Slashdot Mirror

2/3 of China is below the poverty line

You can be forgiven for thinking that, because it was not that long ago what you say was true and you don't get a lot of news about China in the mainstream press.

But these days the poverty rate has been driven to 3.1 percent, because China has been working really hard to live the very poorest out of poverty.

Now China is of course known to cook some books, but even with that factored in they are far from having 2/3 of China below the poverty line these days.

It's not a matter of cooking books but cooking definitions. The poverty level often used for such breathtaking advancements in Chinese poverty eradication is an income of less than $2/day. Yes, earning around $500-600 per year is considered above the poverty level. This particular definition allows the China government to aim "to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020".

Are you considering poverty strictly on daily gross income without taking into account regional costs of living?

Word of advice: don't.

Bro, you forgot to factor in regional costs of living. In some areas $2/day is enough to live well out of poverty.

It's the same in every country, even here in the US. A single person making $30K/year would be one cunt-hair close to living in the gutter in, say, San Francisco or Miami.

That same gross income would make the same person live well above the poverty line in Sebring, FL.

2/3 of China is below the poverty line

You can be forgiven for thinking that, because it was not that long ago what you say was true and you don't get a lot of news about China in the mainstream press.

But these days the poverty rate has been driven to 3.1 percent, because China has been working really hard to live the very poorest out of poverty.

Now China is of course known to cook some books, but even with that factored in they are far from having 2/3 of China below the poverty line these days.

It's not a matter of cooking books but cooking definitions. The poverty level often used for such breathtaking advancements in Chinese poverty eradication is an income of less than $2/day. Yes, earning around $500-600 per year is considered above the poverty level. This particular definition allows the China government to aim "to eliminate absolute poverty by 2020".

2/3 of China is below the poverty line

You can be forgiven for thinking that, because it was not that long ago what you say was true and you don't get a lot of news about China in the mainstream press.

But these days the poverty rate has been driven to 3.1 percent, because China has been working really hard to live the very poorest out of poverty.

Now China is of course known to cook some books, but even with that factored in they are far from having 2/3 of China below the poverty line these days.

Here you go. Twenty one percent live below the poverty line, and that is in a country with a GDP per capita of below $3000. I'd say that is pretty darn low income. And 50 tons of shrimp sounds like a lot - but it's about 275 pounds a day, and that can be caught locally as warm-water shrimp or farmed in a pretty small area of about 5,000 square meters. Hmmm - catch shrimp at night/early morning, feed whale sharks in the day, earn lots of money (around $100 to $200 per tourist per day), seems like a great way to get out of proverty of making an average of less than $10 per day...

Given the absolute poverty that overwhelmingly covers the Continent, it would be better to map areas WITHOUT poverty as they are few and far between (even Libya has a 33% poverty rate).

• $30 Billion per year to would end world hunger
• $17 Billion per year currently spent by the US on the Nasa space program
• $4.8 Billion per year currently spent by the US on cancer research

• And the US spends $1000 Billion+ on a plane, designed to kill. Imagine, if you can, a world without war, it's easy if you try.

Yeah...fascinating world really. But it's not how things works.

You don't have to look far in history to see that. before the US became the clear world leader, it was a time of war and conflict almost everywhere in the world. In fact, just in the last decade, with less than 5% of the world population in conflict, we are living during the most peaceful time in history (counter-intuitive, I know).

Maybe, one time, the humanity will change enough so all armies will be dismantled. But, for now, we need hat the US stay the clear leader for a little more longer.

• $30 Billion per year to would end world hunger
• $17 Billion per year currently spent by the US on the Nasa space program
• $4.8 Billion per year currently spent by the US on cancer research

• And the US spends $1000 Billion+ on a plane, designed to kill. Imagine, if you can, a world without war, it's easy if you try.

There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.

I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.

Yeah, fuck Ted Turner and his billion dollars to provide food aid during famines/wars, medicine for pandemics, and water for kids dying of thirst. Where the fuck does he get off?

There have been plenty of very wealthy individuals who create foundations Rockefeller, Ford, now Gates and Zuckerberg. They can do a lot of good, arguably more than Ted Turner donating $1B to the UN.

I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.

The difference is that Ted Turner made his donation from his personal assets. Zuckerberg is having Facebook issue the stock from it's shares on hand. So, in reality, it is Facebook that is making the donation, not Zuckerberg and the donation is being made to Zuckerberg's charity.

I sure prefer to see it spent this way then surreptitiously funding political activity through tax exempt organizations like George Soros.

There was little media support for the war in Iraq - at least in television and print media. Ever notice how MSNBC and CNN all report on how many casualties occurred that day in Iraq? When have you heard them discuss how power and water levels in Iraq have been restored to pre-war levels. What about the great morale of the Afghanistan troops and how they are geared up to capture Osama now that Saddam has been jailed?

Oh, god, you're one of those people who thinks Fox News is a legitimate news source, huh? It exists because Rupert Murdoch is a crazy, nutball conservative (who is, ironically, not even from America) who happens to own a major media company. They routinely make shit up on air and then pretend they never said it. The Bush administration apparently learned this trick from them.

I do care about the economy. See that GDP number recently? I don't know about you, but my 401k added a huge chunk of change over the last year. The market is up 30%. The job market is soon to follow I believe. By the way, the recessionary trend started while Clinton was still in office.

Yep. See that huge trade deficit? We're basically just shipping our money overseas. And since when did the stock market determnine the health of the economy? The stock market is always doing really well before it crashes hard. And for the record, 9/11 (which had nothing to do with Bush or Clinton) was the real reason for the severity of the recession (recessions are unavoidable, but tax cuts are not the solution when you're racking up $7 trillion in deficit) as it dramatically reduced consumer confidence and thus, spending.

I'd rather it get spent on defense than some program to provide free condoms and needles to reduce HIV infections or welfare programs.

Why? Who's going to attack us? Terrorists, yes, but more Americans die from HIV and poverty every year than in terrorist attacks. A whole lot more, in fact. Or do we need a strong military to project our will on the rest of the world? Why can't we spend $700 billion helping solve the cause of these problems? Or simply by not using it to kill people? And would you feel the same way if your kid (hypothetical child, I don't know if you have one or not) had sex with an IV drug user and got AIDS? Wouldn't you have wished the government had done more? I'm not saying these programs are always well managed, but then, military projects aren't always either.

Is adultery legal? Immoral I know. I guess his version of the Ten Commandments is pick five.

Yup, adultery is legal. It may be immoral, but that depends on each person and what their morals are. In some cultures in Africa, it's not immoral for a wife to cheat on her husband if he can't satisfy her. Hate to break it to you, but most of the world does not believe in Christ. Or even in your idea of God. Just because it doesn't adhere to your idea of right and wrong doesn't mean it IS right or wrong (though this is an ENTIRELY different philosophical debate which I'd rather not get into ;)

As usual, the conservatives tell the truth

Well I guess the truth is subjective then :)