3 ms·

According to the World Bank, global poverty has decreased by nearly 20% during that time; the rate of decrease for those in extreme poverty has been even greate

• somenameforme 3y ago
  It'd only be 1.5 billion people if 100% of the world was in poverty. They're referring to relative rates. E.g. if 5% of the world was in poverty and now it's 4% then you have a 20% decline. But the bigger point is to be wary of metrics. The overwhelming majority of global poverty comes from extremely rural locations where money has relatively little use, yet people get by quite comfortably. Putting these people in an urban job where they then earn $3 a day is then considered progress, regardless of impact on quality of life. For instance the biggest contemporary driver in decline of poverty has been the rise of China. It saw people go from raising large families in rural areas to living in densely packed cities, making iPhones for $3 a day in factories surrounded by suicide nets. I'm obviously not saying economic development is bad, but that measuring it by metrics is stupid, especially the way the World Bank does which is simply looking at a fixed level of $ consumption/production. What should matter is quality of life. That's obviously what you're referencing, but the metrics are not.