Dear friend, thanks for your active participation in the discussion. But according to my experience of last few years while working with the poor communities I can say that poverty can not be defined by a single scale of income or nutrition intake. Can we tell the person who earns $3 a day is not poor? It's good for the paper work and fix a line. But there is a huge gap between the actual rich and poor. And there are some people who earns less than $2 a day but still get a nutritional food than a person who earn $200 a day. May be they don't have stone house or colourful clothing but still they are happy. In North eastern part of India there is one tribal group name Bodo, I spent nearly 40days with them in their home. There I find that money is not everything. Poverty have different dimensions. We can tell a 5I concept. Income, Ill health, impotency, inequality and isolation is the main causes of the poverty. A strong social capital can eradicate poverty. But it's need a huge effort in country like India to unite people. We are trying hard.
In my opinion, in today's world, the word "poverty" differs from the literary sense. Earlier, an under previliged human lacking the basic necessity - typically "food and shelter" were classified as "poverty stricken". In the contemporary scenario, governments of most of the countries have come up with their possible best to provide the citizens with food (least minimum). Inspite of all these, we still have been able to observe homeless and underfed people. In my perspective, if the governments (majorly developing countries) would take stringent measures against overpopulation, providing quality education would be possible, employment opportunities would increase; the government would easily be able to monitor the statuses of its citizens. It is a long term process and requires a lot of planning and strict implementation.