
For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere - gruseom
http://www.economist.com/node/21548963/
======
hsshah
Indeed. Couple of optimistic talks at TED that shows that on an 'average' it
IS getting better.
[http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...](http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html)
[http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html)

However, the 24/7 news cycle drums up everything that is negative and hence
most of "feel" that it is getting worse.

~~~
tomkin
Part of me wants to accept this information, but I am worried that some kind
of Freakonomics will come into play and we'll find that the reason why there
appears to be less poor is because X is no longer being considered as Y.

~~~
antihero
I wonder - is the amount adjusted base on cost of living and inflation? IE if
$2 a day now gets the poor the same as $1.50 in the 90s, they haven't really
gained anything.

~~~
roel_v
Yes, see this excellent reply by Lazare below:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3756021> .

------
ma2rten
I have been to Uganda a few years ago to work on a voluntary project. If you
see numbers like the number of people living under $1 per day and you see the
images on TV you come to think of people in Africa just as pitiful. However, I
got the feeling that the people in Uganda are actually more happy than the
people in Northern Europe. Maybe wealth is actually inversely correlated with
happiness?

~~~
roel_v
There is vast scientific evidence that 'happiness' is positively correlated
with 'wealth' (both in quotes to indicate that they're broad concepts, I'm not
interested in discussing specific definitions). The scientific history is
broadly that in the 1970's, it was thought there was little correlation (the
'Easterlin paradox'), in the 1980's and 1990's it was thought there was
correlation up to some point of wealth (e.g., income of 15k USD) and after
that there was little to none, but in the last decade (with better data and
more thought into the subject) even that doesn't seem to hold any more. (yes
marginal utility decreases but aside from that).

So, in general, the empirical evidence points to 'more money = more
happiness'.

The literature on this spans decades, a 'popular' paper of the last few years
that references much of the historical papers and as such can serve as a
starting point is [Stevenson & Wolfers, 2008]
(<http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf>).

(a quote in the 'community' on this topic nowadays is (although I haven't been
able to verify a source for it): "the average Togolese man would be
hospitalised for depression in Denmark.").

~~~
ma2rten
Actually, I had though about this issue some more and I looked up this type of
research. So my actual point of view is a little bit more nuanced then what I
wrote in the parent post. However, I though it would be helpful to start with
a proactive thesis to get people thinking about this issue.

Often people in the West just see people in Africa as victims, based on what
they see in the media. Start seeing them as humans.

 _The average Togolese man would be hospitalised for depression in Denmark._

That sounds a bit odd to me, though. How come the suicide rate in Africa is
much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?

~~~
roel_v
"However, I though it would be helpful to start with a proactive thesis to get
people thinking about this issue."

Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs
less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of
provoking replies.

"How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in
Europe?"

First, correlation between depression and suicide is not linear as you seem to
imply. While I don't have the expertise to have an authoritative opinion on
this matter, depression is much more complex than 'my life sucks'. It's just
as much (more?) about 'I feel my life sucks'. Japan has a very high suicide
rate, yet ranks high in various happiness indexes, and has first world GDP.

Secondly, your claim that suicide rates in Africa are close to zero is flat
out wrong, as even a cursory google search would have revealed to you. To
start there is the objective problem with getting data - many African
countries keep little to no statistics on this. Then there is a cultural
issue, which incentivises all involved actors to mask or under-report actual
causes of death (this is Greenspan talk for: families report suicides as
accidents to avoid the social stigma). Furthermore, even the data that is
available and at least somewhat reliable, points to African suicide rates that
are not substantially different from countries worldwide. For example, the
only African country on
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)
(Zimbabwe) is somewhere in the middle, just above (meaning: slightly worse
than) Luxemburg, the most prosperous country in the EU. While Wikipedia isn't
the end and all of data, I found that WHO data paints a similar picture when I
looked into it a while ago when I had the same discussion, but that data is a
lot harder to distill and I don't have time right now to do so.

~~~
ma2rten
_Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs
less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of
provoking replies._

I assume you mean more posts of higher quality. I agree with you in general,
except that I know no site where the density of high quality posts is so high
as here. If it was any higher, I would probably be afraid to post anything.
However, social science works different than the topics the discussion is
usually about on this site. The best university professors often start their
courses by asking provocative questions, which make the students think for
themselves. Sometimes the question is more interesting than the answer, if it
provokes thought.

~~~
roel_v
Well I meant 'less posts, but of higher quality', but I admit that my wording
was unfortunate to the point of indefensible.

I guess we're going off topic here and into a not so interesting discussion,
but with the advent of universal access to heaps of data, the old ways of
thinking are becoming less relevant. What we need is data and evidence; facts,
not talk. Now you and I are from a country where it is a high good to let
everybody have an 'opinion' (I dislike that word and the concept because
opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and most of them stink) about
everything, but luckily we're now beginning to realize the detrimental effects
of the excesses of that, and are curbing it. Many scientific fields are moving
the same direction: less vacuous talk, more substance.

------
nmridul
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 compared to last year doesn't mean
he crossed the poverty barrier. The ever increasing inflation would have
reduced him to a worse than poverty condition.

The calculation should be based on some quantity of food (amount of rice /
starch he can buy with his earnings) etc.

~~~
Lazare
You're absolutely right, which is why that's exactly how poverty is measured.
:) The World Bank actually uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars
for "extreme poverty". Let's break that down:

First, as I said, the World Bank uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day. PPP
stands for Purchasing Power Parity, which means that this is measure doesn't
mean "has US $1.25 of local currency at current exchange rates", but instead
means "has enough local currency to buy a basket of goods and services which
could be purchased for $1.25 in the US". Or in more concrete terms, the World
Bank is defining it as "can buy as much rice or flour as would cost $1.25 in
the US", not "can buy $1.25 of rice or flour at local prices".

Second, the measure is in constant 2005 dollars, which means that it is indeed
indexed for inflation.

And now you know. :) (Other poverty measures do focus directly on calories or
food, but food isn't the only good or service the very poor need to purchase.
That's why the World Bank uses a basket containing a mix of goods and
services. Nothing's perfect, but the Bank's measure is pretty good at
accurately tracking the condition of the poor both over time and between
countries.)

~~~
nmridul
Thank you for explaining it in detail. Now it all makes sense.

Edit - Without the internet, the forums and the good people, i would have
remained as ignorant as I was before.

------
nakkiel
Their point is moot and I don't get their intention.

They use figures from 2005 and 2008 so they can't legitimately try to relate
the economic downturn to improvements in worldwide poverty.

~~~
mcnees287
They have good points. You must have missed econ 101.

~~~
nakkiel
They have no points at all and you must have missed English 101.

First sentence:

"THE past four years have seen the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and
the biggest food-price increases since the 1970s. That must surely have
swollen the ranks of the poor."

I'd expect them to at least address the point they are trying to make but
nothing in the article supports it. The source of the article (the data) ends
in 2008 so that's way too short to make any conclusion on the impact of the
economic downturn.

Economies have some level of inertia and I'd say that it's inversely
proportional to the said economy's dynamism.

They admit it themselves:

"This implies that the long-term rate of poverty reduction—slightly over one
percentage point a year—continued unabated in 2008-10, despite the dual
crisis."

Same for 2011, I'd say poor countries have seen very little investment coming
from Europe in late 2011 as most economic resources were shed in the debt
crisis and protection plan.

"A lot of the credit goes to China"

Absolutely true. Outside China, I have personally witnessed huge changes
happening thanks to China and its economic power and fearless investments.
They literally blow in Laos' economies and are largely responsible for Myanmar
current boom, spending money where their mouth is.

In the end, the article does a great job at showing one of China's good side
but they certainly aren't proving their initial claim.

For people with short memories, China is doing what Europe and the North
America was doing during the post-WWII era. I bet they are going to make the
same mistakes and it's already common knowledge they have started (they bribe
foreign officials easily and generously).

------
chmike
All depends on the criteria of poverty. It is not just a question of money. It
is a question of having access to food, water, safe shelter, security, medical
assistance, ... Food and energy price is raising. Are the poor people catching
on on these ? I doubt it.

~~~
vibrunazo
> I doubt it.

Why exactly? We might not be anywhere near "good enough", but it seems
dismissive to ignore it couldn't have been even worse before.

------
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?

~~~
alexro
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

~~~
lwinkler
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.

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

~~~
derleth
OK, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that your current idea
about this is wrong?

~~~
alexro
Is it the HN version of "go kill yourself" that intelligent people should use?

~~~
eru
In a sense, yes. It's a very nice response in all kinds of arguments, and a
question you should ask yourself often. The weaker the threshold of evidence
you can offer that would change your position, and the discussion partner not
being able to provide that evidence, the stronger your position.

------
padolsey
Almost entirely due to China.

------
lwhi
I am not an economist, but thinking about this briefly .. could it be, the
west needs to suffer economically for developing parts of the world to
prosper? Are finite economics still relevant in the 21st century?

~~~
kamaal
Well England wasn't a very rich country before 'Sun never sets on the British
empire' era.

And they aren't a very rich country now, after they lost all their colonies.

I don't wish to be harsh here, but how much of west's wealth is their own hard
earned through their sweat is a question to ask.

~~~
weavejester
In terms of GDP, the United Kingdom is still the 6th or 7th richest in the
world. That's still pretty rich.

There are also a lot of wealthy European countries that had a minimal presence
abroad in the 19th century. There doesn't appear to any correlation between
the modern wealth of western countries and their past colonialist ambitions.

~~~
hythloday
The UK is ~20th on GDP per capita, which is probably a better proxy for
"standard of living" than GDP per nation.

~~~
weavejester
Agreed, but the original poster didn't mention standard of living, only how
"rich" the country was. That sounded more like overall GDP than GDP per capita
to me (saying "Luxembourg is richer than the USA" sounds a little wrong,
right?), though it admittedly it was just a guess as to what he or she meant.

------
alan_cx
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.

~~~
roel_v
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 means do so - but now
you're just saying 'meh I don't like this guy's ideas, he must be a shill, but
I guess we'll never know because nobody can know these things anyway' - the
most toxic nihilistic and intellectually dishonest 'reasoning' imaginable.

~~~
aquateen
That was not an ad hominem. I really hate that phrase thrown about.

Seems full of questions rather than accusations, and I didn't see obscure
mentioned anywhere.

~~~
roel_v
Oh please, for all intents and purposes, the gist of the GP is 'oh it's the
Economist, they're a bunch of shills, so they're wrong'. I'm not going to
argue nonsensical things like what exactly is an ad hominem, it's crystal
clear that the GP intended to dismiss the message of the article by saying
that because it's from the Economist, it's automatically wrong; i.e., that
it's wrong because of who said it and their ideological background, rather
than the substance of what was said. If that's not an ad hominem, I don't know
what is.

~~~
aquateen
No, he's not saying that at all. That's explicit if you just read his last
sentence.

~~~
aptwebapps
Just because the ad hominem attack is cloaked some very lazy relativism does
not give it substance.

------
PaulMcCartney
This is good news. However, I believe the reason we think poverty is bad is
because we associate it with a poor quality of life. In this vein, poverty is
only one slice of the pie. Other factors must still be considered such as, do
these people have sufficient medical resources available to them and are they
living in middle of a war? What goods are they deprived of and what evils are
they plagued by?

------
thomasdavis
This is all bullshit, capitalism sucks, everyone needs to slow down and live a
little.

~~~
ngokevin
modern society, materialism, capitalism, fast-paced, greed, today.

Whip these together and you've just made yourself a mediocre high school essay
thesis statement.

~~~
thomasdavis
I would rather read the un-educated essay than your over-educated pseudo-
intellectual nonsensical dribble.

------
washedup
I think it's called inflation

~~~
roel_v
You should call them and let them know that you cracked the case, because
1000's of economists and development workers worldwide who have dedicated
their lives to studying these issues cannot hold a candle to the kind of
brilliant insights _you_ can bring forth after just 10 seconds of pondering
them /sarcasm .

~~~
washedup
I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I really think that inflation is a big part of
it, and that the way we currently measure inflation can be misleading,
especially since CPI is measured sans energy/food costs. A large part of the
Arab Spring had to do with climbing food prices. It's true that conditions
around the world are getting better as people gain more access to clean water,
energy, education, etc, but using a benchmark "$1.25" to measure poverty
misses the point. I should have explained my comment with more depth.

------
givan
This combined with population growth will have a big pressure against nature,
can earth provide the resources for all of us to be wealthy?

~~~
nickik
Yes I think its is possible. There is enougth energie we just have to collect
it. If there is a not enougth of one thing it will get more expensive and
alternatives will become more attractive and if something is expensive enougth
recycling it will be worth it.

I truest in the basic market mechanism (people trie to make there own lifes
better by joining the market) this has worked well for a long time.

------
ilaksh
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. This is incredibly unjust.

~~~
apsec112
"Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day."

Simply untrue. [http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/worldin...](http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-
content/uploads/2009/10/worldincome1970_2006.jpg)

"Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is
significant progress"

<http://www.gapminder.org/world/> (hit "Play")

"This is incredibly unjust."

"To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a
desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very
hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to
him?"

<http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html>

~~~
alexro
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.

~~~
bullseye
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 internationally, although I suspect it would
be ignored.

You are entitled to your opinion, but your response doesn't even address the
reason the poster referenced the article. Instead, you launched into some
diatribe about evil rich folk. Reading the full article probably won't change
your opinion, but it does address this "us vs. them" mindset you are in to
some degree. It also contains well-reasoned arguments for variation in income,
including the one the grandparent post mentioned.

From PGs article: _But since for most of the world's history the main route to
wealth was to steal it, we tend to be suspicious of rich people_

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

------
mgunes
If cited in support of the merits of the capitalist mode of production and
growth, the _absolute_ number of people below the threshold of hunger (not
universally identifiable as "poverty") as calculated via the parity of a
centrally controlled currency declining _for the first time ever_ is
absolutely embarrassing. I'd expect producers of post-crisis feel-good
statistical acrobatics to set their standards much higher.

~~~
roel_v
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that absolute numbers give off
the wrong impression because the population overall is declining? If so,
you're flat out wrong, because global overall population trends are still
pointing up, more pronounced so in the areas where there is the most poverty.
Or are you hinting at issues with using PPP as the metric? If so, what's your
problem with it?

