I assume you want to add value to the discussion. Otherwise you wouldn't have explained your down vote. But as other responses you felt you should make assumpti

I assume you want to add value to the discussion. Otherwise you wouldn't have explained your down vote. But as other responses you felt you should make assumptions where trying to understand the statement better would have been the right call. Let me show as example how your comment would look as a value addition to the discussion: "I'm still not getting your point What sources are you referring to? [instead of "no evidence"] What does it look like for such a person who lives on ~$1.50 a day but being happy about their life? [instead of "Lack of ability..."] Would an increase in income not help these people as well to maintain their individuality/culture against stronger outside forces? [instead of "... power relations..."] How would your life change on that kind of money a day?" Can't put anything for the last three lines. Wouldn't that have offered you the chance to learn something you didn't know yet, namely about people who can live without ~$1.50 a day and still be happy? Wouldn't that have increased the chance to discuss how poverty should be defined differently, maybe on a more complex level?