4 ms·

This is completely misleading, close to lying. I lived with less than $2 a day. The average salary in the country was less than $100 and this was in Eastern Eu

This is completely misleading, close to lying. I lived with less than $2 a day. The average salary in the country was less than $100 and this was in Eastern Europe, not in Africa. What changes the story completely is that the exchange rate makes all the difference in my case: we all had a fairly regular life, but the exchange rate was showing a very dark picture. Yes, we were not able to buy American cars in dollars, but a local built Renault copy was a few thousands dollars new. All the prices were extremely low in dollars, but meaningful in local currency. We had not just the basics (food, electricity, house), but an almost normal life. 25 years later, the average salary is more than 10 times more, in US dollars only. An iPhone is now 10 times cheaper, but the price structure is more or less the same and nothing changed, just the exchange rate. The food is 10 times more expensive in dollars, rent is 10 times more, the few things that are more expensive today in local currency are the ones that are heavily taxed, like gas and tobacco.

rypskar 7y ago
The poverty rate of $2 a day isn't about living off $2 converted to the local currency, if is about living off the local currency with a value of what $2 is worth in USA. You can compare it to live off what half a cup of coffee costs at Starbucks.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Not true. The article is not about living with the equivalent of $2 in USA, but a few African countries and values converted in dollars. A few years ago some colleagues of mine spent a month in rural, mainland China, trying to see how people live with a few dollars a day. While those people were poor, the numbers are very misleading when you convert in dollars.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    No, you’re wrong. It’s not about converting what they earn to dollars using direct exchange rate, it’s about converting it to dollar’s purchasing power.
    - strken 7y ago
      It's hard to convert PP directly because it's different for different goods - the measurements usually use a basket of multiple goods and services. It's possible that e.g. eggs in India are relatively expensive, while lentils are cheaper, but if we calculated PP using the two items then it would be somewhere in the middle: a PP-adjusted $2 portion of lentils would still be bigger in India than we would expect from looking at overall PP. This may or may not be what the GP was trying to say.
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      "income of about 1500 Rwandan francs per day (about USD $1.73)" That is a direct conversion. Where is the purchasing power conversion?
input_sh 7y ago
> This is completely misleading, close to lying. Philanthropy in a nutshell. On a more serious note, I couldn't agree more. Any sort of international metric for poverty (like the $2 here) is downright useless because it ignores all the local context. > I hope you will be touched by their stories, their challenges, and their dreams for better lives. I also hope that you’ll ask yourself what you can do to help the millions of people like them. You could ask people in the US living below the poverty line and reach this same conclusion. Hell, you could give away 50 bucks directly to a person living in a country with a crappy economy and literally change their life, instead of filming them with thousands of dollars worth cameras to "inspire" people in the west. That's why I prefer GiveDirectly.org over any other charity that attempts to fight poverty.
- why-oh-why 7y ago
  That’s akin to giving a fish to someone. I think that what philanthropist can do to help is to effectively replace the government: build infrastructure, educate people, provide healthcare, employ the locals for these jobs. Any money you give to anyone for free will just get someone rich while the rest will continue suffering. — Also, to directly answer your point, you can give those $50 to a person OR spend those $50 to get 50 people to donate instead. This is the point of this “expensive” documentaries.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    > employ the locals for these jobs. That's where 95% of the problem lies. As someone whose origins are from a poor country, I can name you a lot of organizations that don't have this in mind. A huge chunk of your donation goes to some westerner going on a "spiritual journey" to teach locals, or whatever bullshit they tell to themselves that's needed. It very rarely "trickles down" to the poor people's pockets. What they need is money. Like literally any single poor person in the world, that money will go first and foremost to securing basic life necessities (food, shelter, water, medical bills), and the rest is gonna get reinvested in their local town or village (either by starting a business or by paying for education). > Any money you give to anyone for free will just get someone rich while the rest will continue suffering. What's missing from your equation is taxes. Whatever they do with the money will get taxed, filling the local budgets. Thinking that westerners know more what's needed then people that actually live there is preposterous at best, superiority complex at worst. > Also, to directly answer your point, you can give those $50 to a person OR spend those $50 to get 50 people to donate instead. If you think this post without a direct call-to-action is gonna inspire people to donate more than it took to go there and film these documentaries, I honestly hope you're right. I personally don't buy that one bit.
lunchbar123 7y ago
Since i live here, I can tell you people living on this salary in Africa are not living a 'regular' life. They live in shacks and they eat a malnourished diet, they sometimes tap electricity illegally (and dangerously), they do not have money for clothing or any sort of improvement. On top of that they have to deal with things like heightened crime in their areas or the fact that a bit of bad weather can destroy their houses.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Completely agree with you, I did not say anything different. I just said the currency conversion can make a huge difference. With $2 a day you starve to death in USA, a burger costs more than that.
  - lunchbar123 7y ago
    gotcha
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  They also lack even the most basic healthcare and will die of easily preventable diseases if they get unlucky.
nabla9 7y ago
You made simple and understandable mistake. Gates talks explicitly about World Bank’s international poverty line measured in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) dollars. It accounts for differences in the cost of living across countries (the PPP exchange rates). example: PPP for India is 18.128. In India the international poverty line ($1.9 PPP) is $0.10 per day in USD. --- Gates writes: > Still, the number of people living on less than $2 a day—$1.90 is the World Bank’s international poverty line—is over 700 million. and links to article that defines the powerty line: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/w...
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  "income of about 1500 Rwandan francs per day (about USD $1.73)" That is a direct conversion there is no purchasing power conversion. Not my mistake.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    Well those numbers are errors, because it's not the international powerty line.

rypskar 7y ago

The poverty rate of $2 a day isn't about living off $2 converted to the local currency, if is about living off the local currency with a value of what $2 is worth in USA. You can compare it to live off what half a cup of coffee costs at Starbucks.

AdrianB1 7y ago
Not true. The article is not about living with the equivalent of $2 in USA, but a few African countries and values converted in dollars. A few years ago some colleagues of mine spent a month in rural, mainland China, trying to see how people live with a few dollars a day. While those people were poor, the numbers are very misleading when you convert in dollars.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  No, you’re wrong. It’s not about converting what they earn to dollars using direct exchange rate, it’s about converting it to dollar’s purchasing power.
  - strken 7y ago
    It's hard to convert PP directly because it's different for different goods - the measurements usually use a basket of multiple goods and services. It's possible that e.g. eggs in India are relatively expensive, while lentils are cheaper, but if we calculated PP using the two items then it would be somewhere in the middle: a PP-adjusted $2 portion of lentils would still be bigger in India than we would expect from looking at overall PP. This may or may not be what the GP was trying to say.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    "income of about 1500 Rwandan francs per day (about USD $1.73)" That is a direct conversion. Where is the purchasing power conversion?

input_sh 7y ago

> This is completely misleading, close to lying. Philanthropy in a nutshell. On a more serious note, I couldn't agree more. Any sort of international metric for poverty (like the $2 here) is downright useless because it ignores all the local context. > I hope you will be touched by their stories, their challenges, and their dreams for better lives. I also hope that you’ll ask yourself what you can do to help the millions of people like them. You could ask people in the US living below the poverty line and reach this same conclusion. Hell, you could give away 50 bucks directly to a person living in a country with a crappy economy and literally change their life, instead of filming them with thousands of dollars worth cameras to "inspire" people in the west. That's why I prefer GiveDirectly.org over any other charity that attempts to fight poverty.

why-oh-why 7y ago
That’s akin to giving a fish to someone. I think that what philanthropist can do to help is to effectively replace the government: build infrastructure, educate people, provide healthcare, employ the locals for these jobs. Any money you give to anyone for free will just get someone rich while the rest will continue suffering. — Also, to directly answer your point, you can give those $50 to a person OR spend those $50 to get 50 people to donate instead. This is the point of this “expensive” documentaries.
- input_sh 7y ago
  > employ the locals for these jobs. That's where 95% of the problem lies. As someone whose origins are from a poor country, I can name you a lot of organizations that don't have this in mind. A huge chunk of your donation goes to some westerner going on a "spiritual journey" to teach locals, or whatever bullshit they tell to themselves that's needed. It very rarely "trickles down" to the poor people's pockets. What they need is money. Like literally any single poor person in the world, that money will go first and foremost to securing basic life necessities (food, shelter, water, medical bills), and the rest is gonna get reinvested in their local town or village (either by starting a business or by paying for education). > Any money you give to anyone for free will just get someone rich while the rest will continue suffering. What's missing from your equation is taxes. Whatever they do with the money will get taxed, filling the local budgets. Thinking that westerners know more what's needed then people that actually live there is preposterous at best, superiority complex at worst. > Also, to directly answer your point, you can give those $50 to a person OR spend those $50 to get 50 people to donate instead. If you think this post without a direct call-to-action is gonna inspire people to donate more than it took to go there and film these documentaries, I honestly hope you're right. I personally don't buy that one bit.

lunchbar123 7y ago

Since i live here, I can tell you people living on this salary in Africa are not living a 'regular' life. They live in shacks and they eat a malnourished diet, they sometimes tap electricity illegally (and dangerously), they do not have money for clothing or any sort of improvement. On top of that they have to deal with things like heightened crime in their areas or the fact that a bit of bad weather can destroy their houses.

AdrianB1 7y ago
Completely agree with you, I did not say anything different. I just said the currency conversion can make a huge difference. With $2 a day you starve to death in USA, a burger costs more than that.
- lunchbar123 7y ago
  gotcha
TheCoelacanth 7y ago
They also lack even the most basic healthcare and will die of easily preventable diseases if they get unlucky.

nabla9 7y ago

You made simple and understandable mistake. Gates talks explicitly about World Bank’s international poverty line measured in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) dollars. It accounts for differences in the cost of living across countries (the PPP exchange rates). example: PPP for India is 18.128. In India the international poverty line ($1.9 PPP) is $0.10 per day in USD. --- Gates writes: > Still, the number of people living on less than $2 a day—$1.90 is the World Bank’s international poverty line—is over 700 million. and links to article that defines the powerty line: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/w...

AdrianB1 7y ago
"income of about 1500 Rwandan francs per day (about USD $1.73)" That is a direct conversion there is no purchasing power conversion. Not my mistake.
- nabla9 7y ago
  Well those numbers are errors, because it's not the international powerty line.