Topic: This year give at least an individual an anchor to hold on to (Read 135 times)

Nothing like a little vindication, Bill Gates pretty much quoted the same chart and a lot of people pointed out 1.90 is an insult to poverty.
Although everyone agrees it is better than before, progress.
(Population growth means more people in poverty, while there is less percentage wise)

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/2/12/18215534/bill-gates-global-poverty-chart


1.The $1.90-a-day line is “obscenely low,” and “earning $2 per day doesn’t mean that you’re somehow suddenly free of extreme poverty.” A minimum of $7.40 per day, at least, is necessary for “basic nutrition and normal human life expectancy.”

2. Using the percentage of people in poverty is misleading, and we should instead focus on the absolute number of people in poverty, which according to Hickel’s preferred $7.40-a-day line has increased since 1981.


3. All the numbers before 1981, when the World Bank began collecting detailed survey data on poverty, are illegitimate: “Anything before that is extremely sketchy, and to go back as far as 1820 is meaningless. Roser draws on a dataset that was never intended to describe poverty, but rather inequality in the distribution of world GDP — and that for only a limited range of countries.”

4. The chart erases the toll of colonialism, particularly in the 1820 to 1981 period. “The world went from a situation where most of humanity had no need of money at all to one where today most of humanity struggles to survive on extremely small amounts of money,” Hickel writes. “The graph casts this as a decline in poverty, but in reality what was going on was a process of dispossession that bulldozed people into the capitalist labour system, during the enclosure movements in Europe and the colonization of the global south.”

5.    Related to point 4, it’s not clear that going from a pre-monetary society to a monetary society — even if that monetary society is cutting monetary poverty at a rapid rate — represents an improvement in living standards, especially when that transition happened in large part due to violence and coercion by Western powers.
  
6. “Virtually all” the reduction in extreme poverty occurred in China, which relied on extensive state support for industry and exports. “It is disingenuous, then, for the likes of Gates and [Steven] Pinker to claim these gains as victories for Washington-consensus neoliberalism,” Hickel writes.

Luke 18:22: When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

https://biblehub.com/niv/luke/18.htm

I am not a big fan of charity and handouts as the end all solution to problems, I believe that a foundation to a better life is through being taught skills to succeed and develop and most importantly access to an opportunity that is within their area as getting educated then needing to move to get a job, just leaves the unskilled in an area unable to grow. I'm with you that an anchor would be a good thing to have.

By the standard bar that we set which is half the world earns at least a $1.90 a day we are doing really well though   ha-ha ya that bar is BS they are just in regular poverty now of less than 5.50 a day.


That said from another view

Oxfam just ran the numbers and 26 is equal to 3.8 billion.
If you wanted to be technical it goes up to 147 factoring in student debt, bankruptcy etc in the West and cancelling that part out.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/22/18192774/oxfam-inequality-report-2019-davos-wealth

I feel that as individuals, it would be as effective to get the 26 on the ball and contributing to helping the poor through a tax increase of 0.5% as rallying the next 436 million.
https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2019-01-21-the-equality-report-is-out-and-were-still-poor/

Or at risk of a country going to war and collapsing due to the rich getting pissed
One analysis suggests that up to 50 percent of global extreme poverty could be ended if developing countries adopted higher top tax rates.





That said with disruptions, I feel that technology is the only real way to see development in the poorest countries, just like mobile phone penetration the highest end stuff starts in the rich countries, but eventually the shit by our standards ends up over in the poor countries which is still a whole lot better than what they had to begin with.

In the 10-15 year timeline that will be all phones that are not 5G capable, they will need to use the 4G network and add onto that mobile banking apps and maybe censored internet by facebook with internet.org or China behind their censored wall gardens but at least they will have a chance to try and monetize on the internet.

That and China needs a market that undercuts them and their One Road One Belt Initiative may be the main thing that makes head-roads there as the West sees them as a competitive threat to their cheap labor standard quo and influence spheres.

Pretty much a brawl between rich countries forcing the standard bar higher to keep influence.

A logical approach would be to try and emphasize teaching wealthier languages over native tongues that said just an aside, they would need to learn how to well communicate first and have reliable net infrastructure, running on a baud modem would not help them out much that said as previously mentioned even our shit gets a second life somewhere so they should have a fairly decent internet by then and the Internet may be the single most powerful tool to improve their lives, followed by Languages.

On a global level,  having people at least average $2.00 a day in income seems well bloody doable and I guess should be the next societal goal ... lol.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year

Or give them CRT TV's
https://www.techradar.com/news/television/what-s-happening-to-all-the-crt-tvs-525649

Or more E-Waste recycling in the third world to create jobs ...
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/14/toxic-ewaste-illegal-dumping-developing-countries

https://www.globaledtechawards.org/2017-winners

Here in my country there are, non LGU's organizations that teaches on how to create small businesses. From nothing to something, those organizations creates seminars and also provides a small capital for those attendees.

It's the only way for them to get up from the poverty by helping them with the process. But if they really aren't interested with that, they aren't going to take care of the opportunity that they have been given. It's okay to give something you have as long as you can see that the person is totally not able.

I feel no matter what we do as individual, organization or government, poor people are sure to be in existence, as we are sure to always have lazy individual who love freebies and are not ready to work, even when they are wquipped with knowledge that will affect there life and economic well being positively. I feel as an individual we must continue to play our role by doing our bit to make the world a better place.

You may be interested in

wwwkiwix.org

It is a port of stand alone, no internet required, Wikipedia in many languages.

It's free.

Give a third world village a 90GB encyclopedia, SOME of them would do incredible things. Most would do nothing. The key is to get the info into the hands of the 0.1% that have the motivation.

Such a good idea man. Everything you've just said is true. Actually aside from the government organizations there are also a lot of non-government organizations that are also offering lectures, seminars or coaching on this matter. It is not that no one does, the problem is, as I always hear and read that people like them are not always open to new ideas. For them to eat and be merry is enough, most of them (not all) are not really worried about their tomorrows. You feed them once, and they would want it over and over again. Only very few will open their mind.

The world is well over 6 billions people and many of them are leaving in poverty especially in developing countries. I would say charity is good, like giving out arms to the less privileged, poor or the displaced refuges.
   but charity is only a temporary solution, what happens when your gifts are finished would you always constantly be giving and even if you do the what are the chances of giving the same individuals.
   There is a saying that goes teach a person how to fish rather than giving him/her fish.
We all are privileged to have an idea in which we derive our source of income, most times they might not require a huge deal of professionalism(going to college etc) just a good basic knowledge with liberate an individual from poverty.

Why don't we contribute to the society by teach an impacting knowledge on individual or a person about how they can leave a self sufficient life. This way we would be helping the community by reducing crimes and illegal deals.

Think about it