This headline and story frame relies on a strained redefinition of what people usually mean by an "absolute" measure of poverty.<p>The source paper doesn't have this problem: neither its title nor abstract refer to "absolute" poverty or even "global poverty" (which would tend make people think of rates-of-poverty). The paper clearly considers just the "floor" experienced by the "poorest" (of which there are fewer).<p>In discussing its own data sources, the paper also says outright:<p><i>"The latest results from these data confirm past findings that the developing world has seen impressive progress against absolute poverty over the last 30 years, with signs of acceleration since 2000."</i><p>The WSJ story's author/editor/headline-writer should be embarrassed by the confusion-creating spin they've added.