Progress

[andrewducker]

Some figures I just bumped into. No cite, sadly:

We live in a world where the expansion of the free market has transformed a planet of people whose daily challenge was to feed themselves, into one where we see poverty going away rapidly. In 1950, only half of Americans had indoor plumbing. Now even some of the poorest Americans have microwave ovens and television sets, let alone indoor plumbing.

Not only has the super-rich West been moving forward. In 1970, the percentage of humanity living at under $2 per day was 40%, under $1 per day was 16%. By 1998, less than 20% of humanity lived under $2 per day, and less than 7% live on under $1 per day (all measurements in 1985 dollars).

Comments

[andrewducker]

If you're living on <$1 a day I'm not sure it's possible to get poorer.

It says that the number of people living on $1 a day has become less, even if you include the effect of inflation. I can't see how that isn't a good thing.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

You can get poorer if the cost of things increases whilst your income does not.

I don't see where it mentions taking inflation into account (at least in the text you quoted in your post).

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Agreed - I think it only tells half the story....

[andrewducker]

The "all measurements in 1985 dollars" means that the 1978 and 1990 prices are actually measured taking inflation into account. A 1985 dollar being worth more than a 1990 and less than 70's one, due to inflation.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

No. It means that the EARNINGS are equivalent - it says nothing about the prives at all!

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

OOPS I meant 'prices' not 'prives'!

[andrewducker]

Aaah, now I get you.

Except that inflation isn't calculated from earnings, it's calculated from a basket of different produce designed to give an idea of the spending of real people.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I know what inflation is, thankyouverymuch.

Your quote doesn't mention any of that, just what people were earning. Gettit?