Just because many people are in extreme poverty doesn't mean that the US doesn't have "real" poverty.
Also poverty is more or less defined in the society in which it happens. And the "standards" for not being poor in the US is not met in a lot of cases.
If you take a sensible real-world definition of the poverty threshold, such as "earning less than 60% of the median full-time wage", then you can do so by pegging the BIG to 60% of the median full-time wage.
The use of a quick percentage is used for policy as it is easy to put figures to, however it is being used as a measurable indicator for a deeper definition.
If you do not have people living hand to mouth in your society, then you have got rid of poverty, until then it helps to have some quick and dirty economics to work out where to direct your efforts.
The definition of "poverty" is influenced to buy votes for politicians.
You can have A/C, Cable TV, full meals, and still be considered in poverty.
If you're making more than twenty times what the top of half the people on the planet are, you're not poor. That other people in your vicinity make more than you does not make you poor.
Check: median --the middle of the range. Not the average value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median
Quote: "The median of a finite list of numbers can be found by arranging all the observations from lowest value to highest value and picking the middle one"
Therefore the USA poverty line is not 20x the world median income, because the world median income is roughly half of Bill Gates' income. (Technically it's (H-L)/2 + L, where H = highest income, L = lowest income.)
> If you're making more than twenty times what the top of half the people on the planet are ...
Wait, that's not the median, that's the average (or mean). They're not the same. In a symmetrical distribution, the mean and median are the same, but most distributions aren't symmetrical. Personal incomes are most certainly not symmetrical, anywhere in the world.
So when specifying median or average, be sure you know the difference.
Median world income is $2/day. USA poverty line is $46/day. That's a 23x difference, 20x if you round in the direction of common qualifiers.
I think you should be using average or mean, in particular because you're comparing a median to a mean (the U.S. poverty level). What's the point of choosing the middle value in a billion income figures when the average produces a more meaningful result? Just look for the point on the distribution that has a first derivative of zero.
Also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040
Quote: "so the average income is heading towards $10,000 (£6,273) per person per year."
That's an average of $27.37 per person per day. Which means the US poverty line of $46/day (an average value) is 1.7x the world average income level.
Also:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-median-income-worldwide....
Quote: "The median income worldwide — the amount that is dead middle between the least and the highest amounts — is $850 US Dollars (USD)."
Which works out to $2.32/day.
Also:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/i...
Quote: "In fact, people at the world's true middle -- as defined by median income -- live on just $1,225 a year."
Which works out to $3.35/day.
I'm not sure the median is what you're after.
It's inappropriate to use the mean for world average income because it's inflated by very high earners. Very high earners (outliers) have a disproportionate effect on the mean that makes it unrepresentative.
Imagine if salaries were ${1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1000000} Then the mean average would be $200000 - but you could not claim this represents most people. The median is $1, which is more fairly representative.
As with any skewed distribution, the standard way to measure average income is by using the median. There is broad agreement in official figures to use the median.
The BBC article is wrong to use the mean: the journalist appears to be confused in comparing the mean (which she calculates) to the median (standard published figure) and then claiming the difference results from patchy stats.
If you're at the USA "poverty line", you are doing better than 87% of people on the planet. That. Is. Not. Poor.
It would be interesting to know how many Americans fall above and below the average represented by the poverty threshold, i.e. using a straightforward count -- more in keeping with using a median measure.
> yet the term "poor" keeps getting revised upwards into historical levels of luxury.
I agree with that point, entirely. I also think it's bizarre that so many people end up being defined by absence of an arbitrary property -- homeless person, childless couple, unemployed worker -- which to me seems an underhanded way to enforce social conformity.
No, I was comparing to the official legal definition of "poverty line".
My gripe is that in all this talk about "poverty", either nobody defines it or they define it upwards to rediculous. If someone earns more than 87% of everyone on the planet and is still deemed "poor" then the definition of "poor" is absurd.
Disproof: 1, 1, 2, 10, 101. The median of this list is 2, not 51.
I really did read it, but I managed to take it to mean the midpoint of the range, all evidence to the contrary. It seems I tripped on the words "middle value", which is ambiguous.
If you felt you had to get an advanced degree to get a better job, is that an option or would you be economically devastated by working fewer hours to fit schoolwork in?
If you had to move to a different city, is that an option for you? Would you be homeless when you got there?
If you got seriously ill, is that it for you? Could you recover economically?
In short: Relative poverty the way I used the term involves running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. Advancement is impossible. Any major disaster sinks you.
As for "running as fast as you can just to stay in the same place", well that depends. Why would I need to advance? I already have everything I need. I don't work at all, and disasters aren't likely to be much of a problem since I don't have a lot of expensive assets to lose. If I ever need healthcare I can use a government scheme (I don't live in the USA btw). So in this regard, you could say my lifestyle is partly subsidised by the government.
Given that the experience disutility of poverty seems to be driven more by relative deprivation than absolute deprivation, its arguably that relative poverty is actually the more important kind to address, from a utilitarian perspective.
Things also cost more in the US than in many places with lower incomes, so it's not fair to say "But people in country x make lots less money, so our poor people aren't /real/ poor people."
Beyond this most social programs people mention are harder the be eligible for than one might think. The only thing that pretty much any US citizen will be consistently eligible for if they have a low enough income is food stamps. Most other programs require having kids or a disability to be eligible for.
And to be poor enough to get much out of food stamps, you're likely to be in a situation where you're struggling to afford a place to live and associated costs, even with food stamps factored in.
Bottom decile personal income in U.S. is above $5,000 which puts people in that bracket above the median person in Mexico and not terrible far below the median person in Poland: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/04/median-earnings-hi... (note the chart is in PPP-adjusted dollars).
Poverty in the U.S. means subsidized housing, terrible schools, food stamps, etc. But survival is guaranteed.
So the issue with basic income is not eliminating poverty. It's about changing the mechanism by which we have eliminated poverty.