If I remember, a tantalum miner in the DR Congo makes several dollars a day - a bit above the $2/day threshold, but then you have to correct for extortion/pay-to-work. In those Congo mining towns, buying a hot dinner costs around $0.05.
So for those miners, seeing your income double is a hell of a big deal, even if it's only to $4/day. Getting $10/hour wouldn't be a big raise, it would be bizarre hyperinflation.
To be clear, I don't think this means $4/day is a good outcome. Even with low local prices, it's still a pittance and the people getting it are living horribly in global terms. I share your annoyance with "extreme poverty is being eradicated!" stories, because they imply movement to a good position, rather than a less atrocious one.
But for the sake of analysis like this, I think percentage change is still a useful way to go. Raw dollars just means that everything at the bottom is effectively zero, while growth reveals interesting effects like the 5th percentile seeing near-zero gain while the 10th sees real growth.
Annual growth of 10,000% for even a single decade would give that person an annual income of:
$73,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That's 73 sextillion dollars. For reference Gross World Product is around 100 trillion.
I think you're setting the bar a little high!
The American Middle Class has the right to be angry about their stagnation, but it's undeniable that the world is better for most people if you compare it to the 90's and early 00's.
This is a chart designed to make us feel good about poor people getting a pittance. Meanwhile the top 100 people in the world have more wealth than the bottom fifty percent. We need growth of tens of thousands of percent at the bottom for decades to move forward.