Global Poverty, down? Or way down?

[Estebonrober]

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/12/18215534/bill-gates-global-poverty-chart

Ok so apparently Bill Gates started a poop flinging fight in global economic discussions around Davos. He posted a link indicating global poverty is down 90 some odd percent since 1820. Which admittedly has all sorts of measurement stick issues. I found the debate around it enlightening and entertaining. So I linked the relevant diatribes front he article right here.

I have to say while I can sympathize with the pre industrial romanticism that is the fashion these days, I can’t quite get my head around how ignorant, filthy and disease ridden was any way to go through life looking back on it now.

With that said I generally think we can do a hell of a lot better and the rich if the globe should not consider the last 40 years a total success. All that’s happened is they have sucked up more and more and the middle and poor of the entire globe have either seen flat or mild increases in relative in monetary or other compensation. I’m not against billionaires per se but we need to do better then the past 40 years.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...rer-a-response-to-that-claim-by-steve-pinker/

https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods

https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/6/response-to-max-roser

https://glineq.blogspot.com/2019/02/global-poverty-over-long-term.html?m=1

 

[Lexicus]

Poverty reduction in the world today is pretty much entirely due to China. You remove China from the analysis and global poverty has actually substantially increased over the last several decades.

Imo, so much has changed since 1820 that "global poverty is down 90% since 1820" verges on a totally meaningless statement.

 

[Estebonrober]

Poverty reduction in the world today is pretty much entirely due to China. You remove China from the analysis and global poverty has actually substantially increased over the last several decades.

Imo, so much has changed since 1820 that "global poverty is down 90% since 1820" verges on a totally meaningless statement.

They actually address this in the related articles. While China does represent a huge chunk of people come out of poverty they are not the only ones.

I think it’s interesting. While I understand the gripe with Gates using it as a tool to advocate for keeping this economic structure that is clearly hurting people world wide versus what could be possible. I do find comfort in knowing things are getting better and that with the advent of green tech, organic sustainable farming, and a plateauing population we might hit post scarcity world.

Then the problem is encouraging he species to move off the rock. Well as it is I doubt we get to post scarcity anytime soon.

 

[El_Machinae]

One of the my favourite topics. One issue I run into when it comes to addressing global poverty is how much of it is done in ways that seem temporary (at best). I have no doubt that long-term economic progress is possible, but until global fish stocks aren't falling it's hard to figure out how we're not just eating the future. And we have a very hard time getting anyone to stop eating the future. An incredible amount of our over-consumption seems unavoidable. And a second portion of our over-consumption seems 'earned' or 'deserved'.

We're just not spending our resources in the right way. So, I cannot tell how much of any poverty reduction strategy is actually (long-term) reducing poverty. Doesn't mean it's not seriously important that we keep shuttling more of our wealth in the right direction.

 

[Silurian]

There has been riots in my town because of lack of food since 1820.

 

[schlaufuchs]

God damnit. I had a more substantial post that got eated, but suffice it to say, you need to be careful when you talk about international poverty lines and the rate at which the world population is growing out of poverty. As an example, the World Bank first set the poverty line in 1985, and has adjusted it several times now since then ($1.01 in 1985, $1.08 in 1993, $1.25 in 2005, $1.88 in 2011, and $1.90 in 2015). In each case, the relative value of the established poverty line for each increase, is actually lower in real terms than the original 1985 $1.01 - $1.08 in 1993 PPP is $0.80 in 1985 PPP - $1.25 in 2005 is $0.69, and $1.88 in 2011 is $0.91. The result, then, is that by doing nothing other than changing some numbers around, the World Bank would appear to have rescued hundreds of millions of people from poverty literally overnight.

Here's a good, quick video hashing this out:

And some papers on the same topic if you aren't into watching videos:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/66592/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_LSE India at LSE blog_2014_Aug_blogs.lse.ac.uk-Exposing the great poverty reduction lie.pdf

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/162855/1/893991783.pdf

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10888-016-9324-8.pdf

 

[Berzerker]

I hope we can keep it going down, maybe the freedom from want depicted in Star Trek will arrive sooner

 

[Ironsided]

When Bill Gates try to pass for a philanthropist, a lover of humans, is when my stomach turns a little. Gates made his fortunes on the back of other people’s hard work and by extortive practices and bloated pricing and he knows it.

He’s not the most evil man but dangerous in his wilful ignorance and his selective bias and his power to influence. By objective standards he is a hard right conservative, only he has a hard time realising it; thinking everything is ok so long as you play by the rules. Not a shadow of self-insight to the fact that he is one of the few, who at least by compliance, actually set the rules for the rest of us. Or maybe this is it? A bizarre admission by cover story?

Now move to the issue of poverty. I had a discussion in another thread with Hrothbern about the numbers and measures of mean and median wealth per adult. I’m going for the sake of this argument practise a little ill-disguised wilful ignorance of my own and accept the Credit Suisse numbers here. First table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

1. Look at the number for median wealth for NA, its $65k. Germany and Sweden hover at around $35-40k.

2. Look at the number for mean wealth for “World”, its $63k.

3. Think about the implications of this on expected quality of life in a more equal world. Overpopulation, working conditions, schooling, conflicts etc.

 

[Ironsided]

I'm going to bump this bit because I'd love to hear what others think about this last part, if anything:

Slight edit and assuming Credit Suisse knows their numbers here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

1. Look at the number for median wealth for US, its $62k. (Second table)

2. Look at the number for mean wealth for “World”, its $63k. (First table)

3. Think about the implications of this on expected quality of life in a more equal world. Overpopulation, working conditions, schooling, conflicts, geopolitics, corruption, climate work etc.

 

[Hygro]

I dunno Ironsided, what causal truths do you think can be made comparing the median of the one American stat and the mean of the World stat?

 

[Ironsided]

I think the figures are extremely interesting. I was not expecting and I still am not convinced by their accuracy. I think we could raise the standard of living significantly for mankind in a world that distribute its resources more fairly. I think we could combat global issues like conflicts and climate in a far more effective and meaningful way. My mind is pretty made up on this but not entirely. I think the stats are really telling about what kind of wealth is available for more communal efforts should we have the political will to do so. But I’d really like others point of views on this.

But why do you even answer Hygro? If your best effort is a ‘dunno’? Why not let some interesting people have a reflection and say first before you colour the question to your brown economics?

 

[schlaufuchs]

I'm going to bump this bit because I'd love to hear what others think about this last part, if anything:

Slight edit and assuming Credit Suisse knows their numbers here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

It's almost as if Capitalism is designed to funnel wealth to the wealthy

 

[Ironsided]

So why are so many average Joe so fearful of doing away with a little capitalism, when a little proper global social democracy would go a really long way?

That's why I find the numbers so interesting. If we go crazy thinking and made all wealth equal this minute and every adult had slightly more wealth than your average American - what ripple effects would we have? Would we not see an increased demand for better housing, better sanitation, better roads, better healthcare, and better schools world-wide? Would we have enough labour? Would we use resources more effectively or less?

 

[schlaufuchs]

So why are so many average Joe so fearful of doing away with a little capitalism, when a little proper global social democracy would go a really long way?

That's why I find the numbers so interesting. If we go crazy thinking and made all wealth equal this minute and every adult had slightly more wealth than your average American - what ripple effects would we have? Would we not see an increased demand for better housing, better sanitation, better roads, better healthcare, and better schools world-wide? Would we have enough labour? Would we use resources more effectively or less?

Same reason that there are still people that are members of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though it is obviously, demonstrably, a false, deceptive, and downright harmful cult.

1) Its members are fed a constant stream of propaganda which asserts, reinforces, and reaffirms the central tenets of the cult
2) The cult seeks to isolate members, such that the only people you interact with are those who are also indoctrinated in the cult and will reaffirm and amplify the veracity of its teachings
3) The cult actively prohibits the access to or pursuit of any knowledge from outside sources, and takes action against any who would even question the claims of the cult. If you receive information from the outside you are censured by the community, and if you question the teachings you are cast out from the cult and the other members (which, due to point 2, constitutes the entirety of your social circle/support network) are told to not speak or interact with you in any way whatsoever.
4) The cult wields 1 and 3 as cudgels to further curb dissent or questioning. Members are convinced that theirs is the only way to salvation, and only fire and destruction await dissenters. And even if a member may have their doubts, are those doubts worth risking social and financial (to say nothing of the aforementioned spiritual) ruin? Social isolation and the (in effect) immediate death of all family and friends?

Thankfully, it seems that more and more are beginning to realize that the cult is, in fact, a cult, and numbers have been falling rapidly in recent times, especially in the Western World.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So why are so many average Joe so fearful of doing away with a little capitalism, when a little proper global social democracy would go a really long way?

That's why I find the numbers so interesting. If we go crazy thinking and made all wealth equal this minute and every adult had slightly more wealth than your average American - what ripple effects would we have? Would we not see an increased demand for better housing, better sanitation, better roads, better healthcare, and better schools world-wide? Would we have enough labour? Would we use resources more effectively or less?

Equalizing wealth across the world is not "ending capitalism". It is merely an event that increases and decreases access to funds in a significant way. Would people change jobs? I doubt peoples income would go up, but for many it would fall. I expect that short term demand would drive up prices because so many people would want new stuff right away and companies would not have the capacity to produce to the new demand. Inflation. Would retired people who lost their savings/portfolio income have to go back to work? How would physical property be distributed? Who gets all those high $ value second homes and their mortgages? Would people have to move out of their $5M houses? Who could buy them? What happens to the $100M office building I own (I don;t actually own one)? What happens to debt? The result of such a distribution would see a collapse of stock and bonds markets as well as the real estate market. It would be a huge mess.

 

[Ironsided]

Not sure who you aim your first statement at? Certainly not the quoted post I hope. I supposed you choose to only deal with the second part of my post which is fine. I thought that the “crazy thinking” part would be enough to emphasise that it is basically just a thought experiment. That’s because thought experiments is really the only tool in the box when dealing with global scale economics, isn’t it? I also note that within this thought experiment you have a great deal of sympathy for people with $5M houses or even $100M private property assets. You seem much occupied with the richest half of Americans and those geographically close to you. Did you extend any thoughts at all outwards to say; Sub Saharan Africa, Somalia, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan? And as for stock and bond markets – are they not just a mess as is; with regular crashes and collapses no matter how much they get their ways with deregulation?

Would you say a gradual change, think baby steps, towards a more equal distribution of global wealth would be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Lexicus]

It would be a huge mess.

Speaking as someone whose wealth is well below the 62k mark, I disagree completely.

 

[Hygro]

I think the figures are extremely interesting. I was not expecting and I still am not convinced by their accuracy. I think we could raise the standard of living significantly for mankind in a world that distribute its resources more fairly. I think we could combat global issues like conflicts and climate in a far more effective and meaningful way. My mind is pretty made up on this but not entirely. I think the stats are really telling about what kind of wealth is available for more communal efforts should we have the political will to do so. But I’d really like others point of views on this.

But why do you even answer Hygro? If your best effort is a ‘dunno’? Why not let some interesting people have a reflection and say first before you colour the question to your brown economics?

A perfect distribution of global wealth would produce the median amount of American wealth for everyone. But from there you've introduced one heck of a complexity to what happens next/how does that sustain.

 

[El_Machinae]

Bird, the main way that top incomes would come down without bottom incomes going up would be if the redistribution stopped people from working. It assumes that the high-value earners are very productive, and would significantly reduce their output.

It would be a mess, but I think the underlying assumption there is a bit of an assumption

 

[Lexicus]

Bird, the main way that top incomes would come down without bottom incomes going up would be if the redistribution stopped people from working. It assumes that the high-value earners are very productive, and would significantly reduce their output.

It would be a mess, but I think the underlying assumption there is a bit of an assumption

I may be wrong but I believe it was a wealth-leveling we were talking about, not income.