On another note, the goods needed to subsist in different countries do vary. In an economy where almost everyone practices subsistence farming, for example, there is less need for transportation than in a developed economy, if for no other reason than because you need to move less far to get to your workplace.

Thus, being able to afford a train ride in a poor country based on subsistence farming is not a major problem (at least compared to all the other problems subsistence farmers face), while in a society where the economic structure is based on thirty-km commutes each way, each day, inability to afford a train ticket is A Bad Thing. Precisely the same good. Wildly differing degrees of necessity.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

I accuse whoever came up with the idea of measuring income distribution and calling that a measurement of poverty of being dishonest,

I accuse you who perpetuate this argument of having been suckered. :-)

People are NOT rich because they starve to death together.

Nevertheless, it is still true that PPP$ do not accurately reflect subsistence costs, which is the thrust of my original point, as the PPP normalisation includes many goods and services that are not necessary to subsistence.

Sure, but it's the best option we have until somebody actually make a PPP index that is done only to measure poverty. And to be quite honest, regarding how cheap subsistence goods like somewhere to live and food is in the US, I seriously doubt that the US is gonna come out any worse in the comparison...