[0]https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than...
* redefines poverty multiple times and then comes to the surprising conclusion that the results differ from the NY Times article
* uses consumption in USD as a measure, which is highly problematic, because a) different countries have different purchasing power, which is is the reason almost noone in poverty research compares international poverty using gross consumption b) consumption heavily reflects economic inefficency (e.g. health care costs: If a say Danish poor gets her broken arm fixed for free, she would consume 0$ according to this figure, while achieving the same quality of life out of it)
The usual threshold for poverty (for good reasons) is 50 or 60% of the median income in a country. Which the NY Times article used.
If you think half to 40% of people in the Congo are not in poverty you are delusional
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty
You are free to find that delusional, but if you want to partake in the scientific discourse about poverty, it would be advantageous if you don't redefine the core concept.
But the usual measure of relative local wealth, works pretty good.
Although this is in 2010, during the crisis, it would suggest a big difference in what I thought the outcome of such a study would be.
This doesn't include savings, it seems. Which are mandatory here.
