Amazing news item in today's local San Jose Mercury News about definition of poverty in US and comparing it to rest of the world. Here are some striking facts about it:
- As per US definition of "Poverty" family of four which makes less than $22K per year is poor
- Fifteen percent of US population falls under this so called poverty line
- This is all time high
- Average income in Thailand is half of the poverty line definition of US
- Poland's average income is almost same as US poverty line
- India's average income is almost two third of US poverty line
Bottom line, Eighty (80) percent of world population lives below US poverty line standards. In US, anyone who can be qualified as "poor" as per US definition is eligible for safety net (Social Security, Medi-Care, food stamps etc..).
Doesn't this makes joke of this so called "Occupy Wall Street" movement.. These people better should spend their energy and resources to help rest of the world's eighty percent population. But why should they? that is not their problem.. and exactly that attitude makes them US a common target of hatred and animosity. Though this is general perception, I still feel it is more of jealousy. I know I am writing something which lot of people won't like.. but in my view that is the fact. US standard of living are higher than rest of the world and they have worked hard in past to build infrastructure and system for which they are reaping rewards. US has full right to define own standards of poverty.
Ultimately it is all relative.. Isn't it? I take India's example of poverty. Every time I visit standards of living are going up and so is definition of poverty. Which is exactly relative to progress made by the nation.. Though, I must admit that there must be many part or section of people who are still in same condition and progress hasn't reached them for a while. But it will percolate to all parts of society and population.
Having seen poverty standards of India .. Coming back to US. I feel all the charity work here is a joke. Personally I feel that there shouldn't be any need of charitable organizations in US. The level of progress and development makes it a joke out of charity here. In US focus should be to create jobs for these unemployed people. That will have much bigger impact than distributing wealth as charity. Jobs growth will enable government and other organizations to take care of so called poor and some really disadvantaged people.
But then, same is true for rest of the world.. Isn't it.. I am listening to slogan like "Gareebi hatao" (remove poverty) since my childhood in India.. Did it removed or made any progress. Instead it just created more corrupt society and enabled richer get even more richer by this social net. What if spending billions of dollars for this, we would have spent it on infrastructure to enable ease of business and creation of production facility.. that would have definitely made difference. Which is still true..
Well this discussion is endless.. but give it a thought and let me know your views..
====================
- As per US definition of "Poverty" family of four which makes less than $22K per year is poor
- Fifteen percent of US population falls under this so called poverty line
- This is all time high
- Average income in Thailand is half of the poverty line definition of US
- Poland's average income is almost same as US poverty line
- India's average income is almost two third of US poverty line
Bottom line, Eighty (80) percent of world population lives below US poverty line standards. In US, anyone who can be qualified as "poor" as per US definition is eligible for safety net (Social Security, Medi-Care, food stamps etc..).
Doesn't this makes joke of this so called "Occupy Wall Street" movement.. These people better should spend their energy and resources to help rest of the world's eighty percent population. But why should they? that is not their problem.. and exactly that attitude makes them US a common target of hatred and animosity. Though this is general perception, I still feel it is more of jealousy. I know I am writing something which lot of people won't like.. but in my view that is the fact. US standard of living are higher than rest of the world and they have worked hard in past to build infrastructure and system for which they are reaping rewards. US has full right to define own standards of poverty.
Ultimately it is all relative.. Isn't it? I take India's example of poverty. Every time I visit standards of living are going up and so is definition of poverty. Which is exactly relative to progress made by the nation.. Though, I must admit that there must be many part or section of people who are still in same condition and progress hasn't reached them for a while. But it will percolate to all parts of society and population.
Having seen poverty standards of India .. Coming back to US. I feel all the charity work here is a joke. Personally I feel that there shouldn't be any need of charitable organizations in US. The level of progress and development makes it a joke out of charity here. In US focus should be to create jobs for these unemployed people. That will have much bigger impact than distributing wealth as charity. Jobs growth will enable government and other organizations to take care of so called poor and some really disadvantaged people.
But then, same is true for rest of the world.. Isn't it.. I am listening to slogan like "Gareebi hatao" (remove poverty) since my childhood in India.. Did it removed or made any progress. Instead it just created more corrupt society and enabled richer get even more richer by this social net. What if spending billions of dollars for this, we would have spent it on infrastructure to enable ease of business and creation of production facility.. that would have definitely made difference. Which is still true..
Well this discussion is endless.. but give it a thought and let me know your views..
====================
THE GLOBALIST QUIZ
Where do poor Americans rank globally?
The weekly quiz is provided by the Globalist, a daily online feature service that covers issues and trends in globalization. The nonpartisan organization provides commercial services and nonprofit educational features.
QUESTION
The Occupy Wall Street movement brought a fresh focus to poverty and income distribution in the United States. According to recent Census Bureau numbers, about 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty line, the highest percentage in 18 years. But how does U.S. poverty compare in a global context? We wonder: The Americans whose income is just low enough to be classified as poor, according to U.S. standards, are still better-off than …
ANSWER
A. About 22 percent of the world population
B. About half of the world population
C. About 65 percent of the world population
D. About 80 percent of the world population
A. About 22 percent of the world population is not correct.
Those among the poorest 22 percent of the world’s population are incredibly poor by U.S. standards.
They are the 1.3 billion people who, according to new World Bank data, have incomes below what the World Bank designates as the absolute poverty line: $1.25 per day — or roughly $450 per year. There are just no such poor people in the United States. Although U.S.
poverty thresholds are differentiated by gender, age, place of residence, and other criteria, the average poverty line for a “typical” household of four is $22,400 annually. This works out as a little over $15 per day per person — or 12 times higher than the World Bank absolute poverty line.
B. About half of the world population is
not correct.
People exactly in the middle of the global income distribution have incomes of less than $1,500 a year per person (adjusted for purchasing power), or just a bit over $4 per day. This is close to the average level of income in countries such as Cambodia and the Philippines.
Again, there are no such poor people in the United States or in the rest of the rich world.
C. About 65 percent of the world population is not correct.
People who are near the 65th percentile by income in the world make about $2,800 a year per person (also adjusted for purchasing power). This is the average income level of people in Thailand. There are indeed some among the very poor in the United States whose incomes are about that level.
They are considered “extra poor” by U.S.
standards.
D. About 80 percent of the world population is correct.
The income of those who are just sufficiently “bad off” to be considered poor in the United States is about $5,600 a year per person (or $22,400 for a fourperson household).
This is slightly less than the average income in Poland, and it makes these Americans better- off than about 80 percent of the world population, according to economist Branko Milanovic, author of a recent book on global income distribution, “The Haves and the Have-Nots.” The poorest Americans benefit from a social safety net that the vast majority of the world’s poor must do without.
Where do poor Americans rank globally?
The weekly quiz is provided by the Globalist, a daily online feature service that covers issues and trends in globalization. The nonpartisan organization provides commercial services and nonprofit educational features.
QUESTION
The Occupy Wall Street movement brought a fresh focus to poverty and income distribution in the United States. According to recent Census Bureau numbers, about 15 percent of Americans live below the poverty line, the highest percentage in 18 years. But how does U.S. poverty compare in a global context? We wonder: The Americans whose income is just low enough to be classified as poor, according to U.S. standards, are still better-off than …
ANSWER
A. About 22 percent of the world population
B. About half of the world population
C. About 65 percent of the world population
D. About 80 percent of the world population
A. About 22 percent of the world population is not correct.
Those among the poorest 22 percent of the world’s population are incredibly poor by U.S. standards.
They are the 1.3 billion people who, according to new World Bank data, have incomes below what the World Bank designates as the absolute poverty line: $1.25 per day — or roughly $450 per year. There are just no such poor people in the United States. Although U.S.
poverty thresholds are differentiated by gender, age, place of residence, and other criteria, the average poverty line for a “typical” household of four is $22,400 annually. This works out as a little over $15 per day per person — or 12 times higher than the World Bank absolute poverty line.
B. About half of the world population is
not correct.
People exactly in the middle of the global income distribution have incomes of less than $1,500 a year per person (adjusted for purchasing power), or just a bit over $4 per day. This is close to the average level of income in countries such as Cambodia and the Philippines.
Again, there are no such poor people in the United States or in the rest of the rich world.
C. About 65 percent of the world population is not correct.
People who are near the 65th percentile by income in the world make about $2,800 a year per person (also adjusted for purchasing power). This is the average income level of people in Thailand. There are indeed some among the very poor in the United States whose incomes are about that level.
They are considered “extra poor” by U.S.
standards.
D. About 80 percent of the world population is correct.
The income of those who are just sufficiently “bad off” to be considered poor in the United States is about $5,600 a year per person (or $22,400 for a fourperson household).
This is slightly less than the average income in Poland, and it makes these Americans better- off than about 80 percent of the world population, according to economist Branko Milanovic, author of a recent book on global income distribution, “The Haves and the Have-Nots.” The poorest Americans benefit from a social safety net that the vast majority of the world’s poor must do without.
No comments:
Post a Comment