5 ms·

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

by dlp211 8y 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.

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

by dlp211 8y ago

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