Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 9/26/07, Venky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, so as expected, the gap is widening. Though, from what I understand about Gini coefficients from Wikipedia, a country as large as India with its economic diversity would end up exaggerating the value. To quote Wikipedia -- When measuring its value for a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient than each of its regions has individually will result. But, in any case, assuming that supply-side economics works, if this ends up getting us closer to a place where most of the poor have their own homes and mobile phones and air-conditioning, is the income disparity all *that* bad? All the data I've seen suggests that the within-state and between-state disparities are greater than the national aggregate. It's not just disparities that are widening, however. There are large groups of people - mostly rural and tribal - who have no way of engaging with the sectors of the economy that are growing, not even as beneficiaries of such trickle down benefits as exist. As terms of trade for their output worsen and/or demand for their skills disappears while costs of the goods/services they need to acquire from the industrial/service sectors increase, they are absolutely, not just relatively, worse off. This is manifested as farmers' suicides, child trafficking, starvation deaths, migration to urban areas - all of which have increased over the past 20 years and continue to do so at an accelerating rate. For these (approx.100 million) people, air-conditioning, phones, even homes are mythical beasts. Those I meet would gladly settle for one square meal a day and a somewhat permanent roof over their heads. What really makes India different are: 1. the sheer numbers of people living in poverty. The percentages living on less than USD 2 per day have declined by less than 10% from 89.6% to 79.9%over the same 20 year period. At 1.5 billion, that's about 1.2 billion. Not to dispute the fact there the majority of the Indian population is extremely poor, but there has got to be a better measure of this than one based on a foreign currency against which the domestic currency fluctuates wildly, and this before we throw inflation into the mix. I would assume proxy measures like life expectancy and child mortality rates would work much better. A totally naive reading (in the economic sense) of the figures above seems to indicate that, ignoring the effects of inflation, 89.6% of the people used to live on less than 30 rupees a day 20 years ago -- and now 79.9% of the people live on less than 90 rupees a day. Have no idea how inflation would skew these numbers but superficially, it looks like a decline of greater than 10%. [Disclaimer: I am bandying about terms which I have a little more than passing familiarity with. I'll be very glad if someone who actually understands numbers can clear this up for me.] In any case, even accepting these figures at face-value, the poor do seem to be getting richer - though at a slower pace than the rest of the country -- which was the original point. I'm not sure what exchange rates you are working from. The US dollar is currently trading just below Rs 40 which is the level it was at in the early '90s. In any case, I should have specified that the percentages I quoted are World Bank stats based on constant 1993 rates. As far as non-currency based measures go, perhaps the fact that 46% (or over 200 million) children are officially reported as being malnourished in 2007 compared to 47% (a statistically insignificant difference) in 1997, tells the story.
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
oh the luxuries of life as a [relatively] rich man in india :-) -rishab, who is forced to camouflage the creases he didn't bother to iron out On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 00:26 -0700, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: [for me, that is a necessity rather than a luxury - i am way too clumsy with irons so end up either not ironing clothes properly - some creases get more prominent rather than getting ironed out - or the clothes just get scorched]
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:53 +0530, Ingrid wrote: The merits of this article aside, Gini coefficients, that measure income inequality, have risen steadily in India since 1980 from 0.32 to 0.38. For the record, a Gini above 0.35 is generally believed to be unsustainable socially and politically. If it's any consolation the comparable Ginis for China are 0.32 and 0.40 and for the US 0.35 to 0.40 over the same period. Naturally, sheer arithmetic implies that greater income inequalities require greater rates of GDP growth to reduce poverty to the same extent. i think the figures show that absolute numbers of people living in poverty (whatever the definition) have reduced over the past 20 years, and furthermore the absolute inflation-adjusted incomes have increased for almost all income groups of the indian population. quality of life, has also increased, as measured in DALYs (disability-adjusted life years, the third-world version of the rich world's quality-adjusted life years). rich get richer and poor get poorer is thus mainly true for india in a _relative_ sense, as pointed out by the gini coefficients ingrid cites. (a gini of 1.0 is when the richest person has all the money, 0.0 is when everyone is equal). i.e., the rich and poor have got absolutely richer, but the rich are getting richer faster. to the discomfort of those who favour socialist economic policies, fast growing economies almost always have growing inequalities, as the rich tend to be able to take the most advantage, soonest, of growth opportunities. moreover, most attempts to focus on inequality rather than growth result in stunted growth and increased absolute poverty - making any reduction in inequality irrelevant for most of the poor. for very poor societies, like india, appreciation among the poor of absolute wealth increases are probably going to overshadow relative poverty (envy of the rich) for a while. i believe high gini coefficients are much more social and political problem for richer, slower growing economies, than poor ones, for this reason. this is also why richer, slower growing economies face more social pressure (and can more easily afford) increased social safety nets or even sustained financial support for a stagnant poor underclass. for the record, india has a pretty low gini coefficient compared to other poor countries (and even rich ones). in most of latin america ginis are _much_ higher - and growth rates have been historically low, too, leading to frequent political problems. -rishab
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
with inflation at 10% for much of the 80s and 5-10% through the 90s, 30 rupees in 1980 is worth over 250 rupees today, so 90 rupees would be a decline. anyway, if the study ingrid quoted is the one i remember, they used inflation-adjusted purchasing-power-parity dollars, which attempt to reflect actual costs of living though they wouldn't reflect regional differences within india. On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 21:20 +0530, Venky wrote: A totally naive reading (in the economic sense) of the figures above seems to indicate that, ignoring the effects of inflation, 89.6% of the people used to live on less than 30 rupees a day 20 years ago -- and now 79.9% of the people live on less than 90 rupees a day. Have no idea how inflation would skew these
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 9/26/07, Martin Senftleben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch, 26. September 2007 07:16 schrieb Biju Chacko: On 9/25/07, Srini Ramakrishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh boy :) This seems an accurate description of the lives of the poorest-of-the-poor. However, the socialist cliche The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer never seems to be tested -- it always seems to be accepted as an axiom. Are there statistics to show that the percentage of poor people in the Indian population is increasing? That is not what is meant with that statement. It only says, that the poor are getting poorer, i.e. their income decreases in relation to actual cost of living, that increases faster than their income. Whether there are more or less poor people, is not part of the statement. With regard to the rich, it's the same thing: The number of truly rich people isn't changing much, maybe it's even decreasing, but their wealth increases faster than the cost of living. These are facts that have been statistically proven. How exactly that is in India, I can't say, however. Fair enough, is it actually true that the income of the poor is not rising as fast as the cost of living? Or more importantly, is this indicative of a. Something fundamentally wrong with economic planning. ie increasing prosperity in Indian is superficial and is not reaching beyond a privilidged few. or b. It's a governance problem -- we don't have the safety net to care for the poor. That is, prosperity might not be superficial but we're leaving many behind. At that point, the numbers of the poor as a percentage of total population becomes helpful. If it's declining we need to focus more on the second issue otherwise both are important. SImply put, while a sad story may move people to act, hard data is needed to figure out *what* needs to be done. -- b
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
Biju Chacko [26/09/07 10:46 +0530]: guy that irons my clothes, for example, recently left his mobile number with my wife in case of emergency [1] to use his phrase. [1] What's a clothes ironing emergency? I have no idea! oh, you know, like there's a sudden business trip, and the guy's delivery boy won't be around till tomorrow on his usual rounds - leaving you with an armful of fine shirts you want ironed pronto before you fly out .. [for me, that is a necessity rather than a luxury - i am way too clumsy with irons so end up either not ironing clothes properly - some creases get more prominent rather than getting ironed out - or the clothes just get scorched]
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 7:38 AM, Martin Senftleben wrote: That is not what is meant with that statement. It only says, that the poor are getting poorer, i.e. their income decreases in relation to actual cost of living, that increases faster than their income. Whether there are more or less poor people, is not part of the statement. This is again something that would need to be backed up by numbers. From personal experience, I would say, in India, both the rich and poor are getting richer. The rich seem to be getting richer at a rate faster than the poor -- so the gap between the rich and the poor would be widening, but are the poor actually getting poorer with respect to the cost of living? I'm not so sure. Well, in Germany, most poor people (i.e. those who depend on public aid) have cell phones. There were times when I thought of this as an indication that they are better situated than I always had believed, because I didn't have a cell phone at that time, but the contrary is the case: they just can't afford to get a fixed connection (regular costs are too high). A cell phone with a prepaid card and SIM lock costs them just one Euro or is available for nothing. Somethimes, the card contains even a 10 Euro bonus which they can use up. I don't know how that is in India, but I guess it's similar. Don't really think we can compare Germany with India. My guess would be that the situation of the poor in Germany is closer to that of the poor in the United States -- where apparently almost half have their own homes and more than three quarters have air-conditioning! [1] I don't have either here! :) With almost no public aid, the poor in India have a much nastier time. A mobile phone is actually still a luxury here. For the actual poor, having an address to use for a phone connection is more basic a challenge. But, like Biju, I have seen that number go down significantly in the last few years at least in the cities. Maybe it is a flawed sample -- maybe my interactions are limited to the relatively wealthier of the poorer section -- but it would take more than the oft used rhetoric of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer to convince me. Anyway, people who have a regular income (like the one who irons your clothes) may be in the lower rungs, but they are not poor, not really. The article seems to cover a lot of ground here -- from people who beg on the streets to those who would like to live in rich localities. Are all these people getting poorer? More importantly, is the main issue about raising the standard of living of the poor (maybe to the point where they might be able to afford things like mobile phones), or is it about eliminating the gap between them and the rich. The former, we seem to be making some progress towards. The latter, I don't see ever happening. What irritates me about the tone of articles like these is the re-hashing of the same old the world is going to the dogs argument. Hans Rosling's (extremely interesting) TED talks[2][3] seem to indicate otherwise. From what I can see, the world is getting to be a better place -- for almost everybody. Venky (the Second). [1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm [2] http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92 [3] http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/140
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On Wednesday 26 Sep 2007 3:50 pm, Venky wrote: What irritates me about the tone of articles like these is the re-hashing of the same old the world is going to the dogs I second that sentiment. My first instinct was to give the article a score of 5 out of 10 because what it does is to spew all the cliches that Indians learn about the poor - especially with regard to appearances. And the article dwells on appearances. The article fails miserably in explaining anything about poverty in the Indian context. It fails to recognize that because all the characteristics that are mentioned as those of poor people, a lot of wealthy Indians actually use those characteristics to appear poor and get all the concessions that are offered to those who are poor based on these cliches. These include Rations, concessional tickets or treatment, licence to crap outside your house and argue poverty when you object and set up shops on the pavement (and once again - you guessed it - claim poverty and exploitation) On the other hand, the article equally fails to point out the fact that a lot of people who do not have the appearance of being poor are actually very poor and maintain a semblance of wealth out of dignity. Many nurses and hospital assistants whom I know fall into this category. Just like those cellphone toting Germans. All in all a very superficial take - that in the Indian context must not be disputed because it serves as one of India's typical Catch22 articles about the poor. If you dispute it you are anti-poor - and an exploiter, You are supposed to wring your hands, shake your head, tear your hair and weep. shiv
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
The merits of this article aside, Gini coefficients, that measure income inequality, have risen steadily in India since 1980 from 0.32 to 0.38. For the record, a Gini above 0.35 is generally believed to be unsustainable socially and politically. If it's any consolation the comparable Ginis for China are 0.32 and 0.40 and for the US 0.35 to 0.40 over the same period. Naturally, sheer arithmetic implies that greater income inequalities require greater rates of GDP growth to reduce poverty to the same extent. What really makes India different are: 1. the sheer numbers of people living in poverty. The percentages living on less than USD 2 per day have declined by less than 10% from 89.6% to 79.9%over the same 20 year period. At 1.5 billion, that's about 1.2 billion. 2. the skews within India where rural and tribal communities especially in Maharashtra, parts of MP, Bengal, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh have seen increases in both the absolute number and the percentage of people living in abject poverty. And all over India, but particularly in Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar and parts of UP the numbers living on under USD 0.25 per day are, in absolute terms, staggering. It's also important to note that many of the poorest, viz. those without legal status, migrants, nomads etc. are left out in the compilation of these statistics
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 5:53 PM, Ingrid wrote: The merits of this article aside, Gini coefficients, that measure income inequality, have risen steadily in India since 1980 from 0.32 to 0.38. Okay, so as expected, the gap is widening. Though, from what I understand about Gini coefficients from Wikipedia, a country as large as India with its economic diversity would end up exaggerating the value. To quote Wikipedia -- When measuring its value for a large, economically diverse country, a much higher coefficient than each of its regions has individually will result. But, in any case, assuming that supply-side economics works, if this ends up getting us closer to a place where most of the poor have their own homes and mobile phones and air-conditioning, is the income disparity all *that* bad? What really makes India different are: 1. the sheer numbers of people living in poverty. The percentages living on less than USD 2 per day have declined by less than 10% from 89.6% to 79.9%over the same 20 year period. At 1.5 billion, that's about 1.2 billion. Not to dispute the fact there the majority of the Indian population is extremely poor, but there has got to be a better measure of this than one based on a foreign currency against which the domestic currency fluctuates wildly, and this before we throw inflation into the mix. I would assume proxy measures like life expectancy and child mortality rates would work much better. A totally naive reading (in the economic sense) of the figures above seems to indicate that, ignoring the effects of inflation, 89.6% of the people used to live on less than 30 rupees a day 20 years ago -- and now 79.9% of the people live on less than 90 rupees a day. Have no idea how inflation would skew these numbers but superficially, it looks like a decline of greater than 10%. [Disclaimer: I am bandying about terms which I have a little more than passing familiarity with. I'll be very glad if someone who actually understands numbers can clear this up for me.] In any case, even accepting these figures at face-value, the poor do seem to be getting richer - though at a slower pace than the rest of the country -- which was the original point. Venky.
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
It's also important to note that many of the poorest, viz. those without legal status, migrants, nomads etc. are left out in the compilation of these statistics That was such a profound observation. The poorest of the poor live not only below the poverty line but below the radar of most such surveys and statistics. Also I want to say that often, those with simple lifestyles (let's say, for example, the Gond tribes, or the Irulas, or the Soligas) are not counted as people living with Nature; they are counted as poor, because poverrty is measured by how much money you have in the bank, not how much you are able to survive without it. I remember that movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy. It made a valid point about the currency of currency. Deepa. On 9/26/07, Ingrid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The merits of this article aside, Gini coefficients, that measure income inequality, have risen steadily in India since 1980 from 0.32 to 0.38. For the record, a Gini above 0.35 is generally believed to be unsustainable socially and politically. If it's any consolation the comparable Ginis for China are 0.32 and 0.40 and for the US 0.35 to 0.40 over the same period. Naturally, sheer arithmetic implies that greater income inequalities require greater rates of GDP growth to reduce poverty to the same extent. What really makes India different are: 1. the sheer numbers of people living in poverty. The percentages living on less than USD 2 per day have declined by less than 10% from 89.6% to 79.9%over the same 20 year period. At 1.5 billion, that's about 1.2 billion. 2. the skews within India where rural and tribal communities especially in Maharashtra, parts of MP, Bengal, Manipur, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh have seen increases in both the absolute number and the percentage of people living in abject poverty. And all over India, but particularly in Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar and parts of UP the numbers living on under USD 0.25 per day are, in absolute terms, staggering. It's also important to note that many of the poorest, viz. those without legal status, migrants, nomads etc. are left out in the compilation of these statistics
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 9/26/07, Deepa Mohan wrote: Also I want to say that often, those with simple lifestyles (let's say, for example, the Gond tribes, or the Irulas, or the Soligas) are not counted as people living with Nature; they are counted as poor, because poverrty is measured by how much money you have in the bank, not how much you are able to survive without it. I remember that movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy. It made a valid point about the currency of currency. I read this remarkable book about the tribes of the Andaman : http://www.amazon.com/Land-Naked-People-Encounters-Islanders/dp/0618197362 though it makes for a fair amount of depressing reading on the Indian State. One interesting statement in the book is from a chairman of the national SC/ST (scheduled cast/tribes) commission, on the lines of these are our brothers, they must be made to live like humans, and uplifted on par with upper castes. That essentially meant forcing them to wear trousers and making them eat tinned food, and giving them various diseases. This closely parallels what happened to many African tribal groups during colonialism. Yeah, essentially all these caste-less (no hinduness here :) ) tribes have been forcibly classified by bureaucrats as lower castes, much to their detriment.
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On Wednesday 26 Sep 2007 10:17 pm, ashok _ wrote: Yeah, essentially all these caste-less (no hinduness here :):) ) tribes have been forcibly classified by bureaucrats as lower castes, much to their detriment. This is the caste system at work because technically you cannot escape Hinduism. No caste? No problem. Outcaste, therefore untouchable. Can't let your son marry one of their girls. shiv
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
On 9/25/07, Srini Ramakrishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh boy :) This seems an accurate description of the lives of the poorest-of-the-poor. However, the socialist cliche The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer never seems to be tested -- it always seems to be accepted as an axiom. Are there statistics to show that the percentage of poor people in the Indian population is increasing? I don't know enough to believe in trickle-down economics or not. But in Bangalore (where I live) which has huge amounts of money flowing around more seems to be reaching the lower rungs than used to. The guy that irons my clothes, for example, recently left his mobile number with my wife in case of emergency [1] to use his phrase. -- b [1] What's a clothes ironing emergency? I have no idea!
Re: [silk] Life of a poor man in India
Am Mittwoch, 26. September 2007 07:16 schrieb Biju Chacko: On 9/25/07, Srini Ramakrishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh boy :) This seems an accurate description of the lives of the poorest-of-the-poor. However, the socialist cliche The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer never seems to be tested -- it always seems to be accepted as an axiom. Are there statistics to show that the percentage of poor people in the Indian population is increasing? That is not what is meant with that statement. It only says, that the poor are getting poorer, i.e. their income decreases in relation to actual cost of living, that increases faster than their income. Whether there are more or less poor people, is not part of the statement. With regard to the rich, it's the same thing: The number of truly rich people isn't changing much, maybe it's even decreasing, but their wealth increases faster than the cost of living. These are facts that have been statistically proven. How exactly that is in India, I can't say, however. I don't know enough to believe in trickle-down economics or not. But in Bangalore (where I live) which has huge amounts of money flowing around more seems to be reaching the lower rungs than used to. The guy that irons my clothes, for example, recently left his mobile number with my wife in case of emergency [1] to use his phrase. Well, in Germany, most poor people (i.e. those who depend on public aid) have cell phones. There were times when I thought of this as an indication that they are better situated than I always had believed, because I didn't have a cell phone at that time, but the contrary is the case: they just can't afford to get a fixed connection (regular costs are too high). A cell phone with a prepaid card and SIM lock costs them just one Euro or is available for nothing. Somethimes, the card contains even a 10 Euro bonus which they can use up. I don't know how that is in India, but I guess it's similar. Anyway, people who have a regular income (like the one who irons your clothes) may be in the lower rungs, but they are not poor, not really. Martin -- Dr. Martin Senftleben, Ph.D. (S.V.U.) http://www.drmartinus.de/ http://www.daskirchenjahr.de/ pgpXW8aQkgNhj.pgp Description: PGP signature
