I'm sceptical about the concept of poverty as defined by the economists. They seem to define poverty as being unable to live a consumerist lifestyle, and not being genuinely poor. In the US, the poverty threshold for a single person is about $1000 per month. However, for that amount of money, I think you can get shelter, food, clothing and live in material comfort (or at least lack of evident discomfort) - you're clothed, fed, warm, dry and have a safe place to rest and sleep. Is that what poverty looks like?
It looks like, to economists, poverty is more about being unable to have a bigger place for yourself, newish car, newish electronics, rich variety in food etc. - but it's hardly end of the world if people don't have those things, so why should the public care?