Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#61

Post by alexro »

bullseye wrote: post #39
alexro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like reading PG's essays but this one is a nonsense to me. What we (people) don't like about the rich is not their ability to make money, but their ability to corrupt the gvmt and screw the poor. All in the sake of more money.

I'm sorry, but that is just entitlement garbage that you are spewing. I don't dispute that there are certainly corrupt individuals in the world, but to cast every person of sufficient wealth as corrupting "the gvmt" and screwing the poor is near-sighted at best. I could give you countless examples of wealthy individuals that have donated significant amounts of money and time to help the poor, both domestically and in…

Frankly, to this exactly moment the greater part of rich people doesn't help us to get less suspicious.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#62

Post by csomar »

Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#63

Post by alexro »

csomar wrote: post #62

Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?

That's it. And even if the poverty was still the same or better, what we as a whole get after such interventions is excess amounts of hate. Better let the countries alone, you Barak

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#64

Post by alexro »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #57
nmridul wrote: post #56

I am genuinely curious why the poverty calculation is done with respect to some dollar threshold ( earning below $1.25 is poor ??). In some part of the world $1.25 (after converting to local currency) per day can buy generous meals 3 times a day and still be left with amount to pay for transport, clothing and housing. But in some part even $10 per day would make you poor. Also, a person earning more than $1.25 now co…

Those aren't currency exchange rate dollars, they are "purchasing power parity" dollar equivalents, which take into account everything you've mentioned.

It isn't true. The calculations are done for some "average" group. And the group is selected based on the research goals, can have nothing in common with say your family.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#65

Post by alexro »

roel_v wrote: post #50
alan_cx wrote: post #40

Isn't this just a capitalist supporting publication trying to justify that which it supports? Poverty groups would, rightly, do the same thing. No criticism, but, well, they would wouldn't they? That's the way it is. Don't we all "big up" that which we believe in? Trouble is, every one has an agenda and its really hard to ever know the truth. I have no idea if this is self serving fantasy or reality.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you come with some data to support your accusations? The Economist is one of the last publications with a rigorous policy of publishing original data sources, in this case the World Bank, hardly the obscure special interest group you make it out to be. If you want to offer alternative interpretations of the data, or point out specific methodological flaws, or whatever, by all…

Why, on the other hand, you take your Economist and go show it to the folks mentioned? Alone in the evening. Scared?

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#66

Post by ma2rten »

csomar wrote: post #62

Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?

The short answer is yes. Generally speaking poor countries get aid based on how poor they are. So the incentive is to make yourself poorer than you actually are and not richer. However, foreign aid organizations, like the World Bank, where the numbers come from in this case, are not stupid and they are thinking about this issue.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#67

Post by lwinkler »

alexro wrote: post #63
csomar wrote: post #62

Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?

That's it. And even if the poverty was still the same or better, what we as a whole get after such interventions is excess amounts of hate. Better let the countries alone, you Barak

I don't quite get your point. America did not make an intervention in Tunisia. However you are right, better leave the country choose their own way.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#68

Post by DanBC »

jvrossb wrote: post #13
ilaksh wrote: post #2

This is a tiny change. Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day. Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress or not be distressed by the inequality. If you honestly assess this fact that almost half live for less than $2.00 per day versus the "first world" consumption then you will come to the conclusion, as I have, that civilization is a myth. Thi…

It comes down to this: if you think that economics is a zero-sum game, then yes, it is unjust. First world consumption comes at the expense of the poor elsewhere, the rich are leeches sucking money from the rest of the economy, and 35 hour work weeks create jobs. Good news is all signs point to economics not being a zero-sum game, and thus most of the responses you are getting are likely correct - your premise is fla…

There is a problem with rich people consuming things that drive poor people into unacceptable employment to provide raw materials for those things.

Materials like gold, or minerals for tech, are often mined in ways that most people would find appalling.

People have a perception of "fairness" and a big tech company making millions, billions of dollars of profit while people are mining minerals in dangerous conditions for very little money is seen as unjust.

For someone getting $2 a small amount of money, just 50c, is a huge raise, and it would have little impact on the end price of the goods.

Quite small amounts of carefully targeted money could make a big difference to developing nations - better schools, clean water, better medicine, etc.

It would be really nice to see tech companies devoting a bit of time and smarts (and maybe even a bit of cash) to tackling those problems.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#69

Post by alexro »

lwinkler wrote: post #67
alexro wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's it. And even if the poverty was still the same or better, what we as a whole get after such interventions is excess amounts of hate. Better let the countries alone, you Barak

I don't quite get your point. America did not make an intervention in Tunisia. However you are right, better leave the country choose their own way.

You really believe they did just fell down, one after another, starting with Tunisia? I envy your good spirit.

Re: For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

#70

Post by derleth »

alexro wrote: post #69
lwinkler wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite get your point. America did not make an intervention in Tunisia. However you are right, better leave the country choose their own way.

You really believe they did just fell down, one after another, starting with Tunisia? I envy your good spirit.

OK, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that your current idea about this is wrong?
Post reply on HN