So far in this thread, the only remotely meaningful definition of poverty presented is as a fraction of the median income.

Of the four definitions of poverty discussed here, this is the completely meaningless one. That is not poverty at all, as it says absolutely NOTHING about how you actually live, and how your life is, while the others, HDI in particular, does say a lot about it.

And yes, they are national averages. They ALL are. Because what we are discussing is the poverty of countries. Duh.

I realized yesterday, that when I grew up we were amongst the poorest ones around. We had some neighbours which I know didn't have much money, and we kinda saw them as poor, and probably they were poorer than us. But this makes us pretty much the second poorest family around in the town where I lived. My mum when to first high-school and then university while working at the same time. This was the 60s and there wan't much social services around. But where we poor? No, we had food and housing and health care and went to school. But yet, according to your definitions, I lived in abject dreadful poverty and should be compared to starving kids in India, because I  was amongst the poorest in my country, just as they are amongst the poorest in their country.

That attitude with it's dreadful antihumanism and complete ignorance of the realities of people who are living in despair is completely incomprehensible to me.

Maybe you can lift this incomprehention. Explain to my why, to you, it is better if everybody starves than if everybody lives reasonably good lives but some people live even better lives. Because that IS the conclusion of what you are saying, when you say that the only poverty that exists is relative poverty.

btw, I knew quickly that this forum was full of leftist people, but this is the first forum I've even come across where some discount HDI. Usually, when you talk about poverty leftists will lift HDI up as a good measurement. I'm astonished.