Jump to content

Talk:Extreme poverty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
1$ definition seems utter nonsense to me...
 
add expert-talk template
 
(71 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
Weird. So according to this 1$ definition less people will be poor when the US$ devaluates. And over time less people will be poor, simply because of because of [[inflation]]. So this definition seems utter nonsense to me. Could someone explain to me why it is not? Or point to some more knowledgeable critique of this definition? [[User:Guaka|G-u-a-k-@]] 00:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject International development |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Low |un=y}}
{{WikiProject Social Work |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Expert-talk}}
== New Criticism ==

Hi. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but there is important new criticism of this metric that claims to measure extreme poverty. It's an arbitrary metric and doesn't seem to account for the difference between people who have a house and land and food in the ground but may average $1.50/day income, versus someone who has nothing but may get $2/day somehow. The former would be much better off, obviously. Anyway, here is some recent critique in this vein, and there is much more. I don't know how to even do links in Wikipedia but maybe this will work. The link should lead to a recent essay by Jason Hickel at https://newint.org/features/2019/07/01/long-read-progress-and-its-discontents

Hope this critique about Enclosure and the nature of what is being called "extreme poverty" and the faults of this metric. Thanks. John.

Just adding to this, many good Wikipedia pages seem to have a section on criticisms of a subject and that seems to be missing here. I actually came to this page to look for such a section and think if someone could add it that would be useful for future readers. Unfortunately, the editing system seems a bit overwhelming to me so I´ll leave it to you smart people :) - UDRF/Jakob <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Udrf|Udrf]] ([[User talk:Udrf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Udrf|contribs]]) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Yes, it needs critique. It also makes it seem as if $1.90/day in 2011 is the threshold everywhere, but it's not. It is adjusted (mostly downward) by PPP which is not mentioned clearly in the lede. [[Special:Contributions/216.19.250.77|216.19.250.77]] ([[User talk:216.19.250.77|talk]]) 12:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

== Missing Significant Minor Viewpoints ==

Coming off of [[Talk:Maddison Project#Concerning Paper]]...

There seems to be minor coverage of $1.90 a day criticism from a significant press outlet, [https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/01/global-poverty-is-worse-than-you-think-could-you-live-on-190-a-day#:~:text=He%20calculates%20that%20in%20order,it's%20about%20%247.40%20a%20day The Guardian]. (Wikipedia article: [[The Guardian]]).

Going through the linked papers leads to [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953602005555] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20170703225502/http://courses.arch.vt.edu/courses/wdunaway/gia5524/edward06.pdf]. If it is significant, it's not being represented well. I should also note that [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Extreme_poverty the two most significant contributors (on XTools)] are [[WP:SPA|single-purpose accounts.]] Expert needed pronto.

There ''may'' be a Wikimedia project involved, but... [[wp:crystal ball]], and we should leave it at that, until we get more information.⸺([[User talk:Randomstaplers|Random]])[[User:Randomstaplers|staplers]] 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:57, 13 September 2024

New Criticism

[edit]

Hi. I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, but there is important new criticism of this metric that claims to measure extreme poverty. It's an arbitrary metric and doesn't seem to account for the difference between people who have a house and land and food in the ground but may average $1.50/day income, versus someone who has nothing but may get $2/day somehow. The former would be much better off, obviously. Anyway, here is some recent critique in this vein, and there is much more. I don't know how to even do links in Wikipedia but maybe this will work. The link should lead to a recent essay by Jason Hickel at https://newint.org/features/2019/07/01/long-read-progress-and-its-discontents

Hope this critique about Enclosure and the nature of what is being called "extreme poverty" and the faults of this metric. Thanks. John.

Just adding to this, many good Wikipedia pages seem to have a section on criticisms of a subject and that seems to be missing here. I actually came to this page to look for such a section and think if someone could add it that would be useful for future readers. Unfortunately, the editing system seems a bit overwhelming to me so I´ll leave it to you smart people :) - UDRF/Jakob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udrf (talkcontribs) 11:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs critique. It also makes it seem as if $1.90/day in 2011 is the threshold everywhere, but it's not. It is adjusted (mostly downward) by PPP which is not mentioned clearly in the lede. 216.19.250.77 (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Significant Minor Viewpoints

[edit]

Coming off of Talk:Maddison Project#Concerning Paper...

There seems to be minor coverage of $1.90 a day criticism from a significant press outlet, The Guardian. (Wikipedia article: The Guardian).

Going through the linked papers leads to [1] and [2]. If it is significant, it's not being represented well. I should also note that the two most significant contributors (on XTools) are single-purpose accounts. Expert needed pronto.

There may be a Wikimedia project involved, but... wp:crystal ball, and we should leave it at that, until we get more information.⸺(Random)staplers 23:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]