I think this is simply a false goal. $30 a day is an arbitrary number and is certainly in the realm of "relative poverty" already: a person who lives on $30 a d

I think this is simply a false goal. $30 a day is an arbitrary number and is certainly in the realm of "relative poverty" already: a person who lives on $30 a day is relatively poor - that is, in relation to the middle class in rich countries. That life might seem to be a misery, but with the economic development worldwide, today's life of middle class in rich countries will also seem like a misery in 50 years, and the threshold will rise again. So a goal to "eliminate $30 a day poverty" is little but a goal to "establish artificial, Soviet style forced redistributional equality of outcomes" which is hardly beneficial for development, social cohesion, or democracy, and can hardly be morally justified. The goal of poverty reduction must be that the people don't starve or destroy their health due to poverty, and their children aren't poverty-trapped (but it has limits too - make higher education free for everyone and in the next generation education will simply be irrelevant as elites will find different ways to preserve their hereditary status, and this is a dangerous thing cos non-educated people will get in control of things, so it's better to keep higher education unattainable to the poor so to at least the rich kids educated).