Poverty in Numbers: From 2005 to 2015 (No the world's not going to hell you fatalist teen)
34 replies, posted
[QUOTE]
[IMG]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-GgglSimukIo/TWmmJx5sA2I/AAAAAAAAKgs/DR_8l_-f6_I/s1600/poverty1.png[/IMG]
Official global poverty estimates are only rarely produced, and when they do appear, they are out of date by the time they are published. Thus, when world leaders met in September 2010 to assess progress toward reaching the Millennium Development Goal of halving global poverty, they had to rely on poverty data from 2005.
By 2015, we will not only have halved the global poverty rate, but will have halved it again to under 10 percent, or less than 600 million people, with India and China responsible for three-quarters of the reduction in the world’s poor expected between 2005 and 2015.
23 pages - Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015
[B]How many poor people are there in the world and how many are there likely to be in 2015?[/B]
[QUOTE]To calculate the number of people in the world living in extreme poverty, we update the World Bank’s official $1.25 a day poverty estimates for 119 countries, which together account for 95 percent of the population of the developing world. To do this, we take the most recent household survey data for each country, and generate poverty estimates for the years 2005 to 2015 using historical and forecast estimates of per capita consumption growth, making the simplifying assumption that the income distribution in each country remains unchanged. Global poverty figures are then calculated by adding together the number of poor from each country. (See the Appendix for a full account of our methodology.)
Our results indicate that the world has seen a dramatic decrease in global poverty over the past six years, and that this trend is set to continue in the four years ahead. We estimate that between 2005 and 2010, the total number of poor people around the world fell by nearly half a billion people, from over 1.3 billion in 2005 to under 900 million in 2010. Looking ahead to 2015, extreme poverty could fall to under 600 million people—less than half the number regularly cited in describing the number of poor people in the world today. Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time.
When measured as a share of population, progress remains impressive, but is more in line with past trends. In the early 1980s, more than half of all people in developing countries lived in extreme poverty. By 2005, this was down to a quarter. According to our estimates, as of 2010 less than 16 percent remained in poverty, and fewer than 10 percent will likely be poor by 2015.
The first Millennium Development Goal defines a target (MDG1a) of halving the rate of global poverty by 2015 from its 1990 level. In an official report prepared for the U.N. MDG conference this past September, the World Bank stated that we are 80 percent of the way toward this target and are on track to meet it by 2015, though the Bank warned that “the economic crisis adds new risks to prospects for reaching the goal.”
Our assessment is considerably more upbeat. We believe that the MDG1a target has already been met—approximately three years ago. Furthermore, by 2015, we will not only have halved the global poverty rate, as per MDG1a, but will have halved it again.
Over the past half century, the developing world, including many of the world’s poorest countries, have seen dramatic improvements in virtually all non-income measures of well-being: since 1960, global infant mortality has dropped by more than 50 percent, for example, and the share of the world’s children enrolled in primary school increased from less than half to nearly 90 percent between 1950 and today.5 Likewise there have been impressive gains in gender equality, access to justice and civil and political rights. Yet, through most of this period, the incomes of rich and poor countries diverged, and income poverty has proven a more persistent challenge than other measures of wellbeing. The rapid decline in global poverty now underway—and the early achievement of the MDG1a target—marks a break from these trends, and could come to be seen as a turning point in the history of global development.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-NEKgS6xBYHE/TWmnD1yzWVI/AAAAAAAAKgw/Y_t_ph6QTII/s1600/poverty2.png[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/poverty-in-numbers-changing-state-of.html[/url]
What happened in 2005 to cause a sudden steady drop?
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;28313206]What happened in 2005 to cause a sudden steady drop?[/QUOTE]
internet? i honestly don't know but it's great news anyway
Huh.....sweet.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;28313206]What happened in 2005 to cause a sudden steady drop?[/QUOTE]
People noticed Facepunch
:smug:
[QUOTE=s0beit;28313237]internet? i honestly don't know but it's great news anyway[/QUOTE]
I don't think the people counted in this pool have access to internet.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28314090]I don't think the people counted in this pool have access to internet.[/QUOTE]
Well they're not poverty stricken anymore so why not :v:
That first statistic for the world better be not be on purpose.
That's awful. How will America be awesome by comparison?
I love the little teen remark you made in the title. Some of the more sensationalist "OMG the world sucks so much" Facepunchers are going to avoid this article all together because good news isn't the kind of news that they want to hear.
go 2015!
[QUOTE=s0beit;28314123]Well they're not poverty stricken anymore so why not :v:[/QUOTE]
You're not making any sense.
How can the internet help them overcome poverty if they only have access to it after they are no longer impoverished?
Because comparing a 300 million person drop in poverty when the world is estimated to nearly exponentially gain a billion population per decade, and quickening.
I think your stats are off.
[QUOTE=Gubru;28317215]Because comparing a 300 million person drop in poverty when the world is estimated to nearly exponentially gain a billion population per decade, and quickening.
I think your stats are off.[/QUOTE]
um... no
it's actually slowing down at a rapid pace. Once people get out of poverty and have money to spend and financial stability they tend not to have sex as much or to want large families, and that is what's happening. The birth rates in china AND india are going down fast. We're probably gonna stay around 10 billion or so and then start going down.
[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28317573]um... no
it's actually slowing down at a rapid pace. Once people get out of poverty and have money to spend and financial stability they tend not to have sex as much or to want large families, and that is what's happening. The birth rates in china AND india are going down fast. We're probably gonna stay around 10 billion or so and then start going down.[/QUOTE]
Soon, human population will be down to 1 billion people on Earth
[QUOTE=Gubru;28317215]Because comparing a 300 million person drop in poverty when the world is estimated to nearly exponentially gain a billion population per decade, and quickening.
I think your stats are off.[/QUOTE]
I thought the chart meant that in 2005 there was 1.3 billion in poverty and in 2010 there was under 900 million in poverty.
Maybe humanity will get somewhere and not kill our selfs. Maybe.
[QUOTE=animephreak135;28315748]I love the little teen remark you made in the title. Some of the more sensationalist "OMG the world sucks so much" Facepunchers are going to avoid this article all together because good news isn't the kind of news that they want to hear.[/QUOTE]
They are all the the disproportional wealth thread talking about murdering rich people and giving all their money away everyone who they deems "deserves it".
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;28319384]Maybe humanity will get somewhere and not kill our selfs. Maybe.[/QUOTE]
As people become more richer, they are likely to begin to demand less carbohydrate-rich foods and demand more of a varied diet. This increases pressure on the global food supply to produce more beef/diary/poultry.
They also begin to consume more goods and oil, adding to pollution and global warming.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
[QUOTE=Gubru;28317215]Because comparing a 300 million person drop in poverty when the world is estimated to nearly exponentially gain a billion population per decade, and quickening.
[b]I think your stats are off.[/b][/QUOTE]
I think people researching this kind of thing might know a LITTLE bit more about it then teenagers on a video game companies forum board.
[editline]27th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thereisno131;28320336]As people become more richer, they are likely to begin to demand less carbohydrate-rich foods and demand more of a varied diet. This increases pressure on the global food supply to produce more beef/diary/poultry.
They also begin to consume more goods and oil, adding to pollution and global warming.
Sorry to rain on your parade.[/QUOTE]
All the more reason to pursue high grade nuclear programs for first world countries and start investigating arid condition solar arrays.
We will never 'Run out" of resources. Something will always bridge the gap because people always want to make money. Private companies and money drive the research that will power the future.
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;28320347]
We will never 'Run out" of resources. Something will always bridge the gap because people always want to make money. Private companies and money drive the research that will power the future.[/QUOTE]
This is assuming that further technology exists.
What if there is no way to increase our food supply and already maximized our capability?
And of course, South Africa is going to be the poorest country in the world.
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;28320347]I think people researching this kind of thing might know a LITTLE bit more about it then teenagers on a video game companies forum board.[/quote]
Are you implying that every user on this forum is also too stupid to correctly analyze the research their putting in and make their own conclusions? Albeit, the majority might need things spelled out for them, but I know quite a few ITN regulars who are intelligent enough to understand data on population growth.
At any rate, I could find numbers supporting his argument, just as easily as I found these. Statistics are easy to spin.
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;28320347]All the more reason to pursue high grade nuclear programs for first world countries and start investigating arid condition solar arrays.
We will never 'Run out" of resources. Something will always bridge the gap because people always want to make money. Private companies and money drive the research that will power the future.[/QUOTE]
Before we "run out," the public sector will run out. Oil and precious resources will be limited to a few private sectors and military use. So yeah, in a way, we will never "run out" of resources, but "we" is subjective. Anyone using this forum is most likely not included in that "we."
[QUOTE=Bluesummers;28320347]I think people researching this kind of thing might know a LITTLE bit more about it then teenagers on a video game companies forum board.
[editline]27th February 2011[/editline]
All the more reason to pursue high grade nuclear programs for first world countries and start investigating arid condition solar arrays.
[b]We will never 'Run out" of resources. Something will always bridge the gap because people always want to make money. Private companies and money drive the research that will power the future.[/B][/QUOTE]
Not really, when there is abundence of a certain ressource, say air or water, nobody will sell it. If we made all energy run on air, solar and geothermal energy, it wouldn't cost anything to produce. Since there is no scarcity on the previously mentioned ressources, it won't make any money for private companies.
[QUOTE=Badunkadunk;28313206]What happened in 2005 to cause a sudden steady drop?[/QUOTE]
World economy went to shit, everybody got poor, so they had to adjust the poverty line downwards.
[QUOTE=Beafman;28323677]Not really, when there is abundence of a certain ressource, say air or water, nobody will sell it. If we made all energy run on air, solar and geothermal energy, it wouldn't cost anything to produce. Since there is no scarcity on the previously mentioned ressources, it won't make any money for private companies.[/QUOTE]
No, that would just mean that there is no cost to extract the resources. There's still initial setup, maintenance, employees, etc. Also, remember that the only one of those that is stable is geothermal, so people will still charge money to deliver electricity. It will never not cost anything to make energy.
[editline]27th February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;28324758]World economy went to shit, everybody got poor, so they had to adjust the poverty line downwards.[/QUOTE]
Actually, they raised it from $1 to $1.25 in 2008.
[QUOTE=Beafman;28325076][img_thumb]http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu243/MortenLond/zxczxc.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Is destroying a drug cartel a bad thing? :raise:
Honestly, I think that with the rise of privatized space industries, we'll see another large drop.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
