Because the US has several million more people living below a certain level of income, experiencing a daily misery but it’s somewhat excusable because the ratio is smaller.
I dont know the metrics, but I assume poverty means different things in each country. I would think poverty in a second world country means that people are at a state where they have a hard time getting enough food.
I would grant that even if the metrics were measured largely the same way you could argue or even observe that experience would be meaningfully different in some ways.
I know it doesn’t work like that but I think it’s mildly interesting
Yeah, it doesn’t matter that the U.S. has more people living in poverty as what matters is the relative amount of the total population.
I know you know, but thought I’d say it just in case someone else didn’t get why you said “it doesn’t work this way”
You’re right from a hard-statistical point of view, but from a casual, layman conversation I think it is, as I said, mildly interesting.
It definitely is interesting :)
Why is that interesting?
Because the US has several million more people living below a certain level of income, experiencing a daily misery but it’s somewhat excusable because the ratio is smaller.
I dont know the metrics, but I assume poverty means different things in each country. I would think poverty in a second world country means that people are at a state where they have a hard time getting enough food.
I would grant that even if the metrics were measured largely the same way you could argue or even observe that experience would be meaningfully different in some ways.
why is anything interesting? It just is.
The issue is a lot harder to ignore when the person to your right and the person to your left is starving to death.
Things got bad the last few years, but the hunger index is still only 6.4.