4 ms·

Here we go again. The statements are not false, burying your head in the sand is not going to make uncomfortable things untrue. Minus the menstrual-pad thing,

Here we go again. The statements are not false, burying your head in the sand is not going to make uncomfortable things untrue. Minus the menstrual-pad thing, I've seen the rest with my own eyes in India.

whack 10y ago
"the majority of people live below international poverty lines" The international poverty line is ~$700/year. India's average income, adjusted for purchasing parity, is $6100/year. If you're going to make inflammatory, derogatory statements, at least get your facts right.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Are you really caught up on "majority"? Semantics are the line you've chosen to draw? http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND In India, as of 2011: - 293 million (or 22% of the population) live on less than $1.90 a day (international poverty line). - 708 million (or 55% of the population) live on less than $3.10 a day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) "Internationally, an income of less than $1.90 per day per head of purchasing power parity is defined as extreme poverty. By this estimate, about 32.7% percent of Indians are extremely poor. Income-based poverty lines consider the bare minimum income to provide basic food requirements; it does not account for other essentials such as health care and education.[2] The number of people living on less than $1.9 per day in 2011 was 259.5 million (21.3% of the total population)." 32.7% are considered "extremely poor" and the poverty line counts only for basic food - not healthcare, education, etc. India's poverty levels are extreme, severe, and talking about it is neither false, inflammatory, derogatory, or an attack. Edit: what's with the glut of down-votes all of a sudden? Usually links and evidence - especially in recognizing social injustice - are welcomed on HN.
  - whack 10y ago
    Someone stated that "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" I replied stating that his comment contains factually false statements. You replied calling me out, saying that there were no false statements. You later provided proof that only 22% of the population lives below the international poverty line. 22% is no where even close to 50%. I don't know why you keep trying to defend this as a true statement. It isn't, as you yourself supplied proof for. ------- Regarding your point that I'm getting lost in semantics: I should be the one saying that to you. The entire debate about the international poverty line was not even my main point. My main point as stated originally was that the post was an unnecessarily condescending rant. And it is. If we were discussing the overall state of India, then the above comment might be a fair one. But that's not even close to what this thread is about. This thread is about India's space agency launching 20 satellites in a single mission. Someone then went off on a (unnecessary) tangent about the original definition of "3rd world", as relating to the cold war. Someone else then went off on another completely unrelated rant about every single problem he could think of, that exists in the country. Bringing up valid criticisms during the appropriate context/discussion, is certainly very valuable. But criticizing someone/something during completely unrelated discussions isn't. It's usually just a sign of someone who enjoys condescending to others and enjoys the feeling of power that comes with it.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > > "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" > The international poverty line is ~$700/year. India's average income, adjusted for purchasing parity, is $6100/year. The mean income (which is the average for which that statement is true) tells you nothing about whether the majority is above or below a certain point, unless you know independently that the distribution is normal, so that the mean is also the median (but that's unlikely for an income distribution in a country.)
  - whack 10y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of the mean vs median distinction. But if someone states that the majority of the country has an income below X, and I find out that the average wage in the country is actually 8X, I'm going to be extremely skeptical of the original statement. The amount of income inequality that is needed to produce a situation like that, is so extreme that no one should believe it without supporting data. As it turns out, I was right. The other person to reply to me, dug up evidence showing that only 22% earn below the intl poverty line. Not "the majority" as was stated.

whack 10y ago

"the majority of people live below international poverty lines" The international poverty line is ~$700/year. India's average income, adjusted for purchasing parity, is $6100/year. If you're going to make inflammatory, derogatory statements, at least get your facts right.

themartorana 10y ago
Are you really caught up on "majority"? Semantics are the line you've chosen to draw? http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/IND In India, as of 2011: - 293 million (or 22% of the population) live on less than $1.90 a day (international poverty line). - 708 million (or 55% of the population) live on less than $3.10 a day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Below_Poverty_Line_(India) "Internationally, an income of less than $1.90 per day per head of purchasing power parity is defined as extreme poverty. By this estimate, about 32.7% percent of Indians are extremely poor. Income-based poverty lines consider the bare minimum income to provide basic food requirements; it does not account for other essentials such as health care and education.[2] The number of people living on less than $1.9 per day in 2011 was 259.5 million (21.3% of the total population)." 32.7% are considered "extremely poor" and the poverty line counts only for basic food - not healthcare, education, etc. India's poverty levels are extreme, severe, and talking about it is neither false, inflammatory, derogatory, or an attack. Edit: what's with the glut of down-votes all of a sudden? Usually links and evidence - especially in recognizing social injustice - are welcomed on HN.
- whack 10y ago
  Someone stated that "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" I replied stating that his comment contains factually false statements. You replied calling me out, saying that there were no false statements. You later provided proof that only 22% of the population lives below the international poverty line. 22% is no where even close to 50%. I don't know why you keep trying to defend this as a true statement. It isn't, as you yourself supplied proof for. ------- Regarding your point that I'm getting lost in semantics: I should be the one saying that to you. The entire debate about the international poverty line was not even my main point. My main point as stated originally was that the post was an unnecessarily condescending rant. And it is. If we were discussing the overall state of India, then the above comment might be a fair one. But that's not even close to what this thread is about. This thread is about India's space agency launching 20 satellites in a single mission. Someone then went off on a (unnecessary) tangent about the original definition of "3rd world", as relating to the cold war. Someone else then went off on another completely unrelated rant about every single problem he could think of, that exists in the country. Bringing up valid criticisms during the appropriate context/discussion, is certainly very valuable. But criticizing someone/something during completely unrelated discussions isn't. It's usually just a sign of someone who enjoys condescending to others and enjoys the feeling of power that comes with it.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> > "the majority of people live below international poverty lines" > The international poverty line is ~$700/year. India's average income, adjusted for purchasing parity, is $6100/year. The mean income (which is the average for which that statement is true) tells you nothing about whether the majority is above or below a certain point, unless you know independently that the distribution is normal, so that the mean is also the median (but that's unlikely for an income distribution in a country.)
- whack 10y ago
  Yes, I'm aware of the mean vs median distinction. But if someone states that the majority of the country has an income below X, and I find out that the average wage in the country is actually 8X, I'm going to be extremely skeptical of the original statement. The amount of income inequality that is needed to produce a situation like that, is so extreme that no one should believe it without supporting data. As it turns out, I was right. The other person to reply to me, dug up evidence showing that only 22% earn below the intl poverty line. Not "the majority" as was stated.