Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you walk into a Wal Mart you see tons of food, clothes, and bunches of other accessories which are the pinnacle of how "easy" it is to produce goods in the modern era.
Can poverty become eradicated? Should poverty become eradicated?
It's easy for us, but not for the overseas sweatshop workers that pound out cheap stuff for us to consume. We can pork out because someone on the other side of the world goes without.
Globalism actually encourages poverty and the exploitation of many for the benefit of the few, and if you want to eradicate it, you will need to get rid of Walmart, and every other global corporation that profits from the current system.
But since john beat me to the punch no I'll have to expound.
People are naturally greedy...that's a survival instinct. The problem is when people think they have more right to something, or more power to take it than another person. When one person (or group of people) feels they are 'better', 'above', 'chosen' another person (or group) things go to **** pretty fast.
My ex-brother in law was very wealthy and he told me "Funny thing about money is, the more you get the more you want". I guess I'll never know.
We work on a TRADE TIME FOR MONEY system when we trade with private businesses and individuals and call it Capitolism...BUT we are heading for Communism when we TRADE TIME FOR MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Oh, by the way, they have laws, police and military to squash the competition. Careful how much Utopia you can handle.
It's easy for us, but not for the overseas sweatshop workers that pound out cheap stuff for us to consume. We can pork out because someone on the other side of the world goes without.
Globalism actually encourages poverty and the exploitation of many for the benefit of the few, and if you want to eradicate it, you will need to get rid of Walmart, and every other global corporation that profits from the current system.
I think I have to disagree with you. The proportion of the world that now lives in truly abject poverty is quite a bit smaller than it was a half a century ago. I'm talking about poverty in which people literally die of starvation or disease.
The first time I drove down through Mexico and Central America, in 1962, or the Middle East in 1964, there was a great deal more poverty than there is now. Globalism has created an environment in which food can be cheaply produced and processed for longer shelf life, and brought to people anywhere in the world, cheaply enough that it is affordable. At the same time, globalism has brought billions into a money economy, in which their meager wealth is portable and can be used to defray poverty.
In the past 50 years, the infant mortality rate in almost every undeveloped country has been cut in half, due to improved nutrition, water treatment, transportation, and medical access. None of which would have occurred as steadily without globalism.
It's easy for us, but not for the overseas sweatshop workers that pound out cheap stuff for us to consume. We can pork out because someone on the other side of the world goes without.
Globalism actually encourages poverty and the exploitation of many for the benefit of the few, and if you want to eradicate it, you will need to get rid of Walmart, and every other global corporation that profits from the current system.
Are those "sweat shop workers" economically better off, or worse off, than they were before they started working in factories? How much are they better off or worse off?
Are those "sweat shop workers" economically better off, or worse off, than they were before they started working in factories? How much are they better off or worse off?
That's exactly what a friend of mine and I were discussing awhile back.
I don't know of anybody who is a big fan of these so-called sweatshops. On the other hand, what would the people who work at them be doing for income if those sweatshops didn't exist?
That's exactly what a friend of mine and I were discussing awhile back.
I don't know of anybody who is a big fan of these so-called sweatshops. On the other hand, what would the people who work at them be doing for income if those sweatshops didn't exist?
....but somebody, someplace much have some numbers that describe this...without numbers we are just "yakking."
When America's work was largely done in sweatshops, did our economy and society advance? I think it did, and became the most productive society in the history of the world.
When America's work was largely done in sweatshops, did our economy and society advance? I think it did, and became the most productive society in the history of the world.
...but the question that I raised was, "Did the workers also advance?" Without numbers measuring the before and after economic impact, all we have is conjecture. Conjecture is never a good way to establish national policies.
A related question would be: with all the comfort, technology, and means of production we have today, why do we work more and more hours...?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
