5 ms·

Still seems like quite a lot

by ape4 8y ago

dlp211 8y ago
Consider that we started with nearly everyone in extreme poverty 200 years ago.
- briga 8y ago
  On the other hand, consider that the world population in the 1800s was about 1/7th what it is today, so the total number of people in extreme poverty probably hasn't changed much between then and now. What has changed is our idea of what wealth is, and what poverty is, and I think these notions will continue to change.
  - egeozcan 8y ago
    Extreme poverty is very clearly defined since 1995. Quoting Wikipedia[0]: > Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services." IMHO, this is a very timeless definition as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
    - GW150914 8y ago
      In 2018, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.90/day (in 2011 prices, equivalent to $2.07 in 2017), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day". To be clear, if you earn $760 a year, by the World Bank’s definition, you’re not extremely poor. By that definition homeless beggars in the US don’t live in extreme poverty, because they make more than that panhandling. I really do think it’s worth considering the degree to which this definition is designed primarily to produce “victories” like the ones being celebrated here. @carlosdp: So one of the richest humans of all time approves of a book telling people that the world he helped to create is better than they think? Hm. This is the book by Hans Rosling right? The one that cherry picks data shamelessly to make the point he clearly wanted to make before he researched it? The one panned by Business Insider, not the most notably loon left publication ever? According to Business Insider, Rosling "misses critical wrinkles in the data" and has not presented "the whole story". From Wikipedia: Although Rosling argues that the future will be better than expected because birth rates are stabilizing, life expectancy around the world is increasing, the gender gap is nearly closed, and the extremely impoverished population is shrinking, others point out that populations are still expanding (with many still under-nourished), life expectancy in the US is decreasing, the gender gap is only nearly closed in education and not in employment, and extreme wealth has become more extreme. It seems like being a bit skeptical of people selling Panglossian visions, given how much people want to believe them, might not hurt. That’s not to advocate the kind of doom and gloom which forgets that we have antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and electric lights. It is however worth keeping an eye on worrying trends like antibiotic resistance, climate change, and just how many people don’t have indoor plumbing, safe water, and electric lights.
      - carlosdp 8y ago
        There is a huge difference between homeless in the US and people in the “extreme poverty” category. For one, homeless in the US can generally access free clean water at public drinking fountains, whereas those in extreme poverty have to walk for miles to fill buckets with mud water. I highly recommend reading Factfulness.
        thedailymail 8y ago
        In a different example, a Buddhist monk in Thailand may take a vow of poverty, earn $0 a day, but nonetheless be well-supported by the community. This is why a qualitative definition like the one cited above ("a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services") is probably a better way to define poverty than a dollar amount.
        close04 8y ago
        A homeless person in a civilized country has access to a lot more than the actual cash represented by that $1.90. Many times they have access to free water, food, shelter, even medical care. These could be worth hundreds normally. This should be obvious even without the book. :)
- kevmo 8y ago
  What about 500 years ago?
  - 07d046 8y ago
    Almost everyone was extremely poor then too. You can tell from the percentage of the labour force who worked on farms that most people couldn't have been wealthy, and the industrial revolution changed everything. https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture
    - alexgmcm 8y ago
      Didn't living conditions actually worsen for a while after the industrial revolution though due to rapid urbanisation and slums and a lack of workers rights. Being a peasant was awful too, mind.
    - singularity2001 8y ago
      Interesting charts, thanks. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agriculture-value-added-per-worker-wdi https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agriculture-value-added-p... Shocking that corn and cow producers in India are 90% less productive than in the US.
  - IloveHN84 8y ago
    Actually, from the little ice age around XVI-XVII centuries that everyone was poor, at least in Europe and Asia
- icantdrive55 8y ago
  Yes, we were. And 200 years ago most people were essentially homeless. In a weird way, they had it better than our current homeless. At least they had a fighting chance to better their condition? Would I rather be in extreme poverty in California 200 years ago; Yes--on so many levels. And yes, I would rather take my chance fighting Indians, then dealing with our "helpful" police squads? (Miwok Indians were passive.) I see the harrasement our homeless have to deal with, and it's ugly.
GW150914 8y ago
I’m also wondering to what degree this represents a triumph of economic, political and social reform, and to what extent it might be a triumph of massaging the definition of “extreme poverty” and other accounting or semantic fuckery. Edit: Evidence suggests thst it is indeed, semantic fuckery. The World Bank is really only saying that three quarters of a billion people earn less than $757 a year.
- 3131s 8y ago
  Without knowing if that's the case, these metrics are definitely easy to manipulate. For example in calculating purchasing power parity, the "basket" of items you choose can significantly misrepresent the common, basic needs of people in poor countries. And it should be remembered that the World Bank's global poverty line is only 1.90$ a day. Based on my own experience of living in a poor neighborhood in a very poor country for a long time now, I am always skeptical of these claims for reasons that would be too long to list out. Inflation and increases in the cost of food and rent here have far outpaced the World Bank metrics ($1.25 in 2005, $1.90 as of 2015) and the incomes of the average person (~$100-150 a month).
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
It is quite a lot, considering that the world economy could easily spend enough money to fix this and in relative terms it would cost so little there would be zero practical effect on anyone else's income. But it's also ethically skewed. I have friends who have travelled through the poorest parts of Africa, and they universally return with stories about how "poor" Africans are some of the happiest, friendliest, most generous, and most contented people they've met. That may be rose-tinted, but it's naive to dismiss it out of hand. Economic metrics aren't necessarily humane, and the Western economic treadmill - with its precariousness, acquisitiveness, and narcissism - isn't necessarily the ideal destination for any culture.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  This is complicated topic - I can confirm that seeing countless dalits/untouchables in India (cca 160 millions), or generally poor people there, they are super friendly, helpful, and will often invite a lost traveler to their homes to share their meal with them. But - their lives are incredibly hard. No protection from the state, no future, at mercy of anybody more rich than them (=anybody else), it doesn't matter how good you are, you will never be given a fair chance to achieve anything in society. Nobody cares if you live or die, how you suffer, how unfair your life is. There isn't even such a basic mentality that 'I deserve more in life than this', because countless generations before never achieved anything. And specifically for India, the effin' idiotic caste system makes all others content with the situation, because 'this is how things are supposed to be', 'they accrued bad karma in their previous lives' and so on. It's extremely good that this system is slowly dying, but it will take far too long in my opinion, especially in rural areas. Their life is reduced to day-to-day survival, which makes everything simpler. They don't have lofty goals for life, and surviving OK yet another day is a success. Is this a simplicity you want to have compared to western style of life? I don't think so.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    And here in the US, we are all encouraged to form lofty goals that are hard to reach (and often don't). And if we do, it's time to form yet another lofty goal. No wonder our levels of anxiety are sky high despite having so much more material wealth.
refurb 8y ago
If you’ll only be satisfied with perfection (nobody is poor), I have some bad news for you - you’re going to be disappointed forever.

Still seems like quite a lot

by ape4 8y ago

Still seems like quite a lot

dlp211 8y ago

Consider that we started with nearly everyone in extreme poverty 200 years ago.

briga 8y ago
On the other hand, consider that the world population in the 1800s was about 1/7th what it is today, so the total number of people in extreme poverty probably hasn't changed much between then and now. What has changed is our idea of what wealth is, and what poverty is, and I think these notions will continue to change.
- egeozcan 8y ago
  Extreme poverty is very clearly defined since 1995. Quoting Wikipedia[0]: > Extreme poverty, abject poverty, absolute poverty, destitution, or penury, was originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services." IMHO, this is a very timeless definition as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
  - GW150914 8y ago
    In 2018, "extreme poverty" widely refers to earning below the international poverty line of $1.90/day (in 2011 prices, equivalent to $2.07 in 2017), set by the World Bank. This measure is the equivalent to earning $1.00 a day in 1996 US prices, hence the widely used expression, living on "less than a dollar a day". To be clear, if you earn $760 a year, by the World Bank’s definition, you’re not extremely poor. By that definition homeless beggars in the US don’t live in extreme poverty, because they make more than that panhandling. I really do think it’s worth considering the degree to which this definition is designed primarily to produce “victories” like the ones being celebrated here. @carlosdp: So one of the richest humans of all time approves of a book telling people that the world he helped to create is better than they think? Hm. This is the book by Hans Rosling right? The one that cherry picks data shamelessly to make the point he clearly wanted to make before he researched it? The one panned by Business Insider, not the most notably loon left publication ever? According to Business Insider, Rosling "misses critical wrinkles in the data" and has not presented "the whole story". From Wikipedia: Although Rosling argues that the future will be better than expected because birth rates are stabilizing, life expectancy around the world is increasing, the gender gap is nearly closed, and the extremely impoverished population is shrinking, others point out that populations are still expanding (with many still under-nourished), life expectancy in the US is decreasing, the gender gap is only nearly closed in education and not in employment, and extreme wealth has become more extreme. It seems like being a bit skeptical of people selling Panglossian visions, given how much people want to believe them, might not hurt. That’s not to advocate the kind of doom and gloom which forgets that we have antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and electric lights. It is however worth keeping an eye on worrying trends like antibiotic resistance, climate change, and just how many people don’t have indoor plumbing, safe water, and electric lights.
    - carlosdp 8y ago
      There is a huge difference between homeless in the US and people in the “extreme poverty” category. For one, homeless in the US can generally access free clean water at public drinking fountains, whereas those in extreme poverty have to walk for miles to fill buckets with mud water. I highly recommend reading Factfulness.
      - thedailymail 8y ago
        In a different example, a Buddhist monk in Thailand may take a vow of poverty, earn $0 a day, but nonetheless be well-supported by the community. This is why a qualitative definition like the one cited above ("a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services") is probably a better way to define poverty than a dollar amount.
      - close04 8y ago
        A homeless person in a civilized country has access to a lot more than the actual cash represented by that $1.90. Many times they have access to free water, food, shelter, even medical care. These could be worth hundreds normally. This should be obvious even without the book. :)
kevmo 8y ago
What about 500 years ago?
- 07d046 8y ago
  Almost everyone was extremely poor then too. You can tell from the percentage of the labour force who worked on farms that most people couldn't have been wealthy, and the industrial revolution changed everything. https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture
  - alexgmcm 8y ago
    Didn't living conditions actually worsen for a while after the industrial revolution though due to rapid urbanisation and slums and a lack of workers rights. Being a peasant was awful too, mind.
  - singularity2001 8y ago
    Interesting charts, thanks. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agriculture-value-added-per-worker-wdi https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/agriculture-value-added-p... Shocking that corn and cow producers in India are 90% less productive than in the US.
- IloveHN84 8y ago
  Actually, from the little ice age around XVI-XVII centuries that everyone was poor, at least in Europe and Asia
icantdrive55 8y ago
Yes, we were. And 200 years ago most people were essentially homeless. In a weird way, they had it better than our current homeless. At least they had a fighting chance to better their condition? Would I rather be in extreme poverty in California 200 years ago; Yes--on so many levels. And yes, I would rather take my chance fighting Indians, then dealing with our "helpful" police squads? (Miwok Indians were passive.) I see the harrasement our homeless have to deal with, and it's ugly.

GW150914 8y ago

I’m also wondering to what degree this represents a triumph of economic, political and social reform, and to what extent it might be a triumph of massaging the definition of “extreme poverty” and other accounting or semantic fuckery. Edit: Evidence suggests thst it is indeed, semantic fuckery. The World Bank is really only saying that three quarters of a billion people earn less than $757 a year.

3131s 8y ago
Without knowing if that's the case, these metrics are definitely easy to manipulate. For example in calculating purchasing power parity, the "basket" of items you choose can significantly misrepresent the common, basic needs of people in poor countries. And it should be remembered that the World Bank's global poverty line is only 1.90$ a day. Based on my own experience of living in a poor neighborhood in a very poor country for a long time now, I am always skeptical of these claims for reasons that would be too long to list out. Inflation and increases in the cost of food and rent here have far outpaced the World Bank metrics ($1.25 in 2005, $1.90 as of 2015) and the incomes of the average person (~$100-150 a month).

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

It is quite a lot, considering that the world economy could easily spend enough money to fix this and in relative terms it would cost so little there would be zero practical effect on anyone else's income. But it's also ethically skewed. I have friends who have travelled through the poorest parts of Africa, and they universally return with stories about how "poor" Africans are some of the happiest, friendliest, most generous, and most contented people they've met. That may be rose-tinted, but it's naive to dismiss it out of hand. Economic metrics aren't necessarily humane, and the Western economic treadmill - with its precariousness, acquisitiveness, and narcissism - isn't necessarily the ideal destination for any culture.

saiya-jin 8y ago
This is complicated topic - I can confirm that seeing countless dalits/untouchables in India (cca 160 millions), or generally poor people there, they are super friendly, helpful, and will often invite a lost traveler to their homes to share their meal with them. But - their lives are incredibly hard. No protection from the state, no future, at mercy of anybody more rich than them (=anybody else), it doesn't matter how good you are, you will never be given a fair chance to achieve anything in society. Nobody cares if you live or die, how you suffer, how unfair your life is. There isn't even such a basic mentality that 'I deserve more in life than this', because countless generations before never achieved anything. And specifically for India, the effin' idiotic caste system makes all others content with the situation, because 'this is how things are supposed to be', 'they accrued bad karma in their previous lives' and so on. It's extremely good that this system is slowly dying, but it will take far too long in my opinion, especially in rural areas. Their life is reduced to day-to-day survival, which makes everything simpler. They don't have lofty goals for life, and surviving OK yet another day is a success. Is this a simplicity you want to have compared to western style of life? I don't think so.
- darkerside 8y ago
  And here in the US, we are all encouraged to form lofty goals that are hard to reach (and often don't). And if we do, it's time to form yet another lofty goal. No wonder our levels of anxiety are sky high despite having so much more material wealth.

refurb 8y ago

If you’ll only be satisfied with perfection (nobody is poor), I have some bad news for you - you’re going to be disappointed forever.