3 ms·

Yes, there is quite a human difference between being a subsistence farmer that "earns" almost nothing, yet has stores of food and a safe home, and someone sleep

Yes, there is quite a human difference between being a subsistence farmer that "earns" almost nothing, yet has stores of food and a safe home, and someone sleeping on the streets in a big city. But poverty metrics often views them as the same. Sadly this is likely because these metrics are weaponized to show how superior and civilized the West is, which has largely abandoned subsistence farming. That's also why this article doesn't directly mention China, which is the runaway leader in large-scale poverty alleviation efforts over the last few decades.

simonh 3y ago
This study takes into account home production and non-monetary income.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Some of the backing studies do, but the linked article, which is the object of discussion, absolutely does not. Have you read them?
  - verteu 3y ago
    > Some of the backing studies do, but the linked article, which is the object of discussion, absolutely does not. Have you read them? From the linked article: > Basics of global poverty measurement > Throughout this article – and in global income and expenditure data generally – the statisticians who produce these figures are careful to make these numbers as comparable as possible. > Non-monetary sources of income are taken into account > Many poor people today and in the past rely on subsistence farming and do not have a monetary income. To take this into account and make a fair comparison of their living standards, the statisticians that produce these figures estimate the monetary value of their home production and add it to their income/expenditure. > Differences in purchasing power and inflation are taken into account
    - pphysch 3y ago
      ...And the article disregards all of that by using a high-income-adjusted poverty line for low/medium income countries. Textbook data crime: such a strange hill to die on! The data is all there, in the linked studies. They could easily have used the actually correct data (i.e. per-country poverty lines). But then e.g. China would go from 90-100% poverty bracket (dark red) to the 10-20% bracket (light brown), which is obviously not the conclusion that the blog post* wants readers to be impressed with. * authored by the director of a global development program at Oxford

simonh 3y ago

This study takes into account home production and non-monetary income.

pphysch 3y ago
Some of the backing studies do, but the linked article, which is the object of discussion, absolutely does not. Have you read them?
- verteu 3y ago
  > Some of the backing studies do, but the linked article, which is the object of discussion, absolutely does not. Have you read them? From the linked article: > Basics of global poverty measurement > Throughout this article – and in global income and expenditure data generally – the statisticians who produce these figures are careful to make these numbers as comparable as possible. > Non-monetary sources of income are taken into account > Many poor people today and in the past rely on subsistence farming and do not have a monetary income. To take this into account and make a fair comparison of their living standards, the statisticians that produce these figures estimate the monetary value of their home production and add it to their income/expenditure. > Differences in purchasing power and inflation are taken into account
  - pphysch 3y ago
    ...And the article disregards all of that by using a high-income-adjusted poverty line for low/medium income countries. Textbook data crime: such a strange hill to die on! The data is all there, in the linked studies. They could easily have used the actually correct data (i.e. per-country poverty lines). But then e.g. China would go from 90-100% poverty bracket (dark red) to the 10-20% bracket (light brown), which is obviously not the conclusion that the blog post* wants readers to be impressed with. * authored by the director of a global development program at Oxford