4 ms·

But it's a pretty imperfect approximation of minimal needs, both because it doesn't guarantee a roof and adequate food supply everywhere people live on $2 PPP p

But it's a pretty imperfect approximation of minimal needs, both because it doesn't guarantee a roof and adequate food supply everywhere people live on $2 PPP per day, never mind clean drinking water and education for the kids, and because lots of people at that income definitely do get diseases from poor living conditions and diet (and if they do, even basic generic drugs are at least a couple of days' income). And let's be honest, for the most part we had huts and meat in the Neolithic era - expecting unprecedented accelerations in economic growth to get people back to that level isn't asking very much! And my original point wasn't to say that the threshold was necessarily wrong so much as to contest the idea that there was something unusual about describing people above that very low standard as "very poor". Now, sure, the same PPP-adjustment imperfections creep in and some people on $6 a day actually live recognisably lower middle class lifestyles (albeit without any foreign travel or car) but the whole point of the comparison is lots of the stuff fast food workers in the West can afford - at least if not being hammered by student debts or SF rent - is out of reach for nearly half the world.

Jensson 5y ago
> and because lots of people at that income definitely do get diseases from poor living conditions and diet Many of the poorest countries today have life expectancy as USA in the 1960's, and every country in the world today have much higher life expectancy than USA in 1900. That isn't perfect, but they aren't dying in droves. I think most in the west really underestimate how far you can get on very little. Edit: I think that western labour puts the poverty line way too high. They put it so high that you basically need a population to work full time to maintain it, or rely on other countries poorer population to work even harder and not get paid for it to maintain it. I very much prefer to have a slightly lower standard and work way less than what modern western labour says we should. Of course it ought to be higher than hut and food, but I'm not sure why it can't be on the same level as modern China for example. Poor people in China get educated, live long etc.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > every country in the world today have much higher life expectancy than USA in 1900. That isn't perfect, but they aren't dying in droves. Sure. That's aligned with my point, since [i] modern medicine exists, although the benefits of not dying from preventable disease are unevenly distributed [ii] I wouldn't consider the average US citizen in 1900 to be anything other than very poor relative to modern living standards. I've spent time in the developing world so I'm well aware you can get a long way with a lot less than developed world minimum wages. I'm also aware that, say, $2.50 PPP (typically about $0.50 in actual local currency) doesn't buy you much of a life even there. And yes, I've also chosen to work less than modern western labour says we should for large parts of my life. But again, if that was taken into account then most of the people in the bottom half of the global income distribution would be worse off, since they're the ones that don't have favourable labour laws, state pensions or the disposable income to take career breaks. I'd agree people on typical Chinese income aren't doing too badly in having material needs met, but the working hours and conditions many have to tolerate [for now] shifts a lot of them back towards "poor"

Jensson 5y ago

> and because lots of people at that income definitely do get diseases from poor living conditions and diet Many of the poorest countries today have life expectancy as USA in the 1960's, and every country in the world today have much higher life expectancy than USA in 1900. That isn't perfect, but they aren't dying in droves. I think most in the west really underestimate how far you can get on very little. Edit: I think that western labour puts the poverty line way too high. They put it so high that you basically need a population to work full time to maintain it, or rely on other countries poorer population to work even harder and not get paid for it to maintain it. I very much prefer to have a slightly lower standard and work way less than what modern western labour says we should. Of course it ought to be higher than hut and food, but I'm not sure why it can't be on the same level as modern China for example. Poor people in China get educated, live long etc.

notahacker 5y ago
> every country in the world today have much higher life expectancy than USA in 1900. That isn't perfect, but they aren't dying in droves. Sure. That's aligned with my point, since [i] modern medicine exists, although the benefits of not dying from preventable disease are unevenly distributed [ii] I wouldn't consider the average US citizen in 1900 to be anything other than very poor relative to modern living standards. I've spent time in the developing world so I'm well aware you can get a long way with a lot less than developed world minimum wages. I'm also aware that, say, $2.50 PPP (typically about $0.50 in actual local currency) doesn't buy you much of a life even there. And yes, I've also chosen to work less than modern western labour says we should for large parts of my life. But again, if that was taken into account then most of the people in the bottom half of the global income distribution would be worse off, since they're the ones that don't have favourable labour laws, state pensions or the disposable income to take career breaks. I'd agree people on typical Chinese income aren't doing too badly in having material needs met, but the working hours and conditions many have to tolerate [for now] shifts a lot of them back towards "poor"