The article misses an important point: It does not explain what definition of poverty all this is based on. There are some definitions like "people having less than 60% of the average real income". But's that's a very relative: If the average income is rising over the years, people defined now as "poor" may live at the same standard as the average in 1991. If that's the case I would not neccessarily consider them "poor".
So I think it would be interesting to do the same statisical breakdown but in regard to the absolute standard of living.
So I think it would be interesting to do the same statisical breakdown but in regard to the absolute standard of living.