> So less than a billion, net, world wide. So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty"

> So less than a billion, net, world wide. So your retort to "if we ignore that a billion people would migrate in a few months in an attempt to escape poverty" is that it will be "less than a billion", then the article didn't exactly reassure. It's a quibble between basic numbers (population in the third world) vs hypothetical numbers (Gallup's rolodex), not a substantial discussion or disagreement.