Thanks for the reply but apparently I am not making myself clear. What I am saying is this, the only standard I have to judge by is what two dollars a day in American money means IN AMERICA. Figures for other nations should be adjusted to equivalency. I still defy anyone to explain to me how someone can live on two dollars a day in America or the equivalent purchasing power in some other country. I still say it is not possible regardless of what claims are made.
Two dollars a day in this country will not buy food to keep one person alive let alone any of the other necessities. I saw a program on TV years ago about factory workers in Mexico, the storyline was that American manufacturing was going to Mexico because they could pay the workers something like eighty cents an hour. Then they showed film of these factory workers going out at night and dancing to live music, they were all wearing nice clothes and had their hair looking as though it was professionally done.
The point is that while the company may have been spending eighty cents an hour American to hire those workers they were able to buy far more with the pesos they were paid than anyone can buy with eighty cents an hour in this country. Apparently the exchange ratio was very favorable to the Mexican workers but it was being reported simply that they were living on “eighty cents an hour”. In reality eighty cents an hour at the time would not have paid the expenses of going to work if it bought no more than it buys in this country.
Am I making myself clear or is this all non sequitur too? Or maybe it seems nonsensical, I don’t know, it seems clear to me. Here is an excerpt from one report on India.
“While the World Bank standards are serviceable as benchmarks for progress—if fewer people are living on $2 today than were 10 years ago, that’s great—they don’t give an accurate picture of poverty in an individual country. For example, nearly 70 percent of Indians still live in villages, many in rent-free ancestral homes. They won’t soon buy a Nano, but they can easily feed and clothe themselves and their children. Their main worries—poor schools, contaminated water, and limited access to health care—aren’t necessarily solved by a modest income hike. In contrast, a $2-per-day laborer in Mumbai would spend nearly his entire income on a modest shanty in one of Mumbai’s notorious slums.”
“Mindful of this difference, the Indian government uses a flexible poverty line that varies with area of residence. Those who live in rural areas are considered impoverished if they makes less than 66 cents per day; the threshold for city-dwellers is 83 cents per day. India also adjusts the status for people who are cash poor but enjoy family assets, like a house or arable land.”
This makes it obvious that they cannot be talking about the same thing as two dollars a day in America. It says they can easily feed and clothe themselves and their children. Try that in America on two dollars a day!
Two dollars a day may buy enough of the Indian currency to feed and clothe them and their children but to claim that they are supporting their family on two dollars a day is very misleading.
Point made, but disagreed with.
If you are better off than half the people on the planet, you are doing well enough to take care of yourself and not give Leftists an excuse to steal more out of taxpayer pockets.
(Just 'cuz the subject amuses/interests me...)
Actually, yes. I can easily live on $1 per meal (look for my new blog soon!), and can reduce that to $1 per day for food if need be (and yes that's store-bought food; for $1 I can buy enough seeds to grow food providing sustenance for weeks). You may be shocked at how little other FReepers live on according to the ongoing Living on Nothing thread (a great read!).
This nation was pioneered by people who had little or no income, going deep into the woods and growing/building everything from there; they turned nothing into success.
Even today, there is far more available in this country for dirt-cheap or free than you realize. Education? the whole of MIT coursework for free. Land? several towns will give you land outright if only you build a house on it (with "house" loosely defined). Food? seeds from the Dollar Store and a shovel for next to nothing.
Try that in America on two dollars a day!
Many do, and get by quite nicely. Yeah, it's not "up to par", but it's certainly no reason to rob taxpayer pockets in the perpetuation of class warfare.