4 ms·

> the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty This isn't a definition of middle-class I've ever encountered, the bar is s

> the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty This isn't a definition of middle-class I've ever encountered, the bar is surely a bit higher than simply 'not poor'. They've used $11 PPP as the lower bound. That's totally ridiculous, in most of Europe that's not even liveable. Perhaps they mean discretionary income? That would make a bit more sense. Otherwise, it seems like they've chosen figures such that middle class ~= median global income, which is a circular definition.

collyw 7y ago
While I agree, at least things seem to be moving in the right direction.
- dahart 7y ago
  Whether things are moving in the right direction depends on how you measure things and who you believe. There are lots of signs in the positive direction, but Jason Hickel famously argued that things are moving in the wrong direction everywhere except China (https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-...) and that even including China, at the current rate it could take 200-500 years to resolve global poverty (https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/4/27/200-years-to-end-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/4/27/200-years-to-end-...)
quindecagon 7y ago
> By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world’s population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered “middle class” or “rich.” > Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty. Emphasis mine
notahacker 7y ago
The numbers are supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted. But then, they're supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted to reflect US purchasing power, and $11/hr certainly isn't middle class in most parts of the US. [the reality is that PPP adjustments are impossible to do accurately; some people earning $11PPP have big houses, servants and privately educated kids and some people are actually earning $11/hr in the US or Western Europe] The other dimension is what they're doing to earn that sort of disposable income. There are people doing some very unattractive or unsafe jobs for mid to high income by local standards.
- dmurray 7y ago
  It's $11/day, not $11/hr. Yes, the authors are either using a poor interpretation of PPP, or a very inclusive definition of middle-class.
topkai22 7y ago
It’s $11 ppp per person per day of “spending”, so for a household of 4 people that’s $16k. I would think that world would be both discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. While that would certainly classify as extreme poverty in most of the highly developed world, the definition of middle class seems to be (roghly) ‘able to pay for minimal housing and purchase durable goods without starving.’ I can by that that is possible in emerging markets for $16k ppp for a household. Also, that’s the absolute bottom of the range, it goes up to $100/day/ per person.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
I suggest you read the linked methodology about how they concluded their definitions. It's pretty thorough. https://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf https://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf

collyw 7y ago

While I agree, at least things seem to be moving in the right direction.

dahart 7y ago
Whether things are moving in the right direction depends on how you measure things and who you believe. There are lots of signs in the positive direction, but Jason Hickel famously argued that things are moving in the wrong direction everywhere except China (https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-...) and that even including China, at the current rate it could take 200-500 years to resolve global poverty (https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/4/27/200-years-to-end-poverty https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/4/27/200-years-to-end-...)

quindecagon 7y ago

> By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world’s population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered “middle class” or “rich.” > Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty. Emphasis mine

notahacker 7y ago

The numbers are supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted. But then, they're supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted to reflect US purchasing power, and $11/hr certainly isn't middle class in most parts of the US. [the reality is that PPP adjustments are impossible to do accurately; some people earning $11PPP have big houses, servants and privately educated kids and some people are actually earning $11/hr in the US or Western Europe] The other dimension is what they're doing to earn that sort of disposable income. There are people doing some very unattractive or unsafe jobs for mid to high income by local standards.

dmurray 7y ago
It's $11/day, not $11/hr. Yes, the authors are either using a poor interpretation of PPP, or a very inclusive definition of middle-class.

topkai22 7y ago

It’s $11 ppp per person per day of “spending”, so for a household of 4 people that’s $16k. I would think that world would be both discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. While that would certainly classify as extreme poverty in most of the highly developed world, the definition of middle class seems to be (roghly) ‘able to pay for minimal housing and purchase durable goods without starving.’ I can by that that is possible in emerging markets for $16k ppp for a household. Also, that’s the absolute bottom of the range, it goes up to $100/day/ per person.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

I suggest you read the linked methodology about how they concluded their definitions. It's pretty thorough. https://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf https://www.oecd.org/dev/44457738.pdf