this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
249 points (98.4% liked)

Europe

11735 readers
821 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tomatolung@sopuli.xyz 49 points 4 months ago (3 children)

This is the author's post at Oxford: https://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/news/global-poverty-trends-through-a-new-lens-olivier-sterck-article-for-voxdev

Has global poverty fallen since 1990? Depending on which poverty line you use, the answer ranges from “we’ve made huge progress” to “nothing has changed”. 

Using the World Bank’s extreme poverty line of US$2.15/day (in 2017 PPP), the share of people in poverty fell from 38% of the world’s population in 1990 (about 2 billion people) to 8.5% in 2024 (690 million people) (Figure 1). This is often cited as a historic success.

But raise the line – say to $21.5/day, as suggested by Pritchett and Viarengo (2025), or $30/day, as argued by Roser (2024) – and the picture changes entirely. The poverty rate is then extremely high, above 75%, and has barely budged since 1990. In absolute terms, the poverty headcount has even increased, from over 4 billion poor people in 1990 to over 6 billion poor people in 2024. Based on these numbers, the fight against global poverty appears to have failed.

This divergence is not just a statistical quirk. All mainstream poverty measures share the same fundamental feature: they ignore everyone above the chosen line. With the extreme poverty line of the World Bank ($2.15/day), someone earning $2.16/day is treated as equally non-poor as someone earning $10, $100, or $1,000/day. Billions of low-income people – who most would agree still live in poverty – are therefore excluded from the statistics. And because there is no consensus on where to set the line, it is tempting to pick the one that tells the story you want.

In Sterck (2026), I propose to measure income poverty without a poverty line. The idea is to measure poverty across the entire income distribution, rather than classifying people as poor or non-poor based on an arbitrary threshold.

The measure’s key intuition is simple: if person A earns half as much as person B, then A is twice as poor. Poverty is therefore simply measured as the reciprocal of income, and its unit is simply inverted. If incomes are measured in dollars per day ($/day), poverty is measured in days per dollar (days/$).

Average poverty is simply the average time it takes to earn $1 in a given population.

In 2024, that value was equivalent to:

  • 1 day in DR Congo, Madagascar, South Sudan, and Mozambique
  • 12 hours in Haiti
  • 2 hours in China
  • 85 minutes in the US
  • 25 minutes in Switzerland.
[–] adeoxymus@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

I never thought of using the reciprocal to measure the lower end of the distribution that is really interesting.

[–] Pip@feddit.org 7 points 4 months ago
[–] oakward@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

While this metric seems like a big win to evaluate poverty, it does not behave very well mathematically. Nobody makes infinite money/wealth, which makes wealth per day a stable metric. However, if someone makes very close to 0 wealth, the day per wealth metric will explode to infinity. One single individual can skew the day per wealth metric.

Other lemmees suggested to use the median. Or you can also try to incorporate the living cost by dividing the income by the cost of living. Maybe looking into quartiles or mean less multiples of standard deviation? Idk

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 1 points 4 months ago

Easily fixed by defining wealth as wealth + 1.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 42 points 4 months ago (41 children)

Here's my take on it.

Read Hunter Thompson's nonfiction book, 'Hell's Angels."

There's a chapter in it about the economics of being a hippie/biker/dropout circa 1970.

A biker could get a Union stevedore job, work six months, and have enough to go out on the road for two years. A part-time waitress could earn enough to support herself and her boyfriend.

load more comments (41 replies)
[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 30 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

This isn't surprising, given the agenda of the so-called "conservative" right for the last 46 years..

[–] Pip@feddit.org 27 points 4 months ago

I'm kind of relieved to see this new measurement because it gives back some credibility to the social sciences/economics.

Anybody who has been in the US cannot miss the abundant poverty, which is unseen and unheard of in Western Europe.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Nice read, I took a look at the paper and it looks like a really nice metric. Having people twice as poor counting twice as much makes a lot of sense. Very nice way to handle both relative poverty and absolute poverty while not ignoring how some people are much poorer than others.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You mean a realistic method instead of an edited version?

[–] huppakee@piefed.social 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There definitely is an edited version out there, but the scientist does propose a novel way to measure poverty. I'm saying this not to argue, but to inform the people who might not open the article because of this comment.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

That was not suggesting a different version of this article, but was more a reference to the fact that the US government has always been less than forthcoming about the true state of the economy and how well people are doing. A classic example would be how many people are underemployed but are still counted as being part of a healthy system. Or how working two or more jobs means you're "employed", with no suggestion of the workload needed to maintain the household. And now, the current administration is more willing just to disappear numbers than to try to make them look correct.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Averages are affected a lot by outliers with very large values, and the effect is larger when there's large inequalities. If measuring by income or wealth (higher is better) in a stadium with 1 billionaire and 999 homeless people, the average people is millionnaire.

This study still uses averages and flips the effect with a povery score (higher is worse). It gives more weight to the other end of a spectrum, very poor persons that need 300min to win 1$ makes the average much higher.

Using median values, or better 20-80 centiles values would be more meaningful.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 4 months ago

I mean giving the lower end more weight is kind of the whole point of this exercise. The effect you're describing is a good thing in this scenario.

[–] Mio@feddit.nu 5 points 4 months ago

The US should start to work on this

[–] maplesaga@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How about a poverty measure that includes housing prices, which I believe are far higher in Europe relative to wages?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

Does the US not have the same problem?

Sure, you can buy a house in somewhere in the middle of nowhere in the US, but that's similar in the EU, Northern Croatia was literally giving houses away to people committing to live there.

load more comments
view more: next ›