3 ms·
One quick points: 1.90$ is arbitrary as a mesure of absolute poverty. It is way too low. And actually, the best way of mesuring poverty is: %people sleeping wit
by orwin 5y ago
One quick points: 1.90$ is arbitrary as a mesure of absolute poverty. It is way too low. And actually, the best way of mesuring poverty is: %people sleeping without a shelter and %people having nutritional deficiency.
Having said that, i think some economist tried to do a correlation between adjusted dollar income to lifespan, and found that for each cent you make until you earn at least 5$ (adjusted) a day in industrialized/globalized countries, your lifespan at 5 is growing pretty fast. after this, the gains are minimal, so the actual limit on poverty should be 5$.
Excluding China, the %age of the world population under 5$ (adjusted) is diminishing since the 70s, as income from capital outperform income from labor faster than the marginal productivity increases (AKA: Piketty was wrong in his book Capital in the 20th century, capital did not take all productivity gains, it took more than that).
I do not have an opinion on degrowth, i hope it won't happen in my lifetime (because i'm an hypocrite, but at least i'm not hiding between either Singer/Gate optimism or other techno-optimism), i'm not actually convinced we will manage to avoid one, and i think a controlled one will be better than one that id forced upon us.
- goodpoint 5y ago> 1.90$ is arbitrary as a mesure of absolute poverty Not only it's arbitrary, but it's not updated on yearly basis, even if the cost of life increases by 20% every year.