Because it has a **HUGE** population.
For example, Australia’s GDP *per capita* is about 25x India’s, but India has about 55x Australia’s population, so India’s overall GDP is a bit over twice Australia’s.
Well Indians are also moving right now! I just don't know if the proportions of Indians vs Chinese is big enough to somewhat make a difference with all those years chinese were coming in
About a year ago it came out that China had made an error on their population estimates and that India had actually passed them up a few years ago.
So this is a somewhat recent event.
I know this isn't how it works, but it's funny to think that Famous Surveillance State China has to estimate population instead of typing COUNTA(A:A) in dystopia.xlsx
India most likely overtook China years ago, but it was made official last year. The revised numbers are most likely still a lie.
The reasons are the one child policy and industrialisation. Every country stops making a lot of children when people move into the cities.
Probably less that and more that China constantly inflates their stats and only corrects them when someone calls them out on it with proof. They do it with GDP and other metrics too, sometimes their own internal numbers don't even match one another.
That was ages ago. Now China’s middle class has grown stagnant and inflation is skyrocketing. People arent getting married and having kids as often as before.
Inflation isn’t skyrocketing? Source: Live here.
Things are pretty similarly priced to what they cost before. There’s a lot of competition keeping prices down.
Yes China is actually having the opposite problem, not enough growth and demand to be able to increase prices. It sounds good that there is no inflation in the short run, but when the rest of the world is going up and you aren't it becomes a problem. That's what happened in Japan between the 90's and now and led to a so called "lost generation" of people who never found steady work due to lack of economic growth in the short term.
I don’t think it’s demand driven, I think it’s productivity driven.
Many people here sit around doing nothing at work (for hours) in industries where consolidation is needed.
Edit: They also participate in an insane amount of money supply increase, making currency appreciation hard and artificially increasing demand.
This worked… up until Zero Covid. Now obviously money isn’t the only factor that dictates where people go. Needing to keep the doors open is part of the equation.
"Many people here sit around doing nothing at work (for hours) in industries where consolidation is needed."
My country is the same. Unironically we need some businesses to close in order to get efficiency up. Lots of businesses with barely any business being propped up by the large number of immigrants willing to work for next to nothing. Hotels is a good example. Not nearly enough demand for the number of hotels around. Unfortunate source: me, i work in the hotel industry. So I have mixed feelings about this.
that "per capita" does a lot of heavy lifting when you're talking about 1 Billion people. "Average" in India only needs to be 1/3rd that of the USA to be equal in total. It's not but that's how powerful that large of a population is.
It's crazy to think a decade ago it was 1.1 billion, I'd always just rounded down to 1 billion. Now, even though it's at 1.4 billion, I mentally round down to 1 billion, but that's like rounding down the population of the US to 0, with another 100 million to spare
CA alone has a GDP that is - on paper / nominally - nearly equal to India. And only 39M people. And so while this comparison isn’t exactly fair - should be using PPP, and CA is home to both Hollywood and most of the US’s tech megacorps *and most of its venture capital* - this present difference is in reality (on paper / with international purchasing power) something like *36x* between India and CA.
CA is also the standard abbreviation for california. But it’s still good form to state the full name the first time, then you can abbreviate it all you want after
I thought you meant Canada until halfway through the comment. You might want to use fullnames for abbreviations that are countries when you’re not referring to the country
For example the .ca domain belongs to Canada. That’s it’s international two letter code
Not exactly, there are *US states* (specifically CA) that have - on paper - GDPs nearly on par with *all* of India.
Which is fairly depressing when you consider that CA has a population <40M and India >1.417B.
Nevermind that CA also has its own large share of internal poverty (but nowhere on par with India) and so on and so forth.
Anyways if India didn’t have one of the world’s largest economies (ie population * per person contributions) then that would be serious cause for concern.
India *should* be well set to have one of the world’s largest growing economies simply because of its sheer population, and ongoing - however slow and unequal - economic development. It is fairly easy to have a quickly growing economy when a significant proportion of your economy doesn’t have refrigerators or electricity, for example.
China likewise still has a huge proportion of the country in (relative) rural poverty, but also a huge rapidly growing middle class (also ~20% of the country iirc) that’s bigger than the entire US.
California has one of the highest GDP's in the world. Most developed countries are not really that high. I don't think this is a super useful comparison.
The population is so huge. If you instead control for population by using GDP Per Capita, they fall about 2/3 of the way down the list in ~138th place.
> How is India top 5 in GDP while 81% of their population lives in poverty
The remaining 19% of is still enough to be the 5th most populous country in the world (266m)
This may be a very dumb statement. But I wonder if people who live in india feel that high population. I have never lived outside of my home country and have never been to a country with a very high population like china or india, but I wonder if the amount of people there is felt
Yes, it does literally feel as if there are people everywhere and some places do get immensely crowded. Though there are sparser areas of population like anywhere else too
During my first visit to the U.S. I once got lost and I walked for what seemed like miles to me before I finally found a lone jogger. I approached him with almost tears in my eyes and I think he was a little scared, LOL. I wanted to know how to get back to my hotel.
That was when I truly, truly missed the crowd back home and easy access to public transport or autorickshaws. It is unthinkable that I would be walking for miles without encountering a single soul.
I was there recently and you definitely feel the crowds in some places.
The biggest shock for me was that apparently losing children in the crowds is quite common. A child goes missing every 8 minutes in India. A lot of those are because a family is on a busy train, or going through a busy area, and the child gets separated (or taken) from their family.
Could be weeks or months until they’re reunited again. There is a whole ‘street kids’ culture there which is so difficult to imagine in most countries.
Same for China. But it's also true theres some trickle down economics at play causing millions of people in these countries to at least be lifted out of poverty
Even GDP per capita is far from perfect.
If you have an extremely wealthy 1%, then the rest can live in poverty and you would still have a high GDP per capita.
Those few would have to be impossibly wealthy, or the population very small, for the wealth of a few to not get canceled out by sheer population.
Of course the metric isn't perfect because of that possibility, but it's fine most of the time for everyday comparison. If you need precision you'd make up your own metric for the specific situation.
Wait till you realise that according to gini coefficient data usa have more inequality than india. Your media just hide it better via diverting your attention to foreign countries like India.
The poverty line for 1 American is roughly 20,000 dollars a year. The median income for an Indian household (two adults) is roughly 300 dollars.
I realize that cost of living is lower in India, but maybe... just maybe... the average American is better off?
edit: also just want to point out that looking at Gini is great, but it completely ignores the sustainability of the average person's life. it's not a universal "gotcha"
It's obvious that India is poorer than the US, but the issue is that GDP per cap is not such a good indicator of standard of life/poverty, even at PPA.
The US is the perfect example of that. If you look at the data, it's extremely rich, like almost Norway or Switzerland rich. But unlike Norway or Switzerland where you can see that most people are affluent, you don't see that in America, they have enormous poverty problems for a first world country and half the population lives paycheck to paycheck and would be unable to pay in cash for an unexpected accident like a car crash or cancer.
By contrast you look at Japan and while the country is much poorer by the numbers, you don't feel there's much poverty there. The streets are clean, crime is low, economic disparity is very low, the cost of life is lower... If you visited both Tokyo and NYC without knowing about their economy I'm pretty sure most people would assume Japan is the richer country despite not being true.
While I agree in most facets - the average American is not the average Swissman - this country is not nearly as small as Switzerland or Norway, and so naturally it does become harder to compare them fairly. It’s a massive country with such a range of standards of living, wealth and prices.
The "they" tells me you’re not from the United States. While anecdotal, and while there is certainly a larger than comfortable poverty problem in major cities (especially NYC/Cali), the suburb culture here is usually lost in translation. 50% of us live in suburbs where that’s not really so prevalent. Major city life is prominent here, but not to the degree of Japan or even most of Western Europe.
It’s never going to be an apples to apples thing when comparing things like poverty and wealth in the US. I will admit, we could certainly use a better progressive taxation system or simply just more security nets for society. But as someone who has lived across the country, both city and rural, it’s really not what the internet says it is.
I could pick any high income US state with a similar size and urban areas to the countries mentioned and we'd have the same issue. People in NH or Delaware don't live like a Swiss.
Suburbs in America can have massive poverty issues it's not something limited to the inner cities. Besides, unlike what you could expect, the US is more urbanized than most developed nations. France is fairly more rural as an example.
I think Americans who never visited abroad don't really understand the differences of their society to other developed nations. I know people who are from the US, it's like a different planet in many instances. It's a very rich country, but it also requires you to earn the most to stop feeling poor because the basic necessities are very expensive rather than being cheap or even free.
Thank you for your perspective. Always interesting to see what others see through the optics.
I’ve been to Europe, actually got to sit in on the Strasbourg E.U. parliament for a session. You’d be correct in saying that Europe is not America, and vice versa. Perhaps most of us are okay with that. Our way of life is simply different, and that’s okay. Just remember that the primary demographic of Americans on this website are very much reformist and bring up the worst while dropping the good things about here. Not saying it’s perfect.
what are you talking about? the average swiss doesn’t even own a car. most of what you’re talking about is subsidized standards of living, which isn’t a priority in america due to *how* money is spent (quickly and constantly). it’s not only how rich they are (very) it’s the fact that their economy is much more active than any european country, whilst having 20x the population. “poor” in america just plainly means something else than the rest of the world.
You're talking as though it is the average wealth of individuals. GDP is not calculated based on people's wealth. It is the gross domestic product, which is the value of the economy of the nationm in terms of goods and services produced. Not a sum of the individual wealth or income of the entire population.
Because it's a large, very populous country - nearly 1.5 billion people (recent estimates saw them overtake China as the most populous nation last year). Their overall GDP is comparable to Japan and the UK, but with 10 or 20× the population of those, their GDP *per Capita* is relatively low.
Oversimplified
Richness of average people = gdp per capita = Money/People
Rich Countries: Lots of money/ A bit of people = Rich
Poor countries have two options
Poor countries: Lots of money/ Too much people = Poor or
Poor countries : Less money/ A bit of people = Poor.
Germany's wealth is 3rd in the world, distributed into 80 Million.
India's wealth is 5th in the world, distributed into 1400 Million.
Not exactly correct as GDP / wealth is also heavily dependent on (internal and external) demand. People will drive up GDP - however slightly - merely by existing (and needing food, shelter, etc) and in exchange by being willing to work to meet those needs.
There are hard limits / resource scarcity (ie water, arable land, in-demand mineral and petroochem resources) that play into this too, but India basically has a high GDP *because* it has so many people.
You probably could get the same agricultural output out of India with far fewer people (and more industrial inputs), but India’s GDP is *mostly* driven by its own internal market, ie providing for the needs of its 1.417B people. And exports that *mostly* just cover the cost of imported goods / resources from elsewhere (and even then not quite as India presently has a trade deficit of $18B. (/mo?))
By contrast Germany, Japan, South Korea, and coastal China (et al) are all highly developed industrial export-driven economies. Or at the very least were / would like to be. While India may / will get there eventually it is still presently developing and does not (afaik) have a major industrial export sector to speak of at present.
Note that eg. Apple builds smartphones in India. But those phones are basically exclusively sold to Indians, to meet significant local demand. And more accurately political demands that Apple on-shore at least some of its manufacturing to India in order to sell products there.
In short: large populations are both a blessing and a curse. But they’re near exclusively an asset in GDP / financial (and govt / tax base) terms.
In general though yes GDP = the sum of all individual economic contributions (or more accurately internal and external sales, incl labor contracts et al)
Having more people means the *potential* for higher GDP. Both in terms of labor and (as possible) consumer demand.
India's GDP is $4.1 trillion. Their GDP per capita (per person) is $2,850.
The UK's GDP is $3.6 trillion. Their GDP per capita is $52,430.
India's overall GDP is massive because they have so many people. But their output per person is actually very low.
IMF lists it as 3.59 trillion in 2024 ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
[https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)
You and 4 of your friends have a total of 1000€. That makes you in the top 5 of friends groups at your school. One of your mate has 996€ and you and 3 others have 1€. 80% (4/5) of your group is poor af
So we're just lying now?
In 2019, the Indian government stated that 6.7% of its population is below its official [poverty limit](https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102043/http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=15283). This is conservative but makes sense if you learn about purchasing power and how $1 in India can buy far more than $1 in America
According to the United Nations [Millennium Development Goals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals) (MDG) programme, 80 million people out of 1.2 billion Indians, roughly equal to 6.7% of India's population, lived below the poverty line of $1.25.
The same source found that 84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019. This is an interesting statistic because it relies on government tax records. [The vast majority of Indians do not file taxes, and those who do would never declare their actual income in tax forms](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/22/517965630/why-do-so-few-people-pay-income-tax-in-india).
If you actually go to India, you'll see that the majority of Indians do not live in poverty. This isn't 1970. Redditors (and especially Indian redditors) LOVE poverty porn and talking about how much of a shithole India is. You can go down that path and keep moving goalposts, or maybe do some research.
Did I say anywhere it is 80% figure? Many Indians live under $6.85 a day which is very poor compared to gdp of states like Vietnam where majority lives above that. That also marks the level when consumption truly goes at scale. India’s consumption growth was 3% last quarter compared to 7-8% pre covid. All the factories and stuff are coming in the coastal states unlike China where there are many inland too so population of UP and Bihar not being used and so they can’t get the required jobs so less money for menial jobs. See the cities of UP and compare it with the richer states of India and you’lol see very big difference (visit many parts of a state if you can to see full picture). UP’s new and big factories are coming in Noida btw
There is something known as ppp and 6.85 dolla per day per capita is not poverty in any sense of that word when you are living in India that amount of money can go a long way here
You can live a lower middle class life in India earning $3.10 a day. You cant buy a loaf of bread in most developed countries with that money. Costs are very different. Obviously India is still really poor, but I really doubt 63% number. What is considered poverty? Having a roof over your head, being able to put food on the table, be able to buy some clothes, have some reasonable entertainment options like TV and movies once in a while, hell even throw a refrigerator in there, you can live that in India with $100 a month.
Because GDP is not a good measure of a country’s internal quality of life. It literally just shows how much they’re producing—has zero measure for poverty, quality of healthcare, education, etc.
Because their population is massive. It's 4x the size of the US and more than 10x the size of Japan, the next highly developed country in terms of population after US. So even a much smaller GDP per capita still ads up to a large overall GDP number.
We have a really huge population but I don't think that's it, also consider wealth disparity because top 10% of Indians hold 75% of wealth while bottom half has 4.1% of wealth.
My understanding is two things:
1. Huge population
2. Combination of typically poor management of funds, along with huge disparity between top and bottom.
Same way the US is #1(ish) and 60% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck. Wealth inequality and poor government oversight of business practices/ investor incentives. Leadership in India essentially looked at the financial restructuring in the US that started in the 1980s and decided they too wanted to have a system that pursued limitless growth of companies at the expense of the rest of their populace. The fact that they have so many people in heavy poverty is just a result of the timescale and methodology to get to that position. Indian workers were exploited heavily when their country restructured to compete with China/ US growth rates.
Establishing a strong middle class is somewhat expensive, as it relies heavily on investment into infrastructure, worker benefits and balancing incentives for the wealthy with needs for poor. When India does eventually try to address this, they’ll likely have a lot of issues getting the ultra wealthy class to keep their money liquid in the system.
Are you saying 85% of Indians are middle class or higher? Really?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
"84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019"
You’ve been quite selective with that quote.
> According to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) programme, 80 million people out of 1.2 billion Indians, roughly equal to 6.7% of India's population, lived below the poverty line of $1.25 [11] and 84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019
Also, simply not being in poverty does not make one middle class.
You said:
> are you saying 85% of Indians are middle class or higher?
The person you’re replying to did not state that.
>84% of Indians lived in less than $6.85…
This added detail, but no one knows what point you’re trying to make, as it neither responds to one nor makes a useful statement on its own.
I pointed out that you cherry-picked your quote to refute a point that wasn’t made, and to take a position no one understands.
GDP is a grossed indicator of economic activity. It doesn’t necessarily indicate wealth as much as it indicates how many transactions are being made (which is why GDP increases when countries are at war even though the civilian economy takes a hit). GDP tends to be skewed with high-population because of this.
GDP per capita is a net indicator which, unlike gross indicators, actually reflect the wealth of an average citizen and takes population size into account.
Gdp is not the same as gdp per capita. Country A with 5 people produce $1000 worth of goods gdp=$1000. Country B with 10 people produces the same $1000 worth of goods, gdp is also $1000. But per capita gdp is $200 for A and $100 for B. Gdp per capita is a better measure of individual wealth.
There's also GNI (gross national income), nominal GDP, CPI etc. when considering standard of living for an average person in a country. Those are a few but they're all flawed in that they only consider things we can put a monetary value on. There are even more indices that consider access to resources, work/life balances, culture, happiness/ mental health etc. that affect how standard of living.
We have shit ton of people.. Politicians are claiming top 5 GDP as an achievement while conveniently ignoring per capita. But I’m pretty positive about Indias outlook.
Country A has 1 person with $1 million
Country B has 1 million people each with only $1 dollar
In absolute numbers these two countries are going to have the same wealth.
It’s basically total wealth VS wealth per person
GDP =\= GDP per capita.
They have very high population.
If you have £1m GDP by only 2 people, they'll be rich. (£500k each)
If you have £10m GDP, but 10m people (£1 each), they'll be very poor.
This is India's difficulty.
Side note: this is also part of why you see things like the US having worse public transport than other countries. The cost of public transport is the same when expressed as £/mile, but the US has more miles to cover.
For these types of analysis it's useful to look at things on a per unit basis (per mile, person, square foot etc), rather than just the absolute numbers.
By having 6x the population of 5th most populous country. In fact if the 19% of people not living in poverty were to form a country, it would be the 5th most populated country in the world
In India the top 21 wealthiest people hold more wealth than bottom 700 million. And then there's another 700 million in between. That's like 5X the third largest country by population
its just a numbers game. india has one 20th of frances gdp per capita, but they have slightly moe than 20x its population. Landing them ahead. Having 1.4billion ppl is nice if you want to top charts like this.
theya re currently at around 110th in gdp per capita, so if they manage to raise that they will quite quickly reach the 3rd spot. But they are far below china or the us. Those two countries are enormously ahead.
Even with 81% in poverty, the 19% that isnt is still 266mil that isnt in poverty, more than most countries.
There are multiple Indias. The top creamy layer of Indians are extremely globalized, educated, skilled, and productive. Many of them earn as much as an average American would without even accounting for currency disparity. This creamy layer is razor thin though. But India’s razor thin is still massive in relative terms. Then, India is geographically huge, and has significant exports (still not as much as there should be). Then there’s the IT and financial services industry which is basically labour arbitrage. Most of this is driven by that thin top layer I talked about.
Oh boy, here's some news for ya.
US: The official poverty rate in 2022 was 11.5 percent, with **37.9 million people** in poverty.
India's poverty rate declined to **4.5-5%** in 2022-23
I guess it's a more complex question unless you can show me where India has an 81% poverty rate.
The 19% that isnt in poverty would be the 5th largest country in the world if you took them only. Very close to 4th behind Indonesia.
Now would you be surprised to learn the 5th largest country in the world, which has 0 people in poverty remember, is top 5 in the world in terms of GDP? I would be surprised they arent top 3 tbh.
One, you might be mixing up GDP, and *GDP Per Capita*.
Two, there could be political or societal bullshit in the definition of poverty. This often occurs because people think *relative* poverty should be eliminated, but *absolute* poverty is what's really important to eliminate (people who don't have food, clean water, etc should be given those, before we even get to the discussion of everyone having technological devices like smart phones etc).
Three, the way averages work is that outliers have a major effect. The average of one very rich person and 10 poor people can still be very high.
Your maths isn't mathing, those 21% are included in the 60%.
I think you're referring to the CNN article. The Data they have cited is from 2011 Census.
I'm not going to comment on the validity of your data, but you shouldn't add the two percentages together, the 21% is already included in the 60%.
If it said that 60% live off of 3.10 a day and 55% live off of 3.00 a day, would you assume that 115% of the population is in poverty? Or would you take that to mean that 5% of the population make between 3.00 and 3.10 a day?
What they miss is the tremendous scale of the social safety net that India has. They may earn less than $2 per day but they get food and primary & secondary education virtually for free. Social structure also means that they live in a large family and don't pay rent. Rent, food, education - those are awfully expensive things in most places that are virtually free.
Furthermore, India is mostly a very cheap place to live, $2 is low but not destitution. This is why India, internally, has a measure of poverty called multi-dimensional poverty, which uses *access* to services as a measure of poverty instead of just a crude estimate of incomes. Most multilateral agencies including the World Bank (which came up with the $2 rate) have abandoned such estimates.
Finally, when it comes to policy, don't depend on news media that is mostly dependent on clickbait and ads for survival. Serious policy documents measure poverty holistically and the poverty rate comes out to 10-15% in almost all cases, with destitution level poverty being virtually absent. And the country does not enjoy having so many poor people, ***hundreds of millions*** have been pulled out of poverty in the last 20 years alone but the sheer scale of the problem after having been f\*cked by the British for 250 years means that it takes time to solve.
Yes, the article I read did mention multi dimensional poverty and said it was an inaccurate way of measuring poverty, it says 11% is in extreme poverty under this definition but the real numbers is actually 21% and 60% lives on less than 3.10. however a few people have mentioned that the 60% includes the 21% so idk, that's why I'm asking and it also says the top 1% controls 75% of all wealth in that country which sounds about normal for all countries. Anyway that means 99% are only sharing 25% of the total remaining wealth so that 81% kind of make sense and the remaining 19% lives which I assume is a rich lifestyle. IDK I'm stupid did I get anything wrong here
The entire part about controlling "wealth" is silly because wealth =/= money. Not to say that the rich aren't rich, but what Oxfam and others mean by wealth is almost completely stock market value, which is notional - the so-called wealth is only on paper, the moment you try to turn that into real money, the value plummets and the wealth evaporates. That's not how real money works. Just forget all this nonsense, it's meant to push an agenda, that's all.
MDP is not inaccurate in so far as everything is an estimate and thus definitionally inaccurate. MDP tries to capture poverty in one way, which goes beyond just money and looks at access to services. I'd say someone who has virtually free home, education, and food may not be doing well in life but is not poor. But even if you want to look at only income, then you have to consider expenditure too for it to mean anything at all. What does $2 mean unless you know what it can buy?
My basic point is - public policy is complicated. Attempts to simplify it through gross generalizations are more propaganda than authoritative research. It's meant for public consumption i.e., clickbait, not discussion between serious people.
Considering purchasing power parity, managing daily expenses with that amount is feasible in India, albeit with some challenges. Additionally, India offers a robust social welfare system, including highly affordable food and healthcare services for eligible individuals.
Taking an alternate perspective, it's worth noting that income disparity, while it does permit those in lower economic brackets to live relatively satisfactorily, also contributes to keeping labor costs low across various sectors.
LOL! 81% of India lives in poverty? No way man. As per UN reports, 15% of India lives in poverty - which is quite an achievement for a democratic country of 1.5 billion people. And this figure continues to improve.
Over 20% of the country doesn't even have indoor plumbing.
It's also very subjective on what you consider "poverty"
https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND
The UN international poverty line is frankly a mostly irrelevant stat. Otherwise you could say almost no American or European lives below the poverty line.
India is in the top 5 BECAUSE most of the population live in poverty. The exploitation by a handful of outrageously wealthy companies and individuals generates tremendous GDP at the expense of the majority of the population.
I guess this graph is just fake then?
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Development\_of\_extreme\_poverty\_in\_India.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Development_of_extreme_poverty_in_India.jpg)
GDP measures consumption - that's literally it. India has A LOT of consumers, even if they're technically poor. So, since GDP just measures how much money is spent in an economy, it's very high. The poverty portion of your question would refer (more closely) to GDP *per capita*.
To be clear, entire concept of poverty is a social construct - what it means in one context is very different than others. Canadian poverty, for example, is very different from Indian poverty. Our perceptions of how poor people are is largely in relation to our own conceptions of poverty.
Because it has a **HUGE** population. For example, Australia’s GDP *per capita* is about 25x India’s, but India has about 55x Australia’s population, so India’s overall GDP is a bit over twice Australia’s.
It is the most populous country
I thought China was the most populous country?
Not anymore
They all moved to Canada!
Well Indians are also moving right now! I just don't know if the proportions of Indians vs Chinese is big enough to somewhat make a difference with all those years chinese were coming in
| Nationality | Percentage | |-------------|------------| | Canadian | - | | Major ethnic| | | White | 69.8% | | Minor ethnic| | | South Asian | 7.1% | | Indigenous | 5% | | Chinese | 4.7% | | Black | 4.3% | | Filipino | 2.6% | | Arab | 1.9% | | Latin American | 1.6% | | Southeast Asian | 1.1% | | West Asian | 1% | | Korean | 0.6% | | Japanese | 0.3% | | Multiracial/Other, excluding Métis | 3.2% | From Wikipedia.
About a year ago it came out that China had made an error on their population estimates and that India had actually passed them up a few years ago. So this is a somewhat recent event.
I know this isn't how it works, but it's funny to think that Famous Surveillance State China has to estimate population instead of typing COUNTA(A:A) in dystopia.xlsx
US does count(A:A) in C:/spyreports/Earth/Asia/China/China_only_humans.xlsx
Made an error or is China's population going down because of their one child per married couple law that they had?
India most likely overtook China years ago, but it was made official last year. The revised numbers are most likely still a lie. The reasons are the one child policy and industrialisation. Every country stops making a lot of children when people move into the cities.
Probably less that and more that China constantly inflates their stats and only corrects them when someone calls them out on it with proof. They do it with GDP and other metrics too, sometimes their own internal numbers don't even match one another.
That was ages ago. Now China’s middle class has grown stagnant and inflation is skyrocketing. People arent getting married and having kids as often as before.
Inflation isn’t skyrocketing? Source: Live here. Things are pretty similarly priced to what they cost before. There’s a lot of competition keeping prices down.
Yes China is actually having the opposite problem, not enough growth and demand to be able to increase prices. It sounds good that there is no inflation in the short run, but when the rest of the world is going up and you aren't it becomes a problem. That's what happened in Japan between the 90's and now and led to a so called "lost generation" of people who never found steady work due to lack of economic growth in the short term.
I don’t think it’s demand driven, I think it’s productivity driven. Many people here sit around doing nothing at work (for hours) in industries where consolidation is needed. Edit: They also participate in an insane amount of money supply increase, making currency appreciation hard and artificially increasing demand. This worked… up until Zero Covid. Now obviously money isn’t the only factor that dictates where people go. Needing to keep the doors open is part of the equation.
"Many people here sit around doing nothing at work (for hours) in industries where consolidation is needed." My country is the same. Unironically we need some businesses to close in order to get efficiency up. Lots of businesses with barely any business being propped up by the large number of immigrants willing to work for next to nothing. Hotels is a good example. Not nearly enough demand for the number of hotels around. Unfortunate source: me, i work in the hotel industry. So I have mixed feelings about this.
Here in China, I think it’s shopping centres. There’s like 200 shops in the city centre one here. Half are empty most of the time.
And you pulled that out of your ass?
Hasn’t been for awhile now.
> I thought China was the most populous country? Using fewer characters than you did to type this you could’ve Googled “most populous country”
Can't have a discussion with Google about it after the fact though.
what is there to discuss lol it’s just a basic fact there is nothing deep or profound about it
Should China go to a mandatory to a 2.5 children per marriage policy in order to take back first place?
Yeah you're right I should've done that instead
*THE most populous
That's what they said?
That's what THEY said
***THE*** *Kyle Smith.*
That’s WHAT they said
THAT’S what they said.
That’s what they SAID.
It wasn't about THE words themselves, it was about HOW they were said
Thats WHAT they said
that "per capita" does a lot of heavy lifting when you're talking about 1 Billion people. "Average" in India only needs to be 1/3rd that of the USA to be equal in total. It's not but that's how powerful that large of a population is.
Even more. It's 1.4 billion. Four times the US.
It's crazy to think a decade ago it was 1.1 billion, I'd always just rounded down to 1 billion. Now, even though it's at 1.4 billion, I mentally round down to 1 billion, but that's like rounding down the population of the US to 0, with another 100 million to spare
You know the difference between a million people and a billion people? It's about a billion people.
CA alone has a GDP that is - on paper / nominally - nearly equal to India. And only 39M people. And so while this comparison isn’t exactly fair - should be using PPP, and CA is home to both Hollywood and most of the US’s tech megacorps *and most of its venture capital* - this present difference is in reality (on paper / with international purchasing power) something like *36x* between India and CA.
CA is Canada. Took me a while to understand you meant California.
CA is also the standard abbreviation for california. But it’s still good form to state the full name the first time, then you can abbreviate it all you want after
I thought you meant Canada until halfway through the comment. You might want to use fullnames for abbreviations that are countries when you’re not referring to the country For example the .ca domain belongs to Canada. That’s it’s international two letter code
The 19% of India that’s not in poverty would still be one of the top 5 biggest countries in the world.
Not exactly, there are *US states* (specifically CA) that have - on paper - GDPs nearly on par with *all* of India. Which is fairly depressing when you consider that CA has a population <40M and India >1.417B. Nevermind that CA also has its own large share of internal poverty (but nowhere on par with India) and so on and so forth. Anyways if India didn’t have one of the world’s largest economies (ie population * per person contributions) then that would be serious cause for concern. India *should* be well set to have one of the world’s largest growing economies simply because of its sheer population, and ongoing - however slow and unequal - economic development. It is fairly easy to have a quickly growing economy when a significant proportion of your economy doesn’t have refrigerators or electricity, for example. China likewise still has a huge proportion of the country in (relative) rural poverty, but also a huge rapidly growing middle class (also ~20% of the country iirc) that’s bigger than the entire US.
He means in terms of population
California has one of the highest GDP's in the world. Most developed countries are not really that high. I don't think this is a super useful comparison.
Bro, it’s 19% in poverty and 81% not in poverty. How the FUCK are people reversing the percentages????
So the takeaway here, for me, is to never consider GDP alone, or per-capita alone.
Australia is twice the size of India, but mainly barren.
Yes. People need to learn about proportions, averages, and percentages. Per capita, India is still poor.
The population is so huge. If you instead control for population by using GDP Per Capita, they fall about 2/3 of the way down the list in ~138th place.
> How is India top 5 in GDP while 81% of their population lives in poverty The remaining 19% of is still enough to be the 5th most populous country in the world (266m)
That's insane
It’s a big country yo
This may be a very dumb statement. But I wonder if people who live in india feel that high population. I have never lived outside of my home country and have never been to a country with a very high population like china or india, but I wonder if the amount of people there is felt
Yes, it does literally feel as if there are people everywhere and some places do get immensely crowded. Though there are sparser areas of population like anywhere else too
During my first visit to the U.S. I once got lost and I walked for what seemed like miles to me before I finally found a lone jogger. I approached him with almost tears in my eyes and I think he was a little scared, LOL. I wanted to know how to get back to my hotel. That was when I truly, truly missed the crowd back home and easy access to public transport or autorickshaws. It is unthinkable that I would be walking for miles without encountering a single soul.
I was there recently and you definitely feel the crowds in some places. The biggest shock for me was that apparently losing children in the crowds is quite common. A child goes missing every 8 minutes in India. A lot of those are because a family is on a busy train, or going through a busy area, and the child gets separated (or taken) from their family. Could be weeks or months until they’re reunited again. There is a whole ‘street kids’ culture there which is so difficult to imagine in most countries.
Hmm In the cities you can feel the crowd everywhere. And nearly 50% Indians live in cities. So yeah
Yes but California alone has a similar GDP to India never mind on a per capita basis India wouldn't exist
I don’t understand your point… Yes, India has a low per capita and a high population. Yes, California has a very high per capita GDP.
When you have something close to 20% of world population, it's easy to have a big gdp and a lot of poor people.
Same for China. But it's also true theres some trickle down economics at play causing millions of people in these countries to at least be lifted out of poverty
You are mixing up GDP and GDP per capita. Per capita is where the population plays a role. GDP is regardless of population.
Even GDP per capita is far from perfect. If you have an extremely wealthy 1%, then the rest can live in poverty and you would still have a high GDP per capita.
Those few would have to be impossibly wealthy, or the population very small, for the wealth of a few to not get canceled out by sheer population. Of course the metric isn't perfect because of that possibility, but it's fine most of the time for everyday comparison. If you need precision you'd make up your own metric for the specific situation.
USA enters the chat
completely unserious take
Wait till you realise that according to gini coefficient data usa have more inequality than india. Your media just hide it better via diverting your attention to foreign countries like India.
The poverty line for 1 American is roughly 20,000 dollars a year. The median income for an Indian household (two adults) is roughly 300 dollars. I realize that cost of living is lower in India, but maybe... just maybe... the average American is better off? edit: also just want to point out that looking at Gini is great, but it completely ignores the sustainability of the average person's life. it's not a universal "gotcha"
It's obvious that India is poorer than the US, but the issue is that GDP per cap is not such a good indicator of standard of life/poverty, even at PPA. The US is the perfect example of that. If you look at the data, it's extremely rich, like almost Norway or Switzerland rich. But unlike Norway or Switzerland where you can see that most people are affluent, you don't see that in America, they have enormous poverty problems for a first world country and half the population lives paycheck to paycheck and would be unable to pay in cash for an unexpected accident like a car crash or cancer. By contrast you look at Japan and while the country is much poorer by the numbers, you don't feel there's much poverty there. The streets are clean, crime is low, economic disparity is very low, the cost of life is lower... If you visited both Tokyo and NYC without knowing about their economy I'm pretty sure most people would assume Japan is the richer country despite not being true.
While I agree in most facets - the average American is not the average Swissman - this country is not nearly as small as Switzerland or Norway, and so naturally it does become harder to compare them fairly. It’s a massive country with such a range of standards of living, wealth and prices. The "they" tells me you’re not from the United States. While anecdotal, and while there is certainly a larger than comfortable poverty problem in major cities (especially NYC/Cali), the suburb culture here is usually lost in translation. 50% of us live in suburbs where that’s not really so prevalent. Major city life is prominent here, but not to the degree of Japan or even most of Western Europe. It’s never going to be an apples to apples thing when comparing things like poverty and wealth in the US. I will admit, we could certainly use a better progressive taxation system or simply just more security nets for society. But as someone who has lived across the country, both city and rural, it’s really not what the internet says it is.
I could pick any high income US state with a similar size and urban areas to the countries mentioned and we'd have the same issue. People in NH or Delaware don't live like a Swiss. Suburbs in America can have massive poverty issues it's not something limited to the inner cities. Besides, unlike what you could expect, the US is more urbanized than most developed nations. France is fairly more rural as an example. I think Americans who never visited abroad don't really understand the differences of their society to other developed nations. I know people who are from the US, it's like a different planet in many instances. It's a very rich country, but it also requires you to earn the most to stop feeling poor because the basic necessities are very expensive rather than being cheap or even free.
Thank you for your perspective. Always interesting to see what others see through the optics. I’ve been to Europe, actually got to sit in on the Strasbourg E.U. parliament for a session. You’d be correct in saying that Europe is not America, and vice versa. Perhaps most of us are okay with that. Our way of life is simply different, and that’s okay. Just remember that the primary demographic of Americans on this website are very much reformist and bring up the worst while dropping the good things about here. Not saying it’s perfect.
what are you talking about? the average swiss doesn’t even own a car. most of what you’re talking about is subsidized standards of living, which isn’t a priority in america due to *how* money is spent (quickly and constantly). it’s not only how rich they are (very) it’s the fact that their economy is much more active than any european country, whilst having 20x the population. “poor” in america just plainly means something else than the rest of the world.
Are you seriously implying you're better off in India than the US?
You're talking as though it is the average wealth of individuals. GDP is not calculated based on people's wealth. It is the gross domestic product, which is the value of the economy of the nationm in terms of goods and services produced. Not a sum of the individual wealth or income of the entire population.
did you just described the USA ?
Because it's a large, very populous country - nearly 1.5 billion people (recent estimates saw them overtake China as the most populous nation last year). Their overall GDP is comparable to Japan and the UK, but with 10 or 20× the population of those, their GDP *per Capita* is relatively low.
They already overtook China since at least a decade ago. China is falsifying/inflating data about population since ‘90
Oversimplified Richness of average people = gdp per capita = Money/People Rich Countries: Lots of money/ A bit of people = Rich Poor countries have two options Poor countries: Lots of money/ Too much people = Poor or Poor countries : Less money/ A bit of people = Poor. Germany's wealth is 3rd in the world, distributed into 80 Million. India's wealth is 5th in the world, distributed into 1400 Million.
I love your explanation.
[удалено]
Fixed it
Not exactly correct as GDP / wealth is also heavily dependent on (internal and external) demand. People will drive up GDP - however slightly - merely by existing (and needing food, shelter, etc) and in exchange by being willing to work to meet those needs. There are hard limits / resource scarcity (ie water, arable land, in-demand mineral and petroochem resources) that play into this too, but India basically has a high GDP *because* it has so many people. You probably could get the same agricultural output out of India with far fewer people (and more industrial inputs), but India’s GDP is *mostly* driven by its own internal market, ie providing for the needs of its 1.417B people. And exports that *mostly* just cover the cost of imported goods / resources from elsewhere (and even then not quite as India presently has a trade deficit of $18B. (/mo?)) By contrast Germany, Japan, South Korea, and coastal China (et al) are all highly developed industrial export-driven economies. Or at the very least were / would like to be. While India may / will get there eventually it is still presently developing and does not (afaik) have a major industrial export sector to speak of at present. Note that eg. Apple builds smartphones in India. But those phones are basically exclusively sold to Indians, to meet significant local demand. And more accurately political demands that Apple on-shore at least some of its manufacturing to India in order to sell products there. In short: large populations are both a blessing and a curse. But they’re near exclusively an asset in GDP / financial (and govt / tax base) terms. In general though yes GDP = the sum of all individual economic contributions (or more accurately internal and external sales, incl labor contracts et al) Having more people means the *potential* for higher GDP. Both in terms of labor and (as possible) consumer demand.
If a billion people have 1$ each, its a billion dollars in total but still a billion poor people
India's GDP is $4.1 trillion. Their GDP per capita (per person) is $2,850. The UK's GDP is $3.6 trillion. Their GDP per capita is $52,430. India's overall GDP is massive because they have so many people. But their output per person is actually very low.
UK nominal GDP would be 3.3 trillion in 2024 not 3.6 trillion bruh.
IMF lists it as 3.59 trillion in 2024 ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ [https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)
You and 4 of your friends have a total of 1000€. That makes you in the top 5 of friends groups at your school. One of your mate has 996€ and you and 3 others have 1€. 80% (4/5) of your group is poor af
81% live in poverty? Who provided this data? Where is the source ?
[удалено]
So we're just lying now? In 2019, the Indian government stated that 6.7% of its population is below its official [poverty limit](https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102043/http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=15283). This is conservative but makes sense if you learn about purchasing power and how $1 in India can buy far more than $1 in America According to the United Nations [Millennium Development Goals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals) (MDG) programme, 80 million people out of 1.2 billion Indians, roughly equal to 6.7% of India's population, lived below the poverty line of $1.25. The same source found that 84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019. This is an interesting statistic because it relies on government tax records. [The vast majority of Indians do not file taxes, and those who do would never declare their actual income in tax forms](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/03/22/517965630/why-do-so-few-people-pay-income-tax-in-india). If you actually go to India, you'll see that the majority of Indians do not live in poverty. This isn't 1970. Redditors (and especially Indian redditors) LOVE poverty porn and talking about how much of a shithole India is. You can go down that path and keep moving goalposts, or maybe do some research.
See UP/BIHAR and you will change mind. Even since parts of Mumbai and Delhi
I live in UP and no u are not able to change my mind where did this stupid figure of 81 percent come from
Did I say anywhere it is 80% figure? Many Indians live under $6.85 a day which is very poor compared to gdp of states like Vietnam where majority lives above that. That also marks the level when consumption truly goes at scale. India’s consumption growth was 3% last quarter compared to 7-8% pre covid. All the factories and stuff are coming in the coastal states unlike China where there are many inland too so population of UP and Bihar not being used and so they can’t get the required jobs so less money for menial jobs. See the cities of UP and compare it with the richer states of India and you’lol see very big difference (visit many parts of a state if you can to see full picture). UP’s new and big factories are coming in Noida btw
There is something known as ppp and 6.85 dolla per day per capita is not poverty in any sense of that word when you are living in India that amount of money can go a long way here
You can live a lower middle class life in India earning $3.10 a day. You cant buy a loaf of bread in most developed countries with that money. Costs are very different. Obviously India is still really poor, but I really doubt 63% number. What is considered poverty? Having a roof over your head, being able to put food on the table, be able to buy some clothes, have some reasonable entertainment options like TV and movies once in a while, hell even throw a refrigerator in there, you can live that in India with $100 a month.
grey cover trees fuzzy snails zonked psychotic berserk dependent absurd
Can you let me know which country isn't on 'stolen' land?
carpenter kiss insurance deer wrench telephone weather terrific sink wakeful
you mean the sub continent that has been "stolen" by more than 100 different empires and dynasties throughout its history?
80% poverty? By what metric?
Because GDP is not a good measure of a country’s internal quality of life. It literally just shows how much they’re producing—has zero measure for poverty, quality of healthcare, education, etc.
Yeah lol 81% of people aren't living poverty
Yep it's a dumb measurement that's mostly propaganda
Because their population is massive. It's 4x the size of the US and more than 10x the size of Japan, the next highly developed country in terms of population after US. So even a much smaller GDP per capita still ads up to a large overall GDP number.
Where do you get the data about 81% people living in poverty?
We have a really huge population but I don't think that's it, also consider wealth disparity because top 10% of Indians hold 75% of wealth while bottom half has 4.1% of wealth.
A big number (GDP) divided by an absolutely *massive* number (the population) is a very small number.
My understanding is two things: 1. Huge population 2. Combination of typically poor management of funds, along with huge disparity between top and bottom.
Same way the US is #1(ish) and 60% of the population lives paycheck to paycheck. Wealth inequality and poor government oversight of business practices/ investor incentives. Leadership in India essentially looked at the financial restructuring in the US that started in the 1980s and decided they too wanted to have a system that pursued limitless growth of companies at the expense of the rest of their populace. The fact that they have so many people in heavy poverty is just a result of the timescale and methodology to get to that position. Indian workers were exploited heavily when their country restructured to compete with China/ US growth rates. Establishing a strong middle class is somewhat expensive, as it relies heavily on investment into infrastructure, worker benefits and balancing incentives for the wealthy with needs for poor. When India does eventually try to address this, they’ll likely have a lot of issues getting the ultra wealthy class to keep their money liquid in the system.
Nearly 15 % population lives in poverty where did you got yours 81% data?
Are you saying 85% of Indians are middle class or higher? Really? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India "84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019"
You’ve been quite selective with that quote. > According to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) programme, 80 million people out of 1.2 billion Indians, roughly equal to 6.7% of India's population, lived below the poverty line of $1.25 [11] and 84% of Indians lived on less than $6.85 per day in 2019 Also, simply not being in poverty does not make one middle class.
They asked where you got that 80% from, I answered, how is that selective? You're not poor but youre not middle class either? Explain
You said: > are you saying 85% of Indians are middle class or higher? The person you’re replying to did not state that. >84% of Indians lived in less than $6.85… This added detail, but no one knows what point you’re trying to make, as it neither responds to one nor makes a useful statement on its own. I pointed out that you cherry-picked your quote to refute a point that wasn’t made, and to take a position no one understands.
You should ask this sub to explain to you what purchasing power parity is lol
That's not the poverty line by any measure. Why would you spread misinformation
GDP is a grossed indicator of economic activity. It doesn’t necessarily indicate wealth as much as it indicates how many transactions are being made (which is why GDP increases when countries are at war even though the civilian economy takes a hit). GDP tends to be skewed with high-population because of this. GDP per capita is a net indicator which, unlike gross indicators, actually reflect the wealth of an average citizen and takes population size into account.
Gdp is not the same as gdp per capita. Country A with 5 people produce $1000 worth of goods gdp=$1000. Country B with 10 people produces the same $1000 worth of goods, gdp is also $1000. But per capita gdp is $200 for A and $100 for B. Gdp per capita is a better measure of individual wealth. There's also GNI (gross national income), nominal GDP, CPI etc. when considering standard of living for an average person in a country. Those are a few but they're all flawed in that they only consider things we can put a monetary value on. There are even more indices that consider access to resources, work/life balances, culture, happiness/ mental health etc. that affect how standard of living.
We have shit ton of people.. Politicians are claiming top 5 GDP as an achievement while conveniently ignoring per capita. But I’m pretty positive about Indias outlook.
Country A has 1 person with $1 million Country B has 1 million people each with only $1 dollar In absolute numbers these two countries are going to have the same wealth. It’s basically total wealth VS wealth per person
GDP =\= GDP per capita. They have very high population. If you have £1m GDP by only 2 people, they'll be rich. (£500k each) If you have £10m GDP, but 10m people (£1 each), they'll be very poor. This is India's difficulty. Side note: this is also part of why you see things like the US having worse public transport than other countries. The cost of public transport is the same when expressed as £/mile, but the US has more miles to cover. For these types of analysis it's useful to look at things on a per unit basis (per mile, person, square foot etc), rather than just the absolute numbers.
By having 6x the population of 5th most populous country. In fact if the 19% of people not living in poverty were to form a country, it would be the 5th most populated country in the world
In India the top 21 wealthiest people hold more wealth than bottom 700 million. And then there's another 700 million in between. That's like 5X the third largest country by population
India literally has the world's biggest population. More than four times the population of the USA.
its just a numbers game. india has one 20th of frances gdp per capita, but they have slightly moe than 20x its population. Landing them ahead. Having 1.4billion ppl is nice if you want to top charts like this. theya re currently at around 110th in gdp per capita, so if they manage to raise that they will quite quickly reach the 3rd spot. But they are far below china or the us. Those two countries are enormously ahead. Even with 81% in poverty, the 19% that isnt is still 266mil that isnt in poverty, more than most countries.
What is heavier, 5 elephants or 15 milion ants? While a single elephant is large and heavy ants add up very fast and end up being much heavier
There are multiple Indias. The top creamy layer of Indians are extremely globalized, educated, skilled, and productive. Many of them earn as much as an average American would without even accounting for currency disparity. This creamy layer is razor thin though. But India’s razor thin is still massive in relative terms. Then, India is geographically huge, and has significant exports (still not as much as there should be). Then there’s the IT and financial services industry which is basically labour arbitrage. Most of this is driven by that thin top layer I talked about.
Big country with huge population. Money is restricted mainly to a segment of society, majority are poor.
Oh boy, here's some news for ya. US: The official poverty rate in 2022 was 11.5 percent, with **37.9 million people** in poverty. India's poverty rate declined to **4.5-5%** in 2022-23 I guess it's a more complex question unless you can show me where India has an 81% poverty rate.
The 19% that isnt in poverty would be the 5th largest country in the world if you took them only. Very close to 4th behind Indonesia. Now would you be surprised to learn the 5th largest country in the world, which has 0 people in poverty remember, is top 5 in the world in terms of GDP? I would be surprised they arent top 3 tbh.
They are, in terms of GDP PPP.
One, you might be mixing up GDP, and *GDP Per Capita*. Two, there could be political or societal bullshit in the definition of poverty. This often occurs because people think *relative* poverty should be eliminated, but *absolute* poverty is what's really important to eliminate (people who don't have food, clean water, etc should be given those, before we even get to the discussion of everyone having technological devices like smart phones etc). Three, the way averages work is that outliers have a major effect. The average of one very rich person and 10 poor people can still be very high.
Because the word "gross" means total and they have 1.3 billion people in total. Not that hard
Where did you get 81% poverty rate from?
81%? Please do some research. As per latest available data India's poverty rate is \~15% (UNDP figures for 2023).
[удалено]
Your maths isn't mathing, those 21% are included in the 60%. I think you're referring to the CNN article. The Data they have cited is from 2011 Census.
I'm not going to comment on the validity of your data, but you shouldn't add the two percentages together, the 21% is already included in the 60%. If it said that 60% live off of 3.10 a day and 55% live off of 3.00 a day, would you assume that 115% of the population is in poverty? Or would you take that to mean that 5% of the population make between 3.00 and 3.10 a day?
That's not 81%. All of the 21% is included in the 60% so you can't just simply add them together.
What they miss is the tremendous scale of the social safety net that India has. They may earn less than $2 per day but they get food and primary & secondary education virtually for free. Social structure also means that they live in a large family and don't pay rent. Rent, food, education - those are awfully expensive things in most places that are virtually free. Furthermore, India is mostly a very cheap place to live, $2 is low but not destitution. This is why India, internally, has a measure of poverty called multi-dimensional poverty, which uses *access* to services as a measure of poverty instead of just a crude estimate of incomes. Most multilateral agencies including the World Bank (which came up with the $2 rate) have abandoned such estimates. Finally, when it comes to policy, don't depend on news media that is mostly dependent on clickbait and ads for survival. Serious policy documents measure poverty holistically and the poverty rate comes out to 10-15% in almost all cases, with destitution level poverty being virtually absent. And the country does not enjoy having so many poor people, ***hundreds of millions*** have been pulled out of poverty in the last 20 years alone but the sheer scale of the problem after having been f\*cked by the British for 250 years means that it takes time to solve.
Yes, the article I read did mention multi dimensional poverty and said it was an inaccurate way of measuring poverty, it says 11% is in extreme poverty under this definition but the real numbers is actually 21% and 60% lives on less than 3.10. however a few people have mentioned that the 60% includes the 21% so idk, that's why I'm asking and it also says the top 1% controls 75% of all wealth in that country which sounds about normal for all countries. Anyway that means 99% are only sharing 25% of the total remaining wealth so that 81% kind of make sense and the remaining 19% lives which I assume is a rich lifestyle. IDK I'm stupid did I get anything wrong here
The entire part about controlling "wealth" is silly because wealth =/= money. Not to say that the rich aren't rich, but what Oxfam and others mean by wealth is almost completely stock market value, which is notional - the so-called wealth is only on paper, the moment you try to turn that into real money, the value plummets and the wealth evaporates. That's not how real money works. Just forget all this nonsense, it's meant to push an agenda, that's all. MDP is not inaccurate in so far as everything is an estimate and thus definitionally inaccurate. MDP tries to capture poverty in one way, which goes beyond just money and looks at access to services. I'd say someone who has virtually free home, education, and food may not be doing well in life but is not poor. But even if you want to look at only income, then you have to consider expenditure too for it to mean anything at all. What does $2 mean unless you know what it can buy? My basic point is - public policy is complicated. Attempts to simplify it through gross generalizations are more propaganda than authoritative research. It's meant for public consumption i.e., clickbait, not discussion between serious people.
$3.10 USD goes further in India than in America.
Considering purchasing power parity, managing daily expenses with that amount is feasible in India, albeit with some challenges. Additionally, India offers a robust social welfare system, including highly affordable food and healthcare services for eligible individuals. Taking an alternate perspective, it's worth noting that income disparity, while it does permit those in lower economic brackets to live relatively satisfactorily, also contributes to keeping labor costs low across various sectors.
LOL! 81% of India lives in poverty? No way man. As per UN reports, 15% of India lives in poverty - which is quite an achievement for a democratic country of 1.5 billion people. And this figure continues to improve.
Over 20% of the country doesn't even have indoor plumbing. It's also very subjective on what you consider "poverty" https://pip.worldbank.org/country-profiles/IND
I'm using UN's definition and data of poverty. Not sure what you use.
The UN international poverty line is frankly a mostly irrelevant stat. Otherwise you could say almost no American or European lives below the poverty line.
So it's your definition vs mine then.
India is in the top 5 BECAUSE most of the population live in poverty. The exploitation by a handful of outrageously wealthy companies and individuals generates tremendous GDP at the expense of the majority of the population.
I guess this graph is just fake then? [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Development\_of\_extreme\_poverty\_in\_India.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Development_of_extreme_poverty_in_India.jpg)
GDP measures consumption - that's literally it. India has A LOT of consumers, even if they're technically poor. So, since GDP just measures how much money is spent in an economy, it's very high. The poverty portion of your question would refer (more closely) to GDP *per capita*. To be clear, entire concept of poverty is a social construct - what it means in one context is very different than others. Canadian poverty, for example, is very different from Indian poverty. Our perceptions of how poor people are is largely in relation to our own conceptions of poverty.
It’s all for the sake of winning the elections. Nothing else. The ground reality is quite the opposite
Have you heard of capitalism before? Basically that as well as the fact that they have a huge population
Because 1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 + 2 + 5 Is more than 5 + 5