• 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.