Poverty in Asia - Let me finish that debat once and for all

[AgentOrange]

I have seen so many poverty debates lately on forum. There are a lot of ideas flying around but we need some concrete definitions as well in terms of what poverty is and situation of Asian Nations in terms of poverty.

First of all we need to define what poor is.

By definition poor means "the group that has less resources then others". Meaning this term is relative. So unless a nation does not distribute the wealth in an absolute egalitarian manner then there will be poor people in that nation. This is the philosophical approach. However there are some concrete norms on what poverty is in terms of today's resources.

Absolute Poverty means being in a condition that can't meet the following requirements.

• Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
• Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15 minutes' walk each way).
• Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
• Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
• Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
• Education: One must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
• Information: One must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
• Access to services: One should have access to complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.

If someone can't meet requirements, this means that person is absolutely poor. So some international constitutions thried to define the monetary treshold that if a person makes less money then that treshold that means that person won't be able to meet the specifications to avoid the absolute poverty.

The old definition was made by UN. "If a person can not have an income of 1$ (nominal) /day than that person can't meet the specifications explained above which means that person is absolutely poor."

Then there is revised definition by the World Bank = 1.25$ (PPP) /day. World Bank measures the poverty treshold in terms of Purchasing Pover Parity because that actually gives how much resource you can access.

UN also came with an upper bound 2$(PPP)/day of income. 2$(PPP)/day treshold is something like a poverty upper bound meaning that "if a person is making more then 2$(PPP)/day then this person is most probably not in a situation of absolute poverty".

First of all I wanna give you the 2$(PPP)/day data for some countries I select that were subject to discussion in here. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 2$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 2.6% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 8.2% of the population
China (2011) : 18.6% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 16.8% of the population
India (2011) : 60.6% of the population

Secondly I wanna give you the 1.25$(PPP)/day data for the same countries above. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 1.25$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 0% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 2.5% of the population
China (2011) : 1.3% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 0.8% of the population
India (2011) : 5.1% of the population

What does both statistics mean? Let me explain. 5.1% of people in India are definitely living in absolute poverty situation. (100 - 60.6) 39.4% of people living in India are definitely not living in absolute poverty. And the rest (54.5%) is living in the treshold of absolute poverty (neither can absolutely avoid the absolute poverty or does fall into absolute poverty.)

China, Vietnam, India etc. countries are still doing their best to beat that tresholds. There are still millions living in those countries in those conditions that's why they are using the internationally defined tresholds.

On the other hand if we consider Czech Republic a very tiny fraction of the population lives in the condition of absolute poverty. That's why countries like Czech Republic, Japan etc. does not use the definition of absolute poverty for their poverty treshold and they use the term "Relative Poverty" instead and define their more relaxed poverty definitions and measure that statistic only for more Humanitarian Development purposes.

And this is the most important. There are some idiot Chinese members who are making fun of poor people in India. Altough I admire the development of China, such people are ruining the countries' image. Every Indian living in absolute poverty is responsibility of all of us. We are people, we coexist and cooperate.

BTW, IMO, Lure's post deserves a positive rating from one of our think tanks or what not.

 

[JSCh]

Well, I remember all this started because an Indian member start a thread saying 400mln poor in China living under 1USD, and that title is a clear lie. Even the link to a ADB analyst that the thread starter put a link as reference, shows that what he/she state in the title is a lie. I suspect that he/she did it deliberately.

There are no doubt lots of poverty in China, but he/she should not fabricate false fact just to accuse Chinese government lying about poverty in China.

He/she could (like the OP of this thread did) argue on the standard of poverty and that poverty is actually more prevalent according to redefined standard, but please don't lie. He/she is obviously trolling and derive certain satisfaction from China having more poverty.

 

[Joeblow]

Well, I remember all this started because an Indian member start a thread saying 400mln poor in China living under 1USD, and that title is a clear lie. Even the link to a ADB analyst that the thread starter put a link as reference, shows that what he/she state in the title is a lie. I suspect that he/she did it deliberately.

There are no doubt lots of poverty in China, but he/she should not fabricate false fact just to accuse Chinese government lying about poverty in China.

He/she could (like the OP of this thread did) argue on the standard of poverty and that poverty is actually more prevalent according to redefined standard, but please don't lie. He/she is obviously trolling and derive certain satisfaction from China having more poverty.

He is currently banned .

 

[IsaacNewton]

No one should mock the poor just because were unfortunate enough to be born in an underdeveloped country with little education and food. It is nobody's choice to be born poor, but once you are born poor, it is damn hard to get out.

Just because you live a much better life than most Indians/Africans, it doesn't mean you are a better person, it just means you were lucky to have been born into a nice family or a first world country. The fact that you have internet to go on PDF proves that.

Chinese members should understand that the most, They forget that in their grandfather/great grandfather time, most Chinese lived in constant starvation, under threat from civil war/ Japanese invaders, lacked shelter, water, medicine, education, and opportunity to live a good life.

Just like how it was not the Chinese fault that they lived such a hard life in that time period, it is not the Indian's fault as well.

 

[Shinigami]

No one should mock the poor just because were unfortunate enough to be born in an underdeveloped country with little education and food. It is nobody's choice to be born poor, but once you are born poor, it is damn hard to get out.

Just because you live a much better life than most Indians/Africans, it doesn't mean you are a better person, it just means you were lucky to have been born into a nice family or a first world country. The fact that you have internet to go on PDF proves that.

Chinese members should understand that the most, They forget that in their grandfather/great grandfather time, most Chinese lived in constant starvation, under threat from civil war/ Japanese invaders, lacked shelter, water, medicine, education, and opportunity to live a good life.

Just like how it was not the Chinese fault that they lived such a hard life in that time period, it is not the Indian's fault as well.

coming from a purely homogenous country, what the chinese here do not understand is that the indians they are making fun of are the ones who have been treated like cattle for 1000s of years. they deserve a break

 

[IsaacNewton]

coming from a purely homogenous country, what the chinese here do not understand is that the indians they are making fun of are the ones who have been treated like cattle for 1000s of years. they deserve a break

It is unfortunate that such a system still exists in India.

 

[Bobby]

@Lure good post. But Indian members arent saint either. They make fun of other countries and are very arrogant. Sometime its useful to show them their real condition.

And where from you get this data. India's poverty 5.1% who earns less than 1.25$(PPP)/day.
Check out again its 24.7%
Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of population) | Data | Graph

I can say India is doing great....as per your link India reduced poverty from 42% to 26% with in 5 years....amazing....

 

[Shinigami]

It is unfortunate that such a system still exists in India.

not really. all institutional traces of the caste system have been officially abolished and plenty of quota given to the people from the less fortunate category. what remains is the "sub-human" mindset that exists in these very people at a sub conscious level

 

[Aepsilons]

I have seen so many poverty debates lately on forum. There are a lot of ideas flying around but we need some concrete definitions as well in terms of what poverty is and situation of Asian Nations in terms of poverty.

First of all we need to define what poor is.

By definition poor means "the group that has less resources then others". Meaning this term is relative. So unless a nation does not distribute the wealth in an absolute egalitarian manner then there will be poor people in that nation. This is the philosophical approach. However there are some concrete norms on what poverty is in terms of today's resources.

Absolute Poverty means being in a condition that can't meet the following requirements.

• Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
• Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15 minutes' walk each way).
• Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
• Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
• Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
• Education: One must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
• Information: One must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
• Access to services: One should have access to complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.

If someone can't meet requirements, this means that person is absolutely poor. So some international constitutions thried to define the monetary treshold that if a person makes less money then that treshold that means that person won't be able to meet the specifications to avoid the absolute poverty.

The old definition was made by UN. "If a person can not have an income of 1$ (nominal) /day than that person can't meet the specifications explained above which means that person is absolutely poor."

Then there is revised definition by the World Bank = 1.25$ (PPP) /day. World Bank measures the poverty treshold in terms of Purchasing Pover Parity because that actually gives how much resource you can access.

UN also came with an upper bound 2$(PPP)/day of income. 2$(PPP)/day treshold is something like a poverty upper bound meaning that "if a person is making more then 2$(PPP)/day then this person is most probably not in a situation of absolute poverty".

First of all I wanna give you the 2$(PPP)/day data for some countries I select that were subject to discussion in here. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 2$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 2.6% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 8.2% of the population
China (2011) : 18.6% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 16.8% of the population
India (2011) : 60.6% of the population

Secondly I wanna give you the 1.25$(PPP)/day data for the same countries above. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 1.25$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 0% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 2.5% of the population
China (2011) : 1.3% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 0.8% of the population
India (2011) : 5.1% of the population

What does both statistics mean? Let me explain. 5.1% of people in India are definitely living in absolute poverty situation. (100 - 60.6) 39.4% of people living in India are definitely not living in absolute poverty. And the rest (54.5%) is living in the treshold of absolute poverty (neither can absolutely avoid the absolute poverty or does fall into absolute poverty.)

China, Vietnam, India etc. countries are still doing their best to beat that tresholds. There are still millions living in those countries in those conditions that's why they are using the internationally defined tresholds.

On the other hand if we consider Czech Republic a very tiny fraction of the population lives in the condition of absolute poverty. That's why countries like Czech Republic, Japan etc. does not use the definition of absolute poverty for their poverty treshold and they use the term "Relative Poverty" instead and define their more relaxed poverty definitions and measure that statistic only for more Humanitarian Development purposes.

And this is the most important. There are some idiot Chinese members who are making fun of poor people in India. Altough I admire the development of China, such people are ruining the countries' image. Every Indian living in absolute poverty is responsibility of all of us. We are people, we coexist and cooperate.

Very well said,@Lure. We all should be more sympathetic to poor, irrespective of race, nationality, religion or creed. It is more virtuous to hold semblance of compassion and mercy on people who are affected by various factors that cannot be easily generalized.

I take my hat off after reading your post.


Arigadou Gozaimasu!
Bow!

 

[tonyget]

I don't evaluate a man by his wealth or fame, never care about that.

 

[Aepsilons]

My grandfather always told me that a sublime life is a simple life. There is perfection in simplicity.

I agree with my Ojisan.

 

[somsak]

I have one question.

Is absolutely no poverty really a good thing? If there are no poor people, who is going to work in factories, fishery ships, sanitation, .. etc?

 

[Aepsilons]

I have one question.

Is absolutely no poverty really a good thing? If there are no poor people, who is going to work in factories, fishery ships, sanitation, .. etc?

In a spiritual sense, poverty is the manifestation of the imperfection in this life. We all strive for perfection in life, but there is only so much we, finite and imperfect beings, can accomplish. Poverty is a phenomena , has been and will always be, for us who live in this vale of tears.

 

[halupridol]

I have seen so many poverty debates lately on forum. There are a lot of ideas flying around but we need some concrete definitions as well in terms of what poverty is and situation of Asian Nations in terms of poverty.

First of all we need to define what poor is.

By definition poor means "the group that has less resources then others". Meaning this term is relative. So unless a nation does not distribute the wealth in an absolute egalitarian manner then there will be poor people in that nation. This is the philosophical approach. However there are some concrete norms on what poverty is in terms of today's resources.

Absolute Poverty means being in a condition that can't meet the following requirements.

• Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
• Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15 minutes' walk each way).
• Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
• Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
• Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
• Education: One must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
• Information: One must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
• Access to services: One should have access to complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.

If someone can't meet requirements, this means that person is absolutely poor. So some international constitutions thried to define the monetary treshold that if a person makes less money then that treshold that means that person won't be able to meet the specifications to avoid the absolute poverty.

The old definition was made by UN. "If a person can not have an income of 1$ (nominal) /day than that person can't meet the specifications explained above which means that person is absolutely poor."

Then there is revised definition by the World Bank = 1.25$ (PPP) /day. World Bank measures the poverty treshold in terms of Purchasing Pover Parity because that actually gives how much resource you can access.

UN also came with an upper bound 2$(PPP)/day of income. 2$(PPP)/day treshold is something like a poverty upper bound meaning that "if a person is making more then 2$(PPP)/day then this person is most probably not in a situation of absolute poverty".

First of all I wanna give you the 2$(PPP)/day data for some countries I select that were subject to discussion in here. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 2$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 2.6% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 8.2% of the population
China (2011) : 18.6% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 16.8% of the population
India (2011) : 60.6% of the population

Secondly I wanna give you the 1.25$(PPP)/day data for the same countries above. The data is obtained from the World Bank;

Czech Republic (2011) : 0.1% of the population makes less then 1.25$(PPP)/day
Turkey (2011) : 0% of the population
Brazil (2011) : 2.5% of the population
China (2011) : 1.3% of the population
Vietnam (2010) : 0.8% of the population
India (2011) : 5.1% of the population

What does both statistics mean? Let me explain. 5.1% of people in India are definitely living in absolute poverty situation. (100 - 60.6) 39.4% of people living in India are definitely not living in absolute poverty. And the rest (54.5%) is living in the treshold of absolute poverty (neither can absolutely avoid the absolute poverty or does fall into absolute poverty.)

China, Vietnam, India etc. countries are still doing their best to beat that tresholds. There are still millions living in those countries in those conditions that's why they are using the internationally defined tresholds.

On the other hand if we consider Czech Republic a very tiny fraction of the population lives in the condition of absolute poverty. That's why countries like Czech Republic, Japan etc. does not use the definition of absolute poverty for their poverty treshold and they use the term "Relative Poverty" instead and define their more relaxed poverty definitions and measure that statistic only for more Humanitarian Development purposes.

And this is the most important. There are some idiot Chinese members who are making fun of poor people in India. Altough I admire the development of China, such people are ruining the countries' image. Every Indian living in absolute poverty is responsibility of all of us. We are people, we coexist and cooperate.

nice post
but this is a internet forum,,,such posters will always be present(n they r not country specific)
btw they have there usage too,,,,,they help jingos on our side to keep there feet on ground

 

[terranMarine]

My grandfather always told me that a sublime life is a simple life. There is perfection in simplicity.

I agree with my Ojisan.

If perfection is to be found in simplicity, then why would you say plenty retired Japanese emigrate to countries so they can live like kings because the way of life in Japan is getting expensive that plenty people needed a 2nd job?