3 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoI don't understand how relative poverty can improve.
- sdsd 4y agoVia 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 agoIt would just be a tighter distribution of income.
- missedthecue 4y agoHaving 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 agoless inequality?
- JamisonM 4y agoThis 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.
- BurningFrog 4y agoI agree with your critique, but you still see it being used a lot. There is plenty of unserious analysis around... The better version is people living under x% of the average living standard.
- JamisonM 4y agoI have not seen such a definition in the wild myself.
- mayama 4y agoThis is based on multidimensional poverty index(MPI), developed pretty recently. It is a mix of both absolute and relative poverty. Though MPI is used mainly in developing nations. > This figure considers both the proportion of the population that is deemed poor, and the 'breadth' of poverty experienced by these 'poor' households, following the Alkire & Foster 'counting method'.[1] The method was developed following increased criticism of monetary and consumption based poverty measures, seeking to capture the deprivations in non-monetary factors that contribute towards well-being. While there is a standard set of indicators, dimensions, cutoffs and thresholds used for a 'Global MPI',[2] the method is flexible and there are many examples of poverty studies that modify it to best suit their environment. The methodology has been mainly, but not exclusively,[3] applied to developing countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Index