Asking the Austrian perspective on these studies:

Empirical evidence measuring things such as skeletal remains, dwelling conditions, age of mortality, etc. show that the introduction of Capitalism was strongly linked to a global reduction in life quality that only began to subside after socialist and anti-colonial reforms. Moreover, introducing capitalist reforms to socialist economies is shown to increase poverty in terms of actual purchasing power and access to basic goods for workers.

The evidence we review here points to three conclusions. (1) It is unlikely that 90% of the human population lived in extreme poverty prior to the 19th century. Historically, unskilled urban labourers in all regions tended to have wages high enough to support a family of four above the poverty line by working 250 days or 12 months a year, except during periods of severe social dislocation, such as famines, wars, and institutionalized dispossession – particularly under colonialism. (2) The rise of capitalism caused a dramatic deterioration of human welfare. In all regions studied here, incorporation into the capitalist world-system was associated with a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and an upturn in premature mortality. In parts of South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, key welfare metrics have still not recovered. (3) Where progress has occurred, significant improvements in human welfare began several centuries after the rise of capitalism. In the core regions of Northwest Europe, progress began in the 1880s, while in the periphery and semi-periphery it began in the mid-20th century, a period characterized by the rise of anti-colonial and socialist political movements that redistributed incomes and established public provisioning systems.

My question is this: if unregulated free market capitalism reduces poverty, why is none of that reduction of poverty reflected in empirical data about the living standards of human beings?