6 ms·

I don't understand poverty statistics. With this news, the UK now has more people living in poverty than India (16% vs 22%?). If it is valuable to judge poverty

I don't understand poverty statistics. With this news, the UK now has more people living in poverty than India (16% vs 22%?). If it is valuable to judge poverty on relative income, you would think the rational course of action would be mass immigration from the UK to India but that is clearly not the case.

DimitriPetrova 4y ago
Apparently the Multidimensional Poverty Measure is defined as; An index that captures the percentage of households in a country deprived along three dimensions of well-being – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to provide a more complete picture of poverty. There's also the Multidimensional Poverty Index which has an alternate definition
- jimbokun 4y ago
  But is there a greater percentage of people in UK deprived along any of those dimensions?
  - deathgripsss 4y ago
    It must be relative to that nation. From my experience the UK IS becoming an incredibly segregated nation along economic lines. I don't find it hard to believe that 22% of the populace are in relative poverty. This is very different from absolute poverty, of which I'm sure India has a higher percentage.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      Three cheers for Brexit and Tory rule I suppose.
      - peterashford 4y ago
        I don't know why you're being downvoted. UK has been under Tory rule for most of the last few decades. Its hard to see why they shouldn't be held responsible for UK's fortunes
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Uk has 4.1 million children in poverty, or 30%. It now more food banks than macdonalds. Poorer counties often have large families, government programs for food distribution and many people growing their own food. You might have empty bank account but you will have something to eat and some roof over your head, even if you are crashing at family place or it's illegal construction on a land thats not technically yours. If you are poor in London you will just starve and freese to death
    - jialutu 4y ago
      > Uk .... now more food banks than macdonalds. Holy cow! I just checked this fact and it's true! https://fullfact.org/electionlive/2019/dec/9/food-banks-more-mcdonalds/ https://fullfact.org/electionlive/2019/dec/9/food-banks-more... That said, it shouldn't be a suprise since there are food bank donations everywhere these days. Truly depressing.
      - thorin 4y ago
        This is sad, but basically every supermarket and corner shop has something like a foodbank by the door and I guess it would be included in these stats so not surprising. Also people with housing can survive in way colder conditions than they might think. It's a shame that all the wealth has been hoovered up from them by the upper classes and big businesses. Every time I see something about cost of living in the UK I think about whenever I want to do anything: theme park, attractions, hotels, restaurants everything is packed with people spending obscene amounts of money, loads of new cars around etc. It's truly a 2 tier system now and I guess in the US also?
renewiltord 4y ago
I think that's just a measure that is meant to vary over time for a single state rather than vary over states for a single time. India struggles with problems of feeding, sheltering, and hygiene for its population. Ultimately, the purpose of that statistic for the state to be able to tell whether its policies are working. The state, therefore, must construct measures that show progress when it makes progress and show regress when it makes errors. A measure that ultimately shows 0 progress even when real progress is made, is not that useful to the state. A data nerd may want to normalize definitions (I certainly do and the MMR and IMR measurements are ones I find particularly annoying) but ultimately a state measures for its own purposes and not mine.
bparsons 4y ago
These are two very different definitions. The international definition of extreme poverty means living on less than $1.90 a day. It is the basic ability to survive. The domestic poverty threshold definition in the UK is whether or not you are able to maintain a fairly stable middle class standard of living.
Shoue 4y ago
Relative measures are important because it's an indicator of how fairly domestic resources are being allocated. You can be a poor country but have resources fairly allocated among the population, and you can be a rich country and have resources unfairly allocated among the population. It's a good indicator of how well people at the bottom are being taken care of, and the ideal scenario is a rich country with low income inequality, which the Nordic countries are probably the best examples of. You can use measures that are less country-specific like the Gini coefficient and UN R/P to measure domestic inequality between countries: The UK has a Gini coefficient of 35.1, a UN R/P 10% of 13.8 India has a Gini coefficient of 35.7, a UN R/P 10% of 8.6 For reference, Norway has a Gini coefficient of 27.7, and a UN R/P 10% of 6.1 (higher = more inequality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
- Neil44 4y ago
  That is very interesting. But I think the answer to the parents question about why people are not boarding rubber dinghies from the UK to India is that in absolute terms poverty is not the same in the two countries.
mym1990 4y ago
Have you been through the process of emigration before, especially as a person in poverty? You make it out to be like just packing up a suitcase and setting up in a cushy new place, the reality is so far away from that.
bergenty 4y ago
I don’t know the answer but I’m sure they’re defined differently. Poverty in India means making less than $1.90 dollars a day. By those standards the UK would have zero poverty so their numbers are clearly self defined at a much higher standard than the UNDP global standard.
advisedwang 4y ago
> With this news, the UK now has more people living in poverty than India (16% vs 22%?) The severity of poverty in rich western nations is easy to underestimate. There are people in the UK who are underfed, can't afford heat, have to work multiple jobs etc. This kind of poverty does look different than poverty in India - better in some ways, but worse in others - but it is still poverty. The data on relative poverty is hard to trust, but we also can't trust gut feelings about which countries "must" have more poverty. Perhaps it is true that UK does have a higher fraction of people in some kind of poverty.
- Matticus_Rex 4y ago
  In what ways does poverty in the UK look worse than poverty in India?
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    You won't freeze to death without heating
  - dan_mctree 4y ago
    Poverty in the west is often of a different kind than in India. Deep poverty in India can look living in self build house in a slum, with no or low and irregular income most of which goes straight into food and necessities. Deep poverty in the west often looks like having a stable income and roof, but being completely overwhelmed by high unavoidable static costs such as rent, health insurance, loan paybacks, etc. Of course this style of poverty is also present in India They're different kinds of experience. I suspect the former is more dangerous, scary and unpleasant, but the latter is more depressing and suffocating.
    - Matticus_Rex 4y ago
      It's more depressing and suffocating than extremely high rates of malnutrition, less educational and institutional access, a stricter class system , having to cook with fuels like dung, poor sanitation, awful maternal health? Color me skeptical.
BurningFrog 4y ago
Discussions about poverty is usually confused by the two competing definitions: - Absolute Poverty: If you have less than $X/day, you are poor. This measures living standards. - Relative Poverty: If you're in the bottom x%, you are poor. This measures status. Without knowing anything, it sounds like this measurement is more on the Relative Poverty side.
- mrits 4y ago
  I don't understand how relative poverty can improve.
  - sdsd 4y ago
    Via more equal outcomes. An egalitarian society might have the same net wealth as a stratified society, but with less relative poverty. Of course, the bottom x% is what it is - but if you create margins or classes then it works different - ie, the % of people who are making x% less than the median or average or whatever.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    It would just be a tighter distribution of income.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    Having fewer middle class people and wealthy people flattens the income curve. Not great for society, but your relative poverty statistics would improve. Otherwise, yes, every ladder has a bottom rung.
  - peterashford 4y ago
    less inequality?
- JamisonM 4y ago
  This is an incorrect definition of relative poverty as on that basis then number of people in poverty will never change - no one interested in serious analysis would use such a definition as it is not useful.
yboris 4y ago
Here is an interactive data visualization comparing incomes within and between countries: https://income-inequality.info/ https://income-inequality.info/ All incomes are in PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, so you can see that living at the US poverty line of $11k/year places one at about 85th percentile (having more income than 85% of the world's population). You can see the code for it on Github as well: https://github.com/whyboris/Global-Income-Distribution https://github.com/whyboris/Global-Income-Distribution
kumarvvr 4y ago
You either compare absolute numbers or pure percentages. Not both in the same sentence.
fooker 4y ago
>I don't understand poverty statistics. It is a relative thing.. You need a significantly higher amount of money in the UK to have a lower middle class lifestyle. In India (and most other third world countries), that is readily achievable because of low living costs.

DimitriPetrova 4y ago

Apparently the Multidimensional Poverty Measure is defined as; An index that captures the percentage of households in a country deprived along three dimensions of well-being – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to provide a more complete picture of poverty. There's also the Multidimensional Poverty Index which has an alternate definition

jimbokun 4y ago
But is there a greater percentage of people in UK deprived along any of those dimensions?
- deathgripsss 4y ago
  It must be relative to that nation. From my experience the UK IS becoming an incredibly segregated nation along economic lines. I don't find it hard to believe that 22% of the populace are in relative poverty. This is very different from absolute poverty, of which I'm sure India has a higher percentage.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    Three cheers for Brexit and Tory rule I suppose.
    - peterashford 4y ago
      I don't know why you're being downvoted. UK has been under Tory rule for most of the last few decades. Its hard to see why they shouldn't be held responsible for UK's fortunes
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Uk has 4.1 million children in poverty, or 30%. It now more food banks than macdonalds. Poorer counties often have large families, government programs for food distribution and many people growing their own food. You might have empty bank account but you will have something to eat and some roof over your head, even if you are crashing at family place or it's illegal construction on a land thats not technically yours. If you are poor in London you will just starve and freese to death
  - jialutu 4y ago
    > Uk .... now more food banks than macdonalds. Holy cow! I just checked this fact and it's true! https://fullfact.org/electionlive/2019/dec/9/food-banks-more-mcdonalds/ https://fullfact.org/electionlive/2019/dec/9/food-banks-more... That said, it shouldn't be a suprise since there are food bank donations everywhere these days. Truly depressing.
    - thorin 4y ago
      This is sad, but basically every supermarket and corner shop has something like a foodbank by the door and I guess it would be included in these stats so not surprising. Also people with housing can survive in way colder conditions than they might think. It's a shame that all the wealth has been hoovered up from them by the upper classes and big businesses. Every time I see something about cost of living in the UK I think about whenever I want to do anything: theme park, attractions, hotels, restaurants everything is packed with people spending obscene amounts of money, loads of new cars around etc. It's truly a 2 tier system now and I guess in the US also?

renewiltord 4y ago

I think that's just a measure that is meant to vary over time for a single state rather than vary over states for a single time. India struggles with problems of feeding, sheltering, and hygiene for its population. Ultimately, the purpose of that statistic for the state to be able to tell whether its policies are working. The state, therefore, must construct measures that show progress when it makes progress and show regress when it makes errors. A measure that ultimately shows 0 progress even when real progress is made, is not that useful to the state. A data nerd may want to normalize definitions (I certainly do and the MMR and IMR measurements are ones I find particularly annoying) but ultimately a state measures for its own purposes and not mine.

bparsons 4y ago

These are two very different definitions. The international definition of extreme poverty means living on less than $1.90 a day. It is the basic ability to survive. The domestic poverty threshold definition in the UK is whether or not you are able to maintain a fairly stable middle class standard of living.

Shoue 4y ago

Relative measures are important because it's an indicator of how fairly domestic resources are being allocated. You can be a poor country but have resources fairly allocated among the population, and you can be a rich country and have resources unfairly allocated among the population. It's a good indicator of how well people at the bottom are being taken care of, and the ideal scenario is a rich country with low income inequality, which the Nordic countries are probably the best examples of. You can use measures that are less country-specific like the Gini coefficient and UN R/P to measure domestic inequality between countries: The UK has a Gini coefficient of 35.1, a UN R/P 10% of 13.8 India has a Gini coefficient of 35.7, a UN R/P 10% of 8.6 For reference, Norway has a Gini coefficient of 27.7, and a UN R/P 10% of 6.1 (higher = more inequality) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...

Neil44 4y ago
That is very interesting. But I think the answer to the parents question about why people are not boarding rubber dinghies from the UK to India is that in absolute terms poverty is not the same in the two countries.

mym1990 4y ago

Have you been through the process of emigration before, especially as a person in poverty? You make it out to be like just packing up a suitcase and setting up in a cushy new place, the reality is so far away from that.

bergenty 4y ago

I don’t know the answer but I’m sure they’re defined differently. Poverty in India means making less than $1.90 dollars a day. By those standards the UK would have zero poverty so their numbers are clearly self defined at a much higher standard than the UNDP global standard.

advisedwang 4y ago

> With this news, the UK now has more people living in poverty than India (16% vs 22%?) The severity of poverty in rich western nations is easy to underestimate. There are people in the UK who are underfed, can't afford heat, have to work multiple jobs etc. This kind of poverty does look different than poverty in India - better in some ways, but worse in others - but it is still poverty. The data on relative poverty is hard to trust, but we also can't trust gut feelings about which countries "must" have more poverty. Perhaps it is true that UK does have a higher fraction of people in some kind of poverty.

Matticus_Rex 4y ago
In what ways does poverty in the UK look worse than poverty in India?
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  You won't freeze to death without heating
- dan_mctree 4y ago
  Poverty in the west is often of a different kind than in India. Deep poverty in India can look living in self build house in a slum, with no or low and irregular income most of which goes straight into food and necessities. Deep poverty in the west often looks like having a stable income and roof, but being completely overwhelmed by high unavoidable static costs such as rent, health insurance, loan paybacks, etc. Of course this style of poverty is also present in India They're different kinds of experience. I suspect the former is more dangerous, scary and unpleasant, but the latter is more depressing and suffocating.
  - Matticus_Rex 4y ago
    It's more depressing and suffocating than extremely high rates of malnutrition, less educational and institutional access, a stricter class system , having to cook with fuels like dung, poor sanitation, awful maternal health? Color me skeptical.

BurningFrog 4y ago

Discussions about poverty is usually confused by the two competing definitions: - Absolute Poverty: If you have less than $X/day, you are poor. This measures living standards. - Relative Poverty: If you're in the bottom x%, you are poor. This measures status. Without knowing anything, it sounds like this measurement is more on the Relative Poverty side.

mrits 4y ago
I don't understand how relative poverty can improve.
- sdsd 4y ago
  Via more equal outcomes. An egalitarian society might have the same net wealth as a stratified society, but with less relative poverty. Of course, the bottom x% is what it is - but if you create margins or classes then it works different - ie, the % of people who are making x% less than the median or average or whatever.
- deelowe 4y ago
  It would just be a tighter distribution of income.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Having fewer middle class people and wealthy people flattens the income curve. Not great for society, but your relative poverty statistics would improve. Otherwise, yes, every ladder has a bottom rung.
- peterashford 4y ago
  less inequality?
JamisonM 4y ago
This is an incorrect definition of relative poverty as on that basis then number of people in poverty will never change - no one interested in serious analysis would use such a definition as it is not useful.

yboris 4y ago

Here is an interactive data visualization comparing incomes within and between countries: https://income-inequality.info/ https://income-inequality.info/ All incomes are in PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, so you can see that living at the US poverty line of $11k/year places one at about 85th percentile (having more income than 85% of the world's population). You can see the code for it on Github as well: https://github.com/whyboris/Global-Income-Distribution https://github.com/whyboris/Global-Income-Distribution

kumarvvr 4y ago

You either compare absolute numbers or pure percentages. Not both in the same sentence.

fooker 4y ago

>I don't understand poverty statistics. It is a relative thing.. You need a significantly higher amount of money in the UK to have a lower middle class lifestyle. In India (and most other third world countries), that is readily achievable because of low living costs.