patrick.net

Seems exaggerated. It would have to depend on the definition of extreme poverty. Possibly some rural people in extreme poverty 70 years ago had a better quality of life than some urban people slightly above extreme poverty now. Still impressive, if it's even only half way reflecting reality.

Looks like a welfare ad by the world bank beginning in the 60's? Non-participants had to be paid-off to prevent rebellion against the fiat currency.

you getting your hat ready, bud?

marcus says

Seems exaggerated. It would have to depend on the definition of extreme poverty. Possibly some rural people in extreme poverty 70 years ago had a better quality of life than some urban people slightly above extreme poverty now. Still impressive, if it's even only half way reflecting reality.

That's not even possible. At least not in Los Angeles. Not sure what the current poverty line is, but if you don't have kids and have some subsidized housing, you have a roof over your head and food. You also have free public transportation and nearly infinite low or no cost activities to engage in. Granted things get a bit tough if you have medical issues.

If you have kids, they get free breakfast and lunch at school, access to technology at school and libraries, and access to a huge host of social services. Oh and around a $4,000 check at tax time in the form of the EIC.

I don't see how you'd believe that someone barely above poverty in 1946 is better off than someone living in a us City in 2016

The Deplorable DFJ says

I don't see how you'd believe that someone barely above poverty in 1946 is better off than someone living in a us City in 2016

Gotta get your 'liberal' on to really understand it.

Globalization has been great for helping developing countries with large populations lift those people out of extreme poverty. Some people see this chart and and see good. Others see an opportunity to try to take from the billions of poor, but not abjectly so, and give to the American middle class.

The Deplorable DFJ says

I don't see how you'd believe that someone barely above poverty in 1946 is better off than someone living in a us City in 2016

This is talking worldwide, so most of the people in extreme poverty decades ago or now aren't even in this country. I was questioning whether some people in say china or india that are now in a city and considered above the poverty line (definition) don't possibly have a worse quality of life than some rural people that were technically in extreme poverty 70 years ago. This would cause the graph to be exaggerated.

Check out the graph with the relative number in extreme poverty (hit the radio button for relative)

Extreme poverty is defined as living at a consumption (or income) level below 1.90 "international $" per day.International $ are adjusted for price differences between countries and for price changes over time (inflation)

marcus says

Possibly some rural people in extreme poverty 70 years ago had a better quality of life than some urban people slightly above extreme poverty now.

This graph has been debunked numerous time on pat net.
- One guy doing subsistence farming on a piece of land: earnings = $0, but mostly he has food and shelter, no boss, his place in the sun. No extras but ok.
- Second guy living in the factory in a dorm, works 10 hrs a day, 6 days a week with regulated bathroom breaks, for $2 a day. Pollutes the universe like hell.

Now of course that second guy is counted as out of extreme poverty.
Much better. Thank you, globalists, for making the world a better place.