The "87%" is PPP corrected. You make my point: it is nonsensical to argue about "poor" when wildly contradictory definitions are being used. A great many legal

The "87%" is PPP corrected. You make my point: it is nonsensical to argue about "poor" when wildly contradictory definitions are being used. A great many legally "poor" in the USA have homes, cars, running hot/cold clean water, HVAC, cable TV, smartphones, etc. and a livable income plus generous free food. For other areas, having a little more than an objectively minimal nutritional intake, survivable shelter, adequate clothing, and mundane healthcare counts one as "not poor" despite still being well below the official US standard. We need an objective definition of "poor" better than "can't get by on $X in the world's most expensive cities".