Definition of global poverty.

[phk]

How would you define poverty if you were cumulatively looking at the world economy?

The current measure the UN uses is $1 a day, of which 20% of the globe is at or below, that is approximately 1.2 billion people. Which is slightly more than 4 times the US population.

I would define poverty as being around $5 a day.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would say being above the poverty line would include:
1) having a roof over your head
2) having clothes on your back
3) having something to eat

[phk]

I would say being above the poverty line would include:
1) having a roof over your head
2) having clothes on your back
3) having something to eat

I was looking for Math, numbers, dollars...

You'd run into headaches trying to actually guage a %, if you based it off material wealth, due to different levels of economic deveolopment throughout the globe.

Being well-fed in the United Kingdom is probably not the same as being well-fed in say... Laos.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I would say being above the poverty line would include:
1) having a roof over your head
2) having clothes on your back
3) having something to eat

I was looking for Math, numbers, dollars...

Well, sometimes it doesn't require any money…and other times it can't be bought at any price.  Cost of living is relative to time, place, and circumstance.

[Beet]

Below half of the per capita income of the lowest country in the OECD.

[phk]

I would say being above the poverty line would include:
1) having a roof over your head
2) having clothes on your back
3) having something to eat

I was looking for Math, numbers, dollars...

Well, sometimes it doesn't require any money…and other times it can't be bought at any price.  Cost of living is relative to time, place, and circumstance.

Well even if it didn't require money, there is still an indirect cost that relates to variable of time.

If it took some guy in Sub-Saharan Africa 10 hours to build a dwelling to live in, I can easily put a price-tag on the finished product and his labor.

[Max Power]

Africa.

[opebo]

Being well-fed in the United Kingdom is probably not the same as being well-fed in say... Laos.

That is certainly true - the food is much better, tastier, and healthier in Laos.

Of course a dollar amount to designate poverty is ridiculous..  jmfcst's suggestion of enough to eat, housing, and clothing is not unreasonable, though one must add 1) security - the sense that these things are not about to be lost, knowing from whence one's next meal will come, etc., and 2) a sense of opportunity, progress, improvement.

By these measures I would say about half of the population of mose countries lives in 'poverty', including the US.

[minionofmidas]

Being well-fed in the United Kingdom is probably not the same as being well-fed in say... Laos.

That is certainly true - the food is much better, tastier, and healthier in Laos.

Of course a dollar amount to designate poverty is ridiculous..  jmfcst's suggestion of enough to eat, housing, and clothing is not unreasonable, though one must add 1) security - the sense that these things are not about to be lost, knowing from whence one's next meal will come, etc., and 2) a sense of opportunity, progress, improvement.

By these measures I would say about half of the population of mose countries lives in 'poverty', including the US.

^           ^             ^

Except for the last sentence. I've seen the line "90% of the third world and 10% of the first world" used, and it's not that unreasonable. Probably cut 90% to 80% or 75%, and allow an intermediary category for places like Chile, Mexico, Taiwan...

[ag]

I would say being above the poverty line would include:
1) having a roof over your head
2) having clothes on your back
3) having something to eat

I was looking for Math, numbers, dollars...

You have a strange view of what "math" is.

What would you consider a normal worldwide average temperature of bodies and walls in a hospital (including the morgue)? Your question has as much sense as mine - that is, none whatsoever. You try to reduce to one number something that is impossible to reduce that way. Even having the same poverty line definition in New York and Buffalo is ridiculous - forget the worldwide number.

By the way, the general fascination with "the number of people in poverty" is also ridiculous. Consider the following example: in a country A there is the following income distribution: a third population has 100 tugriks/ year, a third has 19 tugriks and a third has 10 tugriks. The poverty line has been defined as 20 tugriks (suppose it has somehow been done objectively and is non-controversial). The "poverty rate" is 2/3, isn't it? Now the government decides to remedy it with transfers. After transfers the new income distribution is: a third of the population has 109 tugriks/year, a third has 20 tugriks, and a third has nothing. According to the same measure, the poverty rate has been reduced to 1/3. Wasn't it a great poverty reduction program! (of course, in reality it just robbed the poorest and gave most of what they had to the richest).

Whenever governments concentrate on "reducing the poverty rate" they have incentives to transferfrom the poorest to the less poor. If you want good measures of poverty, look for the "generalized income gap" (I am too lazy to explain what it is - google).

[opebo]

If you want good measures of poverty, look for the "generalized income gap" (I am too lazy to explain what it is - google).

Oh yes, isn't that the 'Gini'?

[ag]

If you want good measures of poverty, look for the "generalized income gap" (I am too lazy to explain what it is - google).

Oh yes, isn't that the 'Gini'?

No, it's not. Gini has nothing to do with poverty - it's about inequality. Anyway, if you want to talk about inequality, Theil's enthropy index is, probably, better than the pretty arbitrary Gini (though, really, we can say something only when the two - and a whole bunch of other things - agree).

[12th Doctor]

How would you define poverty if you were cumulatively looking at the world economy?

The current measure the UN uses is $1 a day, of which 20% of the globe is at or below, that is approximately 1.2 billion people. Which is slightly more than 4 times the US population.

I would define poverty as being around $5 a day.

The cost of living is significantly lower, even in some European Countries, than it is here.  You could live in France for $15/day let alone, say, Poland.

[ag]

How would you define poverty if you were cumulatively looking at the world economy?

The current measure the UN uses is $1 a day, of which 20% of the globe is at or below, that is approximately 1.2 billion people. Which is slightly more than 4 times the US population.

I would define poverty as being around $5 a day.

The cost of living is significantly lower, even in some European Countries, than it is here.  You could live in France for $15/day let alone, say, Poland.

The cost of day to day living is substantially higher in many Western European countries (unless you consider some social benefits, like subsidized day care, education or medical care). A single short tube ride in London would set you back over $5 USD vs. $2 USD in New York (even with prepay "Oyster Cards" and all, it would still be nearly $3 dollars), and it would be more for a longer ride. Most groceries are far more expensive in England as well. A smallish one-bedroom apartment in Birmingham would be around 700 pounds (about $1250) a month - I don't want even to think what it is in London (5 years ago a friend was renting a nice but somewhat decrepit place near Paddington station for about 3000 pounds a month - this was far more than anything like that would be in New York; as he said, "Brits don't live here - it's too expensive for them").

To a lesser extent same is true of much of the continental Europe. You might be able to live ok somewhere in France for $15 (what is it, 13 euros?) - but not in Paris, or, at least, you won't be living any better there on $15/day than you would in NYC (come to think of it, I used to live on some $20/day after rent in NYC, and it was ok, but I was a grad student and it was some time ago; hey, as an undergrad in Long Island in the early 1990s I spent much less than 5 dollars a day, not counting the cost of the dorm and tuition, which, mercifully, my scholarship paid for - I was dreadfully poor - but was that living? An all ramen noodles diet seasoned with the free ketchup from the cafeteria, and you have to think if you really want to open an extra package, or if you can afford laundry this week; a $1.25 bus ride seemed nearly an impossible luxury).  The last two summers I've been in Madrid, Barcelona, Paris and London, and all of them I found very expensive, compared with the US (perhaps, because I don't know where to get the cheap stuff there). The only place I thought was cheap was Galicia (the northwestern corner of Spain) - but that is a relatively poor province of one of the poorer Western European countries.  Eastern Europe is another matter, of course.

[opebo]

The cost of living is significantly lower, even in some European Countries, than it is here.  You could live in France for $15/day let alone, say, Poland.

You might be right about Poland, though I wouldn't be surprised if Warsaw were more expensive than say, backwater Mississippi.  But France and most of Europe is generally considerably more expensive than the US, generally. 

[minionofmidas]

I live on rather less than 10 Euros a day post rent and heat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's really only expensive in a few areas over here (obviously London but also all the various redeveloped city centres (especially Manchester city centre IIRC) and the various commuterlands). Where I live now is fairly cheap on most things (except for house prices; the county has some of the most absurdly inflated house prices outside the West Country) and most of Wales and Northern England is very cheap (especially the likes of Bradford or Sunderland).

[opebo]

I live on rather less than 10 Euros a day post rent and heat.

I could probably live on 10 Euros per day here, aside from girls.