Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Here's from Nationmaster (on the ET blogroll)

 Country Description
 Definition: National estimates of the percentage of the population lying below the poverty line are based on surveys of sub-groups, with the results weighted by the number of people in each group. Definitions of poverty vary considerably among nations. For example, rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations.

 Amount

  1. Mexico 40% (2003 est.)  
  2. Turkey 20% (2002)  
  3. Poland 18.4% (2000 est.)  
  4. United Kingdom 17% (2002 est.)  
  5. United States 12% (2004 est.)  
  6. Ireland 10% (1997 est.)  
  7. Hungary 8.6% (1993 est.)  
  8. France 6.5% (2000)  
  9. Belgium 4% (1989 est.)  
  10. Korea, South 4% (2001 est.)  
  11. Austria 3.9% (1999)  
 Weighted Average 16.44  

Although...still not exactly clear what the cut-off is, as this mentions "different standards"...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Wed Oct 12th, 2005 at 10:53:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But should we also look at the actual incomes earned by the, say, lower 10% in each of these countries, and maybe other deciles as well?  Probably some cost of living factor would need to be considered.  Because one question is where are the poor better off, where are they worse off?

I agree the question of income distribution is also valuable, but it would seem that we have to look at both.

by wchurchill on Wed Oct 12th, 2005 at 01:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
PPP should matter, but there is also the value of social services, and one could look into basic statistics that correlate with poverty, like illiteracy or infant mortality.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Oct 12th, 2005 at 02:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree.  It would be important for government support payments, like unemployment payments and welfare payments to be included financially.  And then various social statistics like those you suggest should be included.  one would expect, or hope, that those programs help would reflect improved social statistics--though it could be tricky to evaluate perhaps, due to significant population differences.  For example, and I may be way off base on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if societies without a lot of diversity, maybe Norway and Sweden, would be high on those statistics, partially due to homogeneity of view (perhaps less interculture clashes) and due to excellent social programs.  But it would be great to see that data.
by wchurchill on Wed Oct 12th, 2005 at 08:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: