- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
And why are there two of them? Just have one (normal) bar chart with two sets of labels on it
Good Article.
One point is that because these are rural populations, the raw income numbers are misleading. Substinence farmers use money at a far lower rate than urban poor.
Is that your point or does the article make it? It’s a pretty big point. In fact, it’s like the whole difference between capitalism and communism. In a successful communist society people will be able to live off the land on a large scale without needing money.
outrageous. you can't even buy a bowl of noodles in China for $166.85, nobody takes USD
Seems like the biggest hurdle is medical expenses. The poorly titled NYT article about the poverty alleviation program has one reasonable critique on it and it's the fact that some rural people are having to spend their alleviation funds in shit like kidney transplants instead of livestock. Seems like they can still live on the stipends, but it's kinda shitty and provides a route for accumulation.
Isn't this thing guaranteed to be symmetric? Why not just write both numbers on the same bar?
The cited statistic is very misleading, The Economist is cursed but this has a good explanation why 1000 RMB/month understates their income: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/06/18/chinas-poverty-line-is-not-as-stingy-as-commentators-think
u ever consider that the cabal of admins/mods love sucking communist cock? or eating commie pussy either way. this is a very chinapilled site, i dont think berating people in the comments is gonna hinder that
if you read marx or lenin then you'd know that what you just said is correct
