4 ms·

>The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country. If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in

>The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country. If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in poverty you are delusional

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
That's cherry-picking. Of course everybody in the poorest country in the world, is in poverty. But the usual measure of relative local wealth, works pretty good.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  That measure won't work on the vast majority of the planet. The global per-capita median income is less that three thousand dollars a year. People making 4 grand a year aren't out of poverty.
bildung 7y ago
60% of the median is the definition of relative poverty. This is what the NY Times article was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty You are free to find that delusional, but if you want to partake in the scientific discourse about poverty, it would be advantageous if you don't redefine the core concept.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Yes, and my point is it's an entirely useless definition. If 40% of the population were billionaires and the remaining 60% were millionaires. The millionaires aren't in poverty. "delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." It is quite delusional to create new metrics on poverty because ones based on income or consumption don't get you to the result you like.
  - bildung 7y ago
    Are you aware of the difference between absolute and relative poverty? I mean, really, take a step back and consider these two possibilities: a) Thousands of researchers have researched the topic for decades, and no one ever considered it problematic to directly compare the poverty in Congo and the US using the same metric. But finally, after als these decades, during a few seconds of flying over a blog link, commenter fuzz4lyfe on hn finds the error and renders decades of research obsolete. b) You err. What is more probable?

>The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country. If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in poverty you are delusional

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

That's cherry-picking. Of course everybody in the poorest country in the world, is in poverty. But the usual measure of relative local wealth, works pretty good.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
That measure won't work on the vast majority of the planet. The global per-capita median income is less that three thousand dollars a year. People making 4 grand a year aren't out of poverty.

bildung 7y ago

60% of the median is the definition of relative poverty. This is what the NY Times article was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty You are free to find that delusional, but if you want to partake in the scientific discourse about poverty, it would be advantageous if you don't redefine the core concept.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Yes, and my point is it's an entirely useless definition. If 40% of the population were billionaires and the remaining 60% were millionaires. The millionaires aren't in poverty. "delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder." It is quite delusional to create new metrics on poverty because ones based on income or consumption don't get you to the result you like.
- bildung 7y ago
  Are you aware of the difference between absolute and relative poverty? I mean, really, take a step back and consider these two possibilities: a) Thousands of researchers have researched the topic for decades, and no one ever considered it problematic to directly compare the poverty in Congo and the US using the same metric. But finally, after als these decades, during a few seconds of flying over a blog link, commenter fuzz4lyfe on hn finds the error and renders decades of research obsolete. b) You err. What is more probable?