• Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Its the same energy as the US trying to criticize the failings of universal Healthcare abroad. Maybe the critiques are technically valid, but coming from someone whose not even trying.

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          The next 5 year plan directly addresses this. They were focusing heavily on extreme poverty in that last one, and the next one is focused on development of infrastructure and transportation in the rural areas that were missed in the poverty alleviation of the last plan.

          Broadly outlined in late October 2020, the new plan aims at China becoming a "moderately developed" economy by 2035 with a per capita GDP of about US$30,000, nearly three times the 2020 level. It anticipates future growth as largely based on domestic consumption of goods and services, and aims to reduce disparities between urban and rural living standards.

          From the wiki, there are more detailed outlines available if you want info on more specific policies.

    • AbbysMuscles [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Isn't that because China had eliminated extreme poverty, and not impoverishment as a whole? Like, living under one dollar per day or something

        • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Yeah, their definition of extreme poverty is actually more broad than the UN's right? Like $2/day or something instead of $1 (only slightly, but that distinction actually includes like several million more people at least)

          • NonWonderDog [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            I don’t have the numbers, but I think it was the opposite. The UN has "extreme poverty" as a greater wage, but China’s definition also includes minimum standards of health care or something. I remember it not being easily comparable so I didn’t care.

            • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Yeah, you're right. Their definition is roughly equivalent to $1.70 vs $1.90 for the World Bank.

              Wages don't account for free housing or public transport though, the use value of access to high speed rail is light-years higher than an extra 20¢/day. Also, average wages are closer to $4/day anyways so the point is moot.

                • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Fair point, but it's still there and if you're able to get a job somewhere else you'll likely be able to use it. It's not like $1.70/day is the ceiling.

                  A lot of China's jobs programs revolve around using trains to get people from rural areas into cities where jobs pay better.