Back of the envelope calculations, grabbing some numbers off of Wikipedia:
"In 2005, 43% of the world population (3.14 billion people) have an income of less than U.S. $2.5/day. 21.5% of the world population (1.4 billion people) have an income of less than US$1.25/day."
So the bottom 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25/day.
1/4 of the $240 billion annual income cited is $60bn a year, spread amongst 1.4 billion people yields $0.117 a day.
Assuming that the average income of that 1.4 billion is half of $1.25, that would give us an ~18% boost to income (not necessarily livelihood).
Which is a surprisingly high figure. Why the hell wouldn't they lead with that? The title is clearly a fairytale to anyone with any sense.
The problem is that things like phones and fuel (anything that requires human effort to make or extract) will face an 18% increase in salary costs because everyone expects to take home 18% more each month. So most things will be more expensive -- whether 18% more or not, I don't know.
Phones and lights haven't exactly been going up in price with GDP. Stoves in the valleys I saw in Nepal were mainly affected by distance travelled by dzos.
Throwing your hands up in the air, pronouncing the problem too complex sounds like a really convenient excuse to do nothing.
"In 2005, 43% of the world population (3.14 billion people) have an income of less than U.S. $2.5/day. 21.5% of the world population (1.4 billion people) have an income of less than US$1.25/day."
So the bottom 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25/day.
1/4 of the $240 billion annual income cited is $60bn a year, spread amongst 1.4 billion people yields $0.117 a day.
Assuming that the average income of that 1.4 billion is half of $1.25, that would give us an ~18% boost to income (not necessarily livelihood).
Which is a surprisingly high figure. Why the hell wouldn't they lead with that? The title is clearly a fairytale to anyone with any sense.