It is sort of strange. The letter also talks about looking around and seeing a bunch of middle class people and assuming that no one is poor anymore. If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. . .
Perhaps I extrapolated too much, but the line "There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit there now I think, Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a miracle." just because this particular area had less poverty, doesn't mean there are less people living in poverty, it just means they may be more hidden. Actual stats would have been helpful.
Actual stats would have been helpful where? For Gates to make the conclusion that significant progress has been made? Because I am pretty well convinced that Bill sits around chewing through "actual stats" as a hobby and doesn't just pull this stuff out of his ass. If you're saying that actual stats would have made this illustration a little more compelling, then I also disagree, since the difference between Mexico City appearing to be one giant slum and having to go looking for extreme poverty is pretty compelling in my book.
Why do you (an armchair critic?) assume that the Gates, with direct data and experience, are wrong and overlooking reality with their statement? I'm pretty sure they have available decent data showing them overall progress and are not visiting one development and making a blanket extrapolation based on that.
My comment was that he makes a statement that says "I can't see poor people, which means they must not be here". I tried to clarify my comment and have an armchair critic in you disputing me, when you could have googled it to prove me wrong. But here you go, http://data.worldbank.org/country/mexico
Poverty as a % of population in mexico has increased from 47% to 52% according to the world bank.
I'm just suggesting that they be given the benefit of the doubt given their line and depth of work, and the understanding that you're taking the quote so literally. This piece about myths has been written to reach many people so it's trying to make a fair and convincing argument without detail that's too extreme.
Thanks for that World Bank link - nicely designed site and great data. Do you know why the graph isn't linked for more recent years? Is it speculative data?
I looked for a couple more sources and they had current poverty at about 44-45%. Wikipedia's Povery in Mexico page:
"Current figures estimate that at least 44.2 percent of the population lives under poverty."
And another page:
"Extreme poverty, on the other hand, clearly declined. Both the number and percentage of Mexicans living in extreme poverty fell between 2010 and 2012, from 13.0 million (11.3 percent) in 2010 to 11.5 million (9.8 percent) in 2012."
Beware: Poverty lines are often set as a percentage of the per capita GDP. So, in real terms, if the average buying power increase did not outpace the buying power increase of the richest few, poverty could increase, even as people are able to afford more.
The world bank data that you linked to seems to be using a relative poverty line.
