The Triumph of Humanity Chart

Cross-posted from my blog here.

One of the greatest successes of mankind over the last few centuries has been the enormous amount of wealth that has been created. Once upon a time virtually everyone lived in grinding poverty; now, thanks to the forces of science, capitalism and total factor productivity, we produce enough to support a much larger population at a much higher standard of living.

EAs being a highly intellectual lot, our preferred form of ritual celebration is charts. The ordained chart for celebrating this triumph of our people is the Declining Share of People Living in Extreme Poverty Chart.

Share in Poverty

(Source)

However, as a heretic, I think this chart is a mistake. What is so great about reducing the share? We could achieve that by killing all the poor people, but that would not be a good thing! Life is good, and poverty is not death; it is simply better for it to be rich.

As such, I think this is a much better chart. Here we show the world population. Those in extreme poverty are in purple – not red, for their existence is not bad. Those who the wheels of progress have lifted into wealth unbeknownst to our ancestors, on the other hand, are depicted in blue, rising triumphantly.

Triumph of Humanity2

Long may their rise continue.

 

Comments

sorted by
magical algorithm
Highlighting new comments since Today at 4:03 AM
Select new highlight date
Rendering 50/79 comments  show more

Per Google/the World Bank, "Extreme poverty is defined as average daily consumption of $1.25 or less and means living on the edge of subsistence."

I would assume (but don't know) that the value is reasonably well calibrated, and seems absolute enough.

At worst, it's still probably a decent proxy for the number of people living near absolute subsistence level, and is certainly more useful than the much more relative poverty measures generally used (which are often little more than restatements of the GINI coefficient - that is, measurements of inequality rather than actual material need).

Right. So that gets me curious about how did they estimate the percentage of people living in "extreme poverty" in, say, 1850 China, and what are the error bars on that estimate.

Speaking qualitatively, if we take the "living on the edge of subsistence" meaning, the charts say that around 90% of the human population lived "on the edge of subsistence" in mid-XIX century. Is that so? I am not sure it matches my intuition well. Even if we look at Asia, at peasantry of Russia and China, say, these people weren't well-off, but I have doubts about the "edge of subsistence" for all of them. Of course, a great deal of their economy was non-trade local which makes estimating their consumption in something like 2009 US dollars... difficult.

I spent a month in a farming village in China about 15 years ago. Farmhands there made about $8 a day during the growing season, and little during the winter. They would be supporting a family of 4 or more, so that would be under $2 a day on average. Yet prices for rent and food were so low that, if you considered only the essentials, they were making better wages than many people in America. They were poor if they wanted to buy manufactured goods, and poor in that certain standards (clean air, quiet neighbors, reliable electricity) were unavailable even for the rich. Most of them had indoor toilets (with nasty open sewers) and television (the true necessity). I don't know about the price of fuel or electricity.

My point is that using the exchange rate to compute how many dollars a day someone makes in a country in which the exchange rate is only used to price things that the locals don't buy is very misleading.

My point is that using the exchange rate to compute how many dollars a day someone makes in a country in which the exchange rate is only used to price things that the locals don't buy is very misleading.

I believe the World Bank defines poverty in terms of PPP-adjusted incomes for that reason.

What happened in 1970 that poverty started sharply declining?

Seems to be mostly Asia getting richer. Hans Rosling gives a very impressive talk with amazing visuals about that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w You can also play with the data for yourself http://www.gapminder.org/world

Well, the trend in the second chart is clearly unsustainable, so it's hardly something to get too excited about. I would be happy if the second chart showed poverty dropping off while total population stayed roughly flat.

Well, the trend in the second chart is clearly unsustainable, so it's hardly something to get too excited about.

What aspect do you think is unsustainable? The population growth or the reduction in absolute poverty? Over what time period?

Wouldn't the addition of money into economies where it was previously a less-than-frequent enabler of the flow of goods and services cause this to be overstated?