11–20 of 242 posts
I don't understand the significant of metrics like the international poverty line. Seems like the only point of its existence is to create a sense of progress or maybe exaggerate it. They never account for basic stuff like how many calories people get to eat, let alone the quality of nutrition. Last year I read an article saying like 30% of children in India are stunted.
Great but that myth is and was of no real interest to anyone and isn't a very useful frame for the article. India still needs to move most of the population on to doing something more productive than inefficiently looking after plants. The goal is not 1 billion people living off slightly more than $1,000/year. The goal is living standards at least an order of magnitude higher if not several orders. That requires capital, not subsistence+ farming. Which, to their credit, is what the Indians seem to be focusing on.
“One’s desires are endless, however much one gets.” Truth.
The article is interesting, the headline is baffling. It seems to be claiming that it is possible to pay Indians a medium-single-figure daily wage (ie, $1,000/year) despite having 40% of the country working in the agricultural industry. Great but that myth is and was of no real interest to anyone and isn't a very useful frame for the article. India still needs to move most of the population on to doing something more…
Might be a better life than smelling exhaust gas and looking at screens for 3/4 of our existence. Then wake up and worry about AI eventually eating our jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I admit to not having been able to read the article, this is very true. In my country, everyone has access to free healthcare, housing, food, and even tertiary education for most people, especially the poorest. But there are still endless complaints about poverty. Sometimes a person will have to live in a (free) hotel because all the immediately available free housing is in another city where they don't want to…
Poverty perception is relative. Most people judge their position on the poor/rich scale based on their sorroundings, rather than in absolute value. Also to the point on raising the bar. I think that is not a bad thing.
We can look back on people who were royalty in their time, but by modern standards, they would've been living a poor life. No AC in the summer, no proper medical care and the possibility of dying from a mild tooth problem, only having access to food that's in-season, zero running water, needing to have your poop hauled away in buckets, needing to spend all day just to travel 15 km, being blamed for a random crime and executed days later with no real evidence.
Being a rich person in the renaissance period seems like it'd be nice if you only look at paintings glorifying the lifestyle. But when you sit down and think about the nitty gritty daily life, it would suck compared to an average modern lifestyle. Yet the rich back then were surely quite comfortable, just like the rich today are. And the rich centuries from now will look at the mega rich today and be amazed that they lived such quaint lives without food teleporters and instant cancer zappers and weekend trips to the balmy shores of Ganymede.
Saying the poor can't be dissatisfied with the inequality in society today because "things were worse in the past for the poor" can really be extended to anyone and anything. There's always something in the past that was worse than a typical bad experience today. But the past is full of horrors that we should learn from and not repeat.
I don't understand the significant of metrics like the international poverty line. Seems like the only point of its existence is to create a sense of progress or maybe exaggerate it. They never account for basic stuff like how many calories people get to eat, let alone the quality of nutrition. Last year I read an article saying like 30% of children in India are stunted.
It is measured and there are targets - https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I admit to not having been able to read the article, this is very true. In my country, everyone has access to free healthcare, housing, food, and even tertiary education for most people, especially the poorest. But there are still endless complaints about poverty. Sometimes a person will have to live in a (free) hotel because all the immediately available free housing is in another city where they don't want to…
Free housing & food? Which country is that?
Free money, housing, and healthcare for everyone is also the law here in Germany, which is why we get flooded by illegal immigrants too..
..and that's why these Western European welfare states are collapsing. You can only afford something like this if your population overwhelmingly consists of educated, skilled people with a strong work ethic who would never voluntarily sign up for welfare. Once you allow millions of foreigners into the country who are neither educated nor skilled nor have a work ethic such systems start to collapse.
The article is interesting, the headline is baffling. It seems to be claiming that it is possible to pay Indians a medium-single-figure daily wage (ie, $1,000/year) despite having 40% of the country working in the agricultural industry. Great but that myth is and was of no real interest to anyone and isn't a very useful frame for the article. India still needs to move most of the population on to doing something more…
The article is interesting, the headline is baffling. It seems to be claiming that it is possible to pay Indians a medium-single-figure daily wage (ie, $1,000/year) despite having 40% of the country working in the agricultural industry. Great but that myth is and was of no real interest to anyone and isn't a very useful frame for the article. India still needs to move most of the population on to doing something more…
> inefficiently looking after plants Might be a better life than smelling exhaust gas and looking at screens for 3/4 of our existence. Then wake up and worry about AI eventually eating our jobs.