- Absolute Poverty: If you have less than $X/day, you are poor. This measures living standards.
- Relative Poverty: If you're in the bottom x%, you are poor. This measures status.
Without knowing anything, it sounds like this measurement is more on the Relative Poverty side.
Of course, the bottom x% is what it is - but if you create margins or classes then it works different - ie, the % of people who are making x% less than the median or average or whatever.
The better version is people living under x% of the average living standard.
> This figure considers both the proportion of the population that is deemed poor, and the 'breadth' of poverty experienced by these 'poor' households, following the Alkire & Foster 'counting method'.[1] The method was developed following increased criticism of monetary and consumption based poverty measures, seeking to capture the deprivations in non-monetary factors that contribute towards well-being. While there is a standard set of indicators, dimensions, cutoffs and thresholds used for a 'Global MPI',[2] the method is flexible and there are many examples of poverty studies that modify it to best suit their environment. The methodology has been mainly, but not exclusively,[3] applied to developing countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Index
You can use measures that are less country-specific like the Gini coefficient and UN R/P to measure domestic inequality between countries:
The UK has a Gini coefficient of 35.1, a UN R/P 10% of 13.8
India has a Gini coefficient of 35.7, a UN R/P 10% of 8.6
For reference, Norway has a Gini coefficient of 27.7, and a UN R/P 10% of 6.1
(higher = more inequality)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
Ultimately, the purpose of that statistic for the state to be able to tell whether its policies are working. The state, therefore, must construct measures that show progress when it makes progress and show regress when it makes errors. A measure that ultimately shows 0 progress even when real progress is made, is not that useful to the state.
A data nerd may want to normalize definitions (I certainly do and the MMR and IMR measurements are ones I find particularly annoying) but ultimately a state measures for its own purposes and not mine.
The severity of poverty in rich western nations is easy to underestimate. There are people in the UK who are underfed, can't afford heat, have to work multiple jobs etc. This kind of poverty does look different than poverty in India - better in some ways, but worse in others - but it is still poverty.
The data on relative poverty is hard to trust, but we also can't trust gut feelings about which countries "must" have more poverty. Perhaps it is true that UK does have a higher fraction of people in some kind of poverty.
Deep poverty in the west often looks like having a stable income and roof, but being completely overwhelmed by high unavoidable static costs such as rent, health insurance, loan paybacks, etc. Of course this style of poverty is also present in India
They're different kinds of experience. I suspect the former is more dangerous, scary and unpleasant, but the latter is more depressing and suffocating.
Likewise with the institutional access and class system, the west has a more sort of guaranteed based level of societal support. But in India, chances are larger that you'll have a more local social support group of family and friends. In comparison the west is often much more isolated and lonely
Obviously I'd still prefer being poor in the west, but I think it's reasonable to say we also have forms of suffering here that are different in kind and sometimes worse than in India
Sometimes community can provide a safety net, but even a community so poor that it can't help materially is better for, e.g. mental health.
An index that captures the percentage of households in a country deprived along three dimensions of well-being – monetary poverty, education, and basic infrastructure services – to provide a more complete picture of poverty.
There's also the Multidimensional Poverty Index which has an alternate definition
Poorer counties often have large families, government programs for food distribution and many people growing their own food.
You might have empty bank account but you will have something to eat and some roof over your head, even if you are crashing at family place or it's illegal construction on a land thats not technically yours.
If you are poor in London you will just starve and freese to death
Holy cow! I just checked this fact and it's true! https://fullfact.org/electionlive/2019/dec/9/food-banks-more... That said, it shouldn't be a suprise since there are food bank donations everywhere these days. Truly depressing.
The international definition of extreme poverty means living on less than $1.90 a day. It is the basic ability to survive.
The domestic poverty threshold definition in the UK is whether or not you are able to maintain a fairly stable middle class standard of living.
https://income-inequality.info/
All incomes are in PPP (purchasing power parity) dollars, so you can see that living at the US poverty line of $11k/year places one at about 85th percentile (having more income than 85% of the world's population).
You can see the code for it on Github as well: https://github.com/whyboris/Global-Income-Distribution
It is a relative thing..
You need a significantly higher amount of money in the UK to have a lower middle class lifestyle.
In India (and most other third world countries), that is readily achievable because of low living costs.