<story><title>&apos;Extreme poverty&apos; to fall below 10% of world population for first time</title><url>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-extreme-poverty-to-fall-below-10-of-world-population-for-first-time</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>devinhelton</author><text>Yes, exactly. The numbers I would like to see measured would be:&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who can afford 2,500 calories of food and 60 grams of animal protein a day (where afford has some standard definition, such as can pay for the consumption using less than half of their income).&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who have access to clean water&lt;p&gt;- percent of people with indoor plumbing&lt;p&gt;- percent of people with access to electricity in the home.&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month&lt;p&gt;It is impossible to know what &amp;quot;$2 a day&amp;quot; actually means. The number gets adjusted for purchasing power, but there is an infinite amount of room in that calculation for governments to fudge the data. Many people in the third world can afford a cell phone, but not afford enough protein in their diet, does that mean they are richer or poorer than someone one hundred years ago  without a cell phone but who can afford meat? There is no objective way to answer that question. Since I do not know all the subjective decisions made in doing the purchasing power adjustment, the ultimate number tells me nothing.</text></item><item><author>ctdonath</author><text>For all the discussion (i.e.: heated biased arguing) about poverty, seems nobody has addressed an objective definition of what constitutes &amp;quot;poor&amp;quot;. Why is the world poverty line at $1.25&amp;#x2F;day, but the US poverty line is 20x that? We need a quantitative analysis, starting with basic caloric&amp;#x2F;nutritional&amp;#x2F;BTU&amp;#x2F;water&amp;#x2F;power&amp;#x2F;data&amp;#x2F;etc needs (independent of arbitrary numbers imputed by fiat&amp;#x2F;floating currencies) for cost of bare sustenance, then work from there recognizing that varying geography, demographics, et al adjusts that cost, then admitting that different cultures further adjust those basic costs.&lt;p&gt;Without such objective analysis of basic sustenance, fudging numbers is trivial.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sanxiyn</author><text>&amp;gt; percent of people who have access to clean water&lt;p&gt;This number is actually measured, because it is target 7.C of MDG(Millennium Development Goals). Lots of data at &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mdgs.un.org&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mdgs.un.org&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Summary is that we are doing very well on this number. In 1990 it was 76%, now it is 91%. In the absolute number, 2.6 billion people gained access to clean water in the period.</text></comment>
<story><title>&apos;Extreme poverty&apos; to fall below 10% of world population for first time</title><url>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/05/world-bank-extreme-poverty-to-fall-below-10-of-world-population-for-first-time</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>devinhelton</author><text>Yes, exactly. The numbers I would like to see measured would be:&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who can afford 2,500 calories of food and 60 grams of animal protein a day (where afford has some standard definition, such as can pay for the consumption using less than half of their income).&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who have access to clean water&lt;p&gt;- percent of people with indoor plumbing&lt;p&gt;- percent of people with access to electricity in the home.&lt;p&gt;- percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month&lt;p&gt;It is impossible to know what &amp;quot;$2 a day&amp;quot; actually means. The number gets adjusted for purchasing power, but there is an infinite amount of room in that calculation for governments to fudge the data. Many people in the third world can afford a cell phone, but not afford enough protein in their diet, does that mean they are richer or poorer than someone one hundred years ago  without a cell phone but who can afford meat? There is no objective way to answer that question. Since I do not know all the subjective decisions made in doing the purchasing power adjustment, the ultimate number tells me nothing.</text></item><item><author>ctdonath</author><text>For all the discussion (i.e.: heated biased arguing) about poverty, seems nobody has addressed an objective definition of what constitutes &amp;quot;poor&amp;quot;. Why is the world poverty line at $1.25&amp;#x2F;day, but the US poverty line is 20x that? We need a quantitative analysis, starting with basic caloric&amp;#x2F;nutritional&amp;#x2F;BTU&amp;#x2F;water&amp;#x2F;power&amp;#x2F;data&amp;#x2F;etc needs (independent of arbitrary numbers imputed by fiat&amp;#x2F;floating currencies) for cost of bare sustenance, then work from there recognizing that varying geography, demographics, et al adjusts that cost, then admitting that different cultures further adjust those basic costs.&lt;p&gt;Without such objective analysis of basic sustenance, fudging numbers is trivial.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>GordonS</author><text>&amp;gt; percent of people who can access and afford 500MB of internet data a month&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think I&amp;#x27;d include Internet access in any definition of &amp;#x27;extreme poverty&amp;#x27;.</text></comment>