inflation into your calculation? By 2010 that 1990 $5 is worth $8.80. So you'd have to look at how many people were living on below that number to get your equivalent. If i remember correctly, a 1981 $1 is now worth $2.50 if you factor in inflation so the fact they've chose to lower the bar at $1.90 reeks of politics.

by ef4 11y ago

mbostleman 11y ago

"...or a xenophobic definition of "poverty" that only counts people living in your own much-richer-than-global-average country." In which case you are no longer measuring poverty. You are measuring inequality.

collyw 11y ago
Agan it probably depends how you define poverty. If you live somewhere where the land provides enough food for your needs every day, you probably don't need $2 per day. If you define poverty as never knowing if you will have enough for the next meal then the $2 cutoff is again probably fairly irrelevant.

webXL 11y ago

Good catch, but what does climate-change denial have to do with this? No, really, your "science is settled" attitude detracts from your case.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

You are looking at it in relative terms (total_in_poverty / total). However, according to your own analysis of the poster's source, the absolute number of people in poverty has increased a lot. >In short, the claim that poverty is getting worse is utter bullshit. 371 million more people in poverty is not "getting worse"?

ef4 11y ago
Worse vs which baseline scenario? You're implying that your baseline scenario is a constant absolute number of poor people in the world. But that scenario is not really constant. If things are getting neither better nor worse, the children of the poor are as poor as their parents, and the absolute number of poor people keeps climbing. If nothing got better, the number of additional poor people would have been at least 611 million, and that is an under-estimate because poorer people have higher fertility rates. So yes, "only" 371 million more people in poverty necessarily means things are getting better, when sheer demographics without economic growth would have pushed the number 2x higher.

squids 11y ago

Did you factor in inflation into your calculation? By 2010 that 1990 $5 is worth $8.80. So you'd have to look at how many people were living on below that number to get your equivalent. If i remember correctly, a 1981 $1 is now worth $2.50 if you factor in inflation so the fact they've chose to lower the bar at $1.90 reeks of politics.