The history of the end of poverty has just begun

It seems like the more meaningful advance in society has been to increase the quality of life of poor people, not to move more of them above some arbitrary cutoff. I'm talking about life expectancy, access to shelter, food, medical care, entertainment, educational and career opportunities. If the definition of poverty is that you live off less than the (adjusted) $30/day cutoff, who here would choose to live that way in 1820 Sweden, compared to 2020 Sweden? Anybody? If so, how is that a useful way to compare poverty over time?

I agree that we largely have capitalism + globalization to thank for across the board wealth increase (or where wealth hasn't increased, the price of commodities has decreased) over the last century. However, state-run welfare programs, social safety nets, automation, etc. also play some role.

No, and we're nowhere near post-scarcity.

We're able to foresee the end of some forms of scarcity, like basic food insecurity, but there's still no reasonable expectation that the economy becomes post scarcity in any way shape or form within the next 100 years.

I agree with the overall arguments and conclusion, but I wonder if we need a better way of measuring poverty than some overly-adjusted "dollar per day in income" value. Like, how many calories per day in food is your family getting? Do you have consistent shelter? Do you have access to basic medical care? Are you safe from physical threats? Can you pay an unexpected bill? Do you have a social structure in place around you? Are you free from symptoms of depression? I imagine there would be significant variance in the answer to these questions over just "how much money do you make".

Ultimately all this is what matters to people when talking about having a decent life. Charts like the one in the article will convince people that capitalist systems are working around the world, but that's because they are tracking metrics of capitalism in the first place rather than quality of life.

Definitely not. It's the regulation of capitalism that is driving this. This is why the countries where capitalism is most heavily regulated (nordic countries, some european countries) are cited throughout the article. Capitalism on its own with no regulation just devolves into corporate dystopia and corruption because the short term path of least resistance is always taken. When we experience progress it's because of thousands of well thought out regulations that steer capitalism, perhaps kicking and screaming, towards actual technological and societal progress. Conversely, when public policy is dictated by lobbyists and corporate interests, wealth disparity increases and progress ceases. Those that say "but capitalism is all about disrupting and innovating" are wrong -- capital will only innovate if it has no other choice. It would much prefer to simply buy out, price-fix, monopolize, crush via economies of scale, bribe, silence naysayers, acquire, etc., because these tactics and any tactics that maintain the status quo in which the corporation has been able to become successful are superior if left unregulated. If the only options you leave on the table for capital to take are options that are good for society, then you will see society improve.

Imagine how much we could progress technologically, culturally, and societally if we were able to 100% remove corporate influence over politics and create regulations and guardrails that reward innovation and punish monopolization and exploitation.