Jump to content

Talk:Extreme poverty: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tamcgath (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Tamcgath (talk | contribs)
14 edits
No edit summary
Line 112: Line 112:
Agreed, especially since a lot of economists regard the World Bank's definition to reflect a pretty significant conflict of interest. They represent a lot of powerful economic institutions and people who are pretty happy to see wages being low and hours being high around the world. They actively seek to make the poverty line as low as humanly possible to argue good living conditions. Yet there's no criticism or controversy page. Also it doesn't adjust for cost of living, which makes the international poverty line pretty meaningless. If you're a homeless person in New York who lives on 200 dollars a month, then you might have worse living conditions than someone who lives below the poverty line in Guatemala for instance. Because median rent in Guatemala is 50 dollars (roughly), whereas it can run in the thousands in New York. So in Guatemala you got a home, in New York you don't. Rich countries don't always benefit poor people, and you can't measure poverty with daily income without context. Point is, someone should point out how a lot of economists would argue that the World Bank is a pretty unscholarly institution that serves as a PR wing for western corporations. Because I know they're not dumb, they know economics, they're just intentionally misinforming people. [[Special:Contributions/78.69.180.157|78.69.180.157]] ([[User talk:78.69.180.157|talk]]) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since a lot of economists regard the World Bank's definition to reflect a pretty significant conflict of interest. They represent a lot of powerful economic institutions and people who are pretty happy to see wages being low and hours being high around the world. They actively seek to make the poverty line as low as humanly possible to argue good living conditions. Yet there's no criticism or controversy page. Also it doesn't adjust for cost of living, which makes the international poverty line pretty meaningless. If you're a homeless person in New York who lives on 200 dollars a month, then you might have worse living conditions than someone who lives below the poverty line in Guatemala for instance. Because median rent in Guatemala is 50 dollars (roughly), whereas it can run in the thousands in New York. So in Guatemala you got a home, in New York you don't. Rich countries don't always benefit poor people, and you can't measure poverty with daily income without context. Point is, someone should point out how a lot of economists would argue that the World Bank is a pretty unscholarly institution that serves as a PR wing for western corporations. Because I know they're not dumb, they know economics, they're just intentionally misinforming people. [[Special:Contributions/78.69.180.157|78.69.180.157]] ([[User talk:78.69.180.157|talk]]) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


-- Skewed and debatable definitions used here --
== Skewed and debatable definitions used here == [[User:Tamcgath|Tamcgath]] ([[User talk:Tamcgath|talk]]) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


I want to agree with David here. Most serious poverty scholars don't take the $1.90 level seriously since it doesn't factor in things like food costs or nutrition. You can actually see that even when they bumped it up from $1.25 from 2005 PPP to $1.90 to 2015, the food prices have gone up significantly since then. And global hunger has increased. This article desperately needs some more contending voices on here. I'd suggest pulling in some insights from Jason Hickel's book, The Divide. Here is more on his blog: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty. I'd like to possibly edit and add a criticism section here.
I want to agree with David here. Most serious poverty scholars don't take the $1.90 level seriously since it doesn't factor in things like food costs or nutrition. You can actually see that even when they bumped it up from $1.25 from 2005 PPP to $1.90 to 2015, the food prices have gone up significantly since then. And global hunger has increased. This article desperately needs some more contending voices on here. I'd suggest pulling in some insights from Jason Hickel's book, The Divide. Here is more on his blog: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty. I'd like to possibly edit and add a criticism section here.

Revision as of 21:45, 6 January 2020

Template:Vital article

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Untitled

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? G-u-a-k-@ 00:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though the number of people "earning less than a dollar a day" is a common figure cited when discussing global poverty, the methods by which one might calculate what a dollar is worth in developing countries are several and complex. Certainly the meaning of the phrase will change with inflation, and people who use this metric would have to take that into account.

This article is confused; it uses the term "abosolute poverty" to mean "very bad poverty" when income inequality metrics defines it as a technical term, which means poverty as measured by what you can afford, not by how you compare to others. I think it's best just to merge this article there, if there's anything here worth saving. -- Beland 07:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolute Poverty

Someone living beyond the edge of subsistence, whose continued existence is dependent on the active charity of others. May have a religious or world renouncing component if voluntary... User:swhit41

So if you look on Poverty, you'll see that there are two meanings to the term "absolute poverty", one of which is the percentage of people below some poverty line, and the other of which means "extreme poverty". The first meaning is already discussed at Income inequality metrics, and the remainder could easily be integrated into the discussion of absoluete/extreme poverty at Poverty. If this subject is going to expand into its own article (which could certainly be worthwhile), perhaps it would be best to rename it "extreme poverty" (or similar) instead, to avoid the confusion. -- Beland 03:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone please clarify what is meant when the intro refers to US $1.50 a day and A $2 a day. 1 Aus dollar is worth more than one USD, currencies are not interchangeable. us 1.50 does not = aud$2 , please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.170.121 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Guaka It is measured in Purchasing Power Parity exchange rates (PPP) the dollars a day poverty line is adjusted according to this. The poverty line is currently 2005 PPP.--98.122.177.25 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Poverty

It is ridiculous that I get forwarded to this article when I enter "absolute poverty". Absolute poverty means that poverty is defined without referring to the general income level in a society. Absolute poverty has nothing to do with extreme poverty. This is the ideology of the poverty lobbyists who never want to speak about absolute poverty but always about income distribution. Wikipedia should not subscribe to any ideology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.225.154 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic split

OK, I edited the article to clearly differentiate between the two meanings. What I was thinking was that the "In economics" part should move to Poverty line, since in this sense, being in "absolute poverty" means nothing more than being below someone's "poverty line." The material left over fot the section on how the phrase is used to mean "extreme poverty" is barely more than a dictionary definition, and so should either be moved to Wiktionary, merged with Poverty, or both. -- Beland 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solution?

I suggest that we reserve the absolute poverty to mean 'below some poverty line.' and transfer the other to the dictionary if not just deleting. Can I just merge the pages? (I am new).

Extreme poverty is not the same as living below the poverty line.--69.156.204.111 18:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An interesting metric?

How many die of /it/ each day?

I've heard 30,000 a day (every day) 

  die of /extreme poverty/. Yes?  No?

Was it better last week?

Clearly -- the /brave ones/ that die of starvation or simple disease could be considered "extremely poor". (way too poor to read these words...)

There must be a more extreme term for those that die in poverty...

Clearly the number changes, and could be tracked and studied. A regular newspaper feature...

Well... something has to replace the poetry column...

Copyright issues with this article

Substantial portions of the "statistics" section of this article appear to be cut & pasted directly from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/3-MP-PovertyFacts-E.pdf in direct violation of the website's terms and conditions at http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/disclaimer.htm. I've flagged this with {{copypaste}}. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop songs about poverty

in the article it tells yu about hip hop artist making songs about poverty. they are talkin about relative poverty, not absolute poverty, which is what the page is about. why did whoever put that bullet point in put it in the absolute poverty article? it shuld be in the relative poverty saection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extreme poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extreme poverty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Income-based definition" section needs improvements for clarity

This section gives a very confusing array of thresholds. Can we re-word it to make clearer that the threshold was USD 1 in 1996, USD 1.25 in 2005 and USD 1.90 in 2015?

The wording should account for the changes and also to be explicit that the measurement is in USD. 

Matthew C. Clarke  03:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also needs updated generally. It notes 2010 at the most recent reliable data based off a 2010 reference. Here is a 2015 one noting further significant drops https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20Summary%20web_english.pdf I'm going to add it and try to update some things, but some of the discussion there references previous sentences with other references also from 2010 so there is more work to do updating this. Phil (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is poverty decreasing?

We could use some more eyes on this: Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#poverty. Also, there is the question of whether the proposed misconception should be added to this or another article on poverty. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, especially since a lot of economists regard the World Bank's definition to reflect a pretty significant conflict of interest. They represent a lot of powerful economic institutions and people who are pretty happy to see wages being low and hours being high around the world. They actively seek to make the poverty line as low as humanly possible to argue good living conditions. Yet there's no criticism or controversy page. Also it doesn't adjust for cost of living, which makes the international poverty line pretty meaningless. If you're a homeless person in New York who lives on 200 dollars a month, then you might have worse living conditions than someone who lives below the poverty line in Guatemala for instance. Because median rent in Guatemala is 50 dollars (roughly), whereas it can run in the thousands in New York. So in Guatemala you got a home, in New York you don't. Rich countries don't always benefit poor people, and you can't measure poverty with daily income without context. Point is, someone should point out how a lot of economists would argue that the World Bank is a pretty unscholarly institution that serves as a PR wing for western corporations. Because I know they're not dumb, they know economics, they're just intentionally misinforming people. 78.69.180.157 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== Skewed and debatable definitions used here == Tamcgath (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to agree with David here. Most serious poverty scholars don't take the $1.90 level seriously since it doesn't factor in things like food costs or nutrition. You can actually see that even when they bumped it up from $1.25 from 2005 PPP to $1.90 to 2015, the food prices have gone up significantly since then. And global hunger has increased. This article desperately needs some more contending voices on here. I'd suggest pulling in some insights from Jason Hickel's book, The Divide. Here is more on his blog: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty. I'd like to possibly edit and add a criticism section here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Extreme_poverty&oldid=934498845"