You're asking me to prove a negative in response to me asking for establishment of positive standards. Sure, the WB probably has some well thought out criteria - and I don't know where to find them, and have reason to believe most everyone else pontificating on the subject aren't sharing those criteria. I've not seen evidence ANYONE has worked out basic human needs to the point that anyone being given such satisfying resources can, and is, declared "not poor".
Of course you're none the wiser from my comment. It was a question (admittedly not bluntly phrased as such): what objectively constitutes "poor"?
Many in this thread decry the fudging of numbers in the discussion; I'd like something objective which can't really be fudged.
ETA: following another posters' suggested link, seems the WB admittedly arrived at that $1.90/day number by averaging the declared poverty lines of low-GDP/capita countries. That's not the quantitative objective analysis I'm looking for.
Of course you're none the wiser from my comment. It was a question (admittedly not bluntly phrased as such): what objectively constitutes "poor"?
Many in this thread decry the fudging of numbers in the discussion; I'd like something objective which can't really be fudged.
ETA: following another posters' suggested link, seems the WB admittedly arrived at that $1.90/day number by averaging the declared poverty lines of low-GDP/capita countries. That's not the quantitative objective analysis I'm looking for.