"Over 1 billion people live on $1 a day, the benchmark of absolute poverty." I found this to be a frightening statistic while I was reading the weekly Economist today.
Think about that: One billion people.
Like myself, I am sure you cannot even realistically fathom a billion people. To gain some perspective, I thought about the fact that there are over 300 million people living in the entire U.S. (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), just a third of this staggering figure. Then, I tried to picture 3 times the population of America living on only a dollar a day, barely able to eat one meal each day. Imagining this many people hungry may seem impossible. But unfortunately, this is not only possible, but also a serious global reality that we must confront.
Now, with the current crisis in food prices (the Economist reports that the price of wheat has gone up 141% since January of this year!), these people are struggling to even eat that one meal a day. And then there are those who have been living on less than a dollar a day and who are now facing starvation.
So, this got me to thinking: how much does the average American live on per day? Definitely much more than a dollar, which one may consider petty cash for a morning coffee at Starbucks, not even thinking twice. I learned that the U.S. has a per capita GDP of $46,000, which works out to about $126/day (if I did the math correctly).
So, what can the richest nation in the world do to help those living in extreme poverty, stop global hunger and the rising costs in food?
I am no expert on the economy, and I don’t claim to have the answers. But what I do know is that a real change must be made and America must be a part of the solution. This means not only throwing cash and food at the poorest countries (which is an immediate necessity) but also investing in local farmers (here and abroad) and businesses, providing sustainable economic development. This will inevitably provide more food and help the global economy.
A SIXTH of our world is living on a dollar a day, creating serious global consequences. Poverty is associated not only with hunger, but also poor sanitation, disease, violence, political instability and corruption. Therefore, as the Economist described, the food shortage is “just a symptom of broader problem.” And there can be no easy solution, but America must be a part of the change. What can we do as individuals?
Could you live on a dollar a day?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
This is a real eye-opener. We are always reminded of the starving children all over the world by the commercials we see on TV, but the real statistics never seem to register.
I have heard many complain that most of the "feel the hungry" programs advertised on TV actually give very little to those in need. If we all donate a dollar a day, how can we ensure that our dollar is being used as promised? I understand that it would be selfish to do nothing, but which organiztions and groups can we trust?
You have a good point. Yes, we need to be careful about where we put our money. The big companies that have TV ads and such will need to take a portion of your donations to pay for such ads. So, very rarely will all your money go where it's truly needed. You just have to do some research to find a company that has the highest percentage of money actually going to those in need of it.
If you want to guarantee that 100% of your donation goes to those in need, donate food to local food shelves. Sure, the food isn't going somewhere like Haiti. However, it is still helping people in need. Perhaps if you help the local people in need get on their feet, they can someday pay-it-forward, helping others, and so on.
If you still want to donate to an organization that helps the impoverished abroad, choose a few organizations and actually talk to someone. Ask them how their company works, and where your money actually goes. There are so many organizations out there... it's just a matter of finding and choosing the best to support.
Its better to choose programs that have very specific goals as opposed to larger "blanket" type groups. This is why donating to a local food bank is a good choice, because it has a straight-forward directive.
And now there are even websites that will donate to food charities just for visiting their sites! Here are two free sites you should check out:
www.thehungersite.com/ (one click daily to help those in need)
www.freerice.com (improve your vocabulary and end hunger)
Haha, love that we both just posted about the freerice site, I am glad to hear that people know about it! Thanks!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
Yes, there is always the struggle of finding an organization that truly wants to help others, not simply get recognition. According to the article I read, The World Food Programme (WFP) is "the world's largest distributor of food aid and its most important barrier between hungry people and starvation," and they need an extra $700 million dollars this year just to give out the same amount that they did last year. So this seems like the best organization to donate money towards, and every dollar counts as you can see!
Also, the site www.freerice.com gives rice to the WFP to help end hunger, and all you have to do is practice some vocab!!! Not only will you help the starving people around the world, but you can practice those writing and speaking skills!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
Be careful with such statistics, especially in regards to money and whatnot. When most people see the $1 a day, they think 1 American Dollar in an American-like culture (or whatever industrialized culture you happen to live in).
Currency transitions are funny though. $1USD does not equal 1Yen or 1 Peso or 1 Rupee. Actually $1USD equals about 100 Yen, 10 Pesos, or 40 Rupees. There are also societies that are considered "ultimate poverty" level that simply don't see it that way. They simply don't function on currency like what we're used to. There's a tribe in Africa, for example, that deals in cattle and lives much like the original Africans and Native Americans lived before Western society "civilized" them.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Thanks for your comment, and for clarifying this point, but I did not imply that $1 USD is the same as 1 yen, 1 peso, etc. Instead, organizations like the World Food Programme simply use such a term, which can easily be converted to fit a particular country's currency, like you said $1 may be 100 yen or 1000 Tanzanian shillings. And this is what the United Nations has deemed as "absolute poverty," and represents people around the world who struggle to eat one meal a day, whether they made their money in yen, cows or USDs. My point is that if the cost of food continues to rise, as it is, more people will be forced into poverty, causing serious consequences like violence, disease and civil unrest.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
I think you're missing my point, though. Poverty is a relative term. Just because the UN believes a group is living in poverty, it does not mean said group thinks the same way.
Using my African tribe again, they don't have violence or civil unrest. They might have disease, but the feature that I saw on them didn't cover that (though most native tribes actually have historically rarely suffered from disease unless it's been introduced by outsiders). Instead, the tribe has a hierarchy similar to that of any "civilized" country. Some are considered rich (have a lot of cattle), some are considered poor (have only a few cattle) and some are of the relative "poverty" level (no cattle).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No, I totally see your point and realize that poverty is relative - Our ideas in the west about poverty and wealth are very different than that of someone in a small village in Africa. I lived in rural Tanzania, where my family was probably more well of than others in the village because they owned several cows, chickens and fields of maize. This allowed them to feed the family three meals a day and remain healthy.
And the biggest diseases facing the developing world today are malaria (which is transmitted through mosquitoes-has nothing to do with the influence of outsiders), tuberculosis, lower respiratory infections and HIV/AIDS- none of which are due to the influence of the west (though I see your point, as many Native American were killed due to the syphilis brought over from Europe, but this is a different issue all together).
However, hunger is not relative and mass starvation cannot be denied. The UN uses the $1-a-day term, which has been developed through extensive research throughout the developing world. The UN did not blindly come up with this figure and this describes those who cannot afford any meat, vegetables and can barely afford one bowl of food per day. Such poor living conditions have been proven to create serious health, economic and political problems.
Plus, if the people in these countries do not feel like they are living in poverty, than why are there riots occurring throughout the world right now (from Haiti to Bangladesh...read up on this problem, maybe it will clear up some of the confusion) over rising food costs? The local people, farmers and business people and are being affected by this problem around the world.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
Native Americans were devastated by disease brought from the Old World to which they had no immunity. Small Pox may have been the worst.
But I think you are wrong about Syphillis. It originated in the Americas and could be characterized as the revenge of native Americans against Europeans.
Origins of Syphilis
Tuberculosis is a bacteria. Lower-respiratory infections are generally bacteria, and HIV/AIDS is a virus transmitted by mixing of bodily fluids. If they aren't in the population to begin with, then they can't be transmitted among the people, and so it has to be introduced by outsiders. Malaria is a parasite transmitted through mosquitoes, however, mosquitoes usually can't travel extremely long distances, and it has to pick up infected blood in the first place. So, yeah, that one's pretty much introduced by outsiders as well.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
It is even more complex because even after the currency translation, you find completely different market price levels elsewhere in the world. I'll use Mexico as an example because I have been there about 40 times.
A dollar = 10 pesos gives or take a few cents. In America, at Walmart an avocado costs about a dollar and a dozen tortillas costs about a $1.50. If you just do the currency translation you would therefore expect an avocado in Mexico to cost 10 pesos and a dozen tortillas to cost 15 pesos. What you actually find is that an avocado (a bigger better one) in Mexico only costs 3 pesos and a kilo (perhaps 4 dozen) of fresh hot tortillas costs 7 pesos. (Prices in La Paz, Mexico as of January 2008).
Not only is the currency different but the prices in the market after you exchange the currency are totally different.
Therefore, to ask an American to think about living on a dollar per day is almost meaningless. A dollar a day in Mexico after being converted to the local currency will keep you alive with a full belly and a dollar a day in the USA would mean certain starvation.
Thank you, you've said it better than I have been able to. I had actually been trying to find the price of Indian clothing, actually in India, in their prices (instead of US prices directly translated to Indian currency) for a different reason and had no luck, so I didn't think I could get the information to provide the examples you were able to find.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
The UN definition of extreme poverty (less then $1 per day) is adjusted for purchasing power parity. This means that they take into account that there are differences in demand, supple, prices, and exchange rates. So, in fact, it is exactly like imagining living in the US on one dollar per day.
If you take a look at the Economist's Big Mac index you can get some idea of how this is done... But the UN adjusts for PPP using a basket of goods, so the adjustments are significantly more complicated.
-m-
i couldn't possibly live on one dollar a day. i mean, a dollar can only buy a candy bar or a piece of fruit here in maryland, but nothing else. i hate the fact that food prices have gone up and the fact that the war isn't over and gas prices have inflated. i'm scared how this will turn out since we're already in a recession.
all i can say is there is something really wrong with this government because we aren't noticing other problems in the world. not everything is centered around Iraq, you know, president bush. look at the genocide in darfur. those people are facing murder, violence, rape, and displacement every day, so no wonder they're starving and they can barely make it on their own.
I am 50 years old and among my earliest memories are my parents exhorting me to eat my dinner because there were starving children in Ethiopia. In the ensuing years the famines have moved around. I had a geography teacher in 7th grade who went to India and told of dead people by the hundreds laying in the streets every morning. The famines have hit China and they have hit various other parts of Asia and to a limited extent South America and ALWAYS Africa.
Always during those years we have been exhorted to give help and aide. And we have. We have poured money and food into these regions for all of my life and it probably began substantially before that. The end result of all that is that the problem is probably worse then it has ever been. Our aid makes the problem worse, not better. In those 50 years the population of the earth has grown by billions and the population is currently growing by 70 million people per year and almost all of that growth is happening in the parts of the world that can least afford it.
Over the milleniums, human populations have generally been in harmony with the carrying capacity of the environment as adjusted for the available technology. When human populations have exceeded carrying capacity, mother nature has stepped in and sharply whacked it back into balance in ways best described by Dr Malthist. Over time, cultures develop traditions and values that keep their populations in check. For example, hunter-gatherers practice prolonged lactation to decrease fertility and also have long taboos against sex after child birth. Agrarian societies favor larger families. But they often practice infanticide against twins and females. Urban societies use modern birth control and abortion. In earlier times they resorted to crusades, colonialism, emigration and forced transportation to keep population in check. The result is that human culture causes populations to be in balance with their environment. To a large extent they have invented technology that expanded the carrying capacity of their environment.
Obviously in Africa, culture is not in harmony with the environment. It was probably whacked badly out of balance by the double whammy of colonialism and collision with moderninity. It turns out that culture, by its very nature is extremely enduring and difficult to change. Child bearing habits that worked 400 years ago in Africa are a calamity today. It requires painfule Malthusian experiences to convince people to change their traditions and their values. The right prescription to bring about the required cultural shift is tough love. I believe that by constantly bailing out people and saving them from the consequences of their own behaviors that have led to their massively excess populations, we have short circuited the badly needed Malthusian pain that would have led to the cultural shift that would bring population back into harmony with the environment.
If 50 years ago we had let nature run its course, there would be literally be billions of less people on earth now. Less mouths to feed and less people contributing to the degradation of the environment. The problem would have been largely solved except for our misguided compassion. That is water under the bridge. Looking forwards, we need to take care that our compassion and generosity today and in the future does not make the problem worse and condemn future generations of literally billions of yet unborn babies to even worse misery then their parents are experiencing now.
In the past, the excess production capability of the USA, where we have mastered the art of transforming fossil fuels into food, has been able to offset some of the misery resulting from over population elsewhere in the world. The recent food shortages, (caused partly by our current practice of converting food into fossil fuels) should serve as a wake-up call that we are reaching the limits. With the earth's population projected to grow by 2 billion over the next century, it should be clear that generosity now is going to lead to untold misery in the future. We need to bring population into check and the only way that is going to happen is with tough love.
Incredible blog entry. You really made things come into focus here.
~ *~
This is a signature, an automated thingy that pops up when I comment, not a demand to see my blog!
Mind Control is Easier Than You Think
As others have mentioned, asking Americans to think about living on a dollar a day is meaningless. The poverty level here is much higher in US dollars than it is in other countries (I think the down limit is something like 20K for a family of 4, or something, per year, which works out to about $13 a day per person. This is certainly enough to buy food, but it would certainly be a struggle to have clothes and shelter for this as well.
I've heard that the UN value is standardized, not looking at the current market value of things. It's more like $1 = 1 package of ramen. Last I checked, Ramen was $0.30 at my grocery store. I don't know how accurate that is, because I haven't exactly looked into thsi sort of thing, but there you have it.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Thank you all for your comments and please realize that I did not personally come up with this term "dollar-a-day," instead it is what the United Nations and the World Bank use to define poverty. It adjusts not only for currency but also by the purchasing power parity (ppp) for each country to give a true exchange equivalence.
PPP is defined as "the true exchange rate of different currencies based on differences in standard of living and overall pricing among different nations." (by the World Bank and UN). For example: In New Zealand it works out to $1.49; in Brazil $1.36; Ethiopia $1.334 and Angola $80.630. Sorry for not making this more clear.
If you want more clarification, read the definition of "absolute poverty" on the websites of the UN and the world bank :
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/ICPEXT/0,,conten...
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/sna1993/glossform.asp?getitem=462
or read this blog by magnificentme:
http://www.progressiveu.org/000841-defining-poverty
Hopefully this clears things up!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kelliecor
instead it is what the United Nations and the World Bank use to define poverty.
That's exactly what mvenus said. However, regardless of who came up with it or what it's supposed to actually mean, it's still a deceiving, politically charged term because of its connotation.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
That's my point exactly... You can't tell Americans to think about living on a dollar a day, because the figure is so off from country to country. You'd have far more success saying 'Imagine only being able to purchase one x per day', because that would give a far more concrete example.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The last I saw the US poverty line was set at a little less than 19K/yr, however this doesn't take into account housing vouchers, food stamps, or anything else provided as welfare. Most American families that live in "poverty" have at least one TV, and many of them have cable.
However, if you ask an American to think about what it would be like to live on less than one US dollar a day they will have a better chance at understanding the hardships that people in extreme poverty face. Certainly it is imperfect, but it is more of a way to get people thinking.
The UN value for $1 a day is adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity. They take a basket of goods like rice, wheat, water, etc... and price it in the other country and use that to adjust what amount of a foreign currency counts as one dollar a day. I think this is what you were referring to as "standardized." For a rough idea of how this works you should look at the Economist's Big Mac Index. This is only a rough idea, mind you, because the UN uses a basket of good, rather than a single good, and i'm reasonably certain that a big mac is not included.
-m-
I live on 20 dollars a month
If you know where to get cheap food (ramen) then its ok...
Like comments so do I
check out mine
http://www.progressiveu.org/182456-vocational-rehabilitation
Once upon a time in my little mind.
By me Kaity Kat
You may like on $20 of food every month, but that is not nearly the same thing.
Add housing costs, electricity, clothing, gas, your car, education, etc...
-m-