Plus globalisation. What else should it be?

Before we even attempt to answer this question: look at the article's URL, its title and its subtitle. The title posted here on HN is badly mangled and implies things not said in the actual article, or at least, not said with the implied emphasis.

Definitely not. It's the regulation of capitalism that is driving this. This is why the countries where capitalism is most heavily regulated (nordic countries, some european countries) are cited throughout the article. Capitalism on its own with no regulation just devolves into corporate dystopia and corruption because the short term path of least resistance is always taken. When we experience progress it's because of thousands of well thought out regulations that steer capitalism, perhaps kicking and screaming, towards actual technological and societal progress. Conversely, when public policy is dictated by lobbyists and corporate interests, wealth disparity increases and progress ceases. Those that say "but capitalism is all about disrupting and innovating" are wrong -- capital will only innovate if it has no other choice. It would much prefer to simply buy out, price-fix, monopolize, crush via economies of scale, bribe, silence naysayers, acquire, etc., because these tactics and any tactics that maintain the status quo in which the corporation has been able to become successful are superior if left unregulated. If the only options you leave on the table for capital to take are options that are good for society, then you will see society improve.

Imagine how much we could progress technologically, culturally, and societally if we were able to 100% remove corporate influence over politics and create regulations and guardrails that reward innovation and punish monopolization and exploitation.

I'd say it's modern technology that's eradicating poverty. You could make the argument that without capitalism we wouldn't have modern technology. But capitalism was around for centuries before we even got to the point where extreme poverty was on the retreat worldwide. And the most efficient engine for the eradication of poverty the world has ever seen, China, is arguably not capitalist. Joseph C. Sternberg, columnist for the WSJ, asserts that, "What makes a system capitalism rather than mere pursuit of capital is the ownership that brings with it both the motive to improve corporate performance (desire for profit) and the means to do so (control of the company’s management)," and argues that since investors in PRC firms have no control over management, it's not true capitalism. [0]

Some might also suggest there's nothing intrinsic to capitalism that ensures that workers will get paid enough to escape poverty, and without parallel advances in the philosophy of human rights, there would no push to eradicate poverty.

[0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-vari...

Capitalism is one tool in the economic toolkit. Capitalism isn't the only economic system, or even the only free-market economic system, just a very popular one. I wouldn't say a hammer builds a house, even if it is very useful. If poverty will be eliminated, my first guess is that humans will ultimately be the ones to do it.

Yes.

I will answer your question with another leading question: What do you think created poverty in the first place?