Don’t know about you but our teachers presented it as a way for some Sri Lankan woman to afford to send her kids to school and give them clothes. And we get cheaper blue jeans. Win win. /s
Global poverty rates were cut in half over 20 years due to globalization, but yeah, just because westerners lost all of the low skill manufacturing jobs, it all sucks. You realize the US is still one of the biggest manufacturers on the planet but it’s for higher end complex products? Not saying there aren’t problems in the west, but globalization helped billions of people.
The UN disagrees. When using their model for extreme poverty, which is ~$8/day compared to the oft-cited $1.90/day, the number of people in poverty has increased over the last 4 decades to 4.2 billion. You might say, “I’m referring to the proportion of people in poverty”, which, even under this model has fallen from almost 75% to around 55%.
If so, You’d be right. Where exactly have those gains been centered, though? When excluding China, the number of people in poverty has increased, and the proportion fell less than 5% between 1982 and 2018, from 62.7% to 57.3% of the population. There’s been dozens of countries collectively representing billions of humans effected by globalization, but yet most still are in miserable poverty. It seems that it is not globalization alone that brings people out of poverty. I am not saying it has no effect, but that it is not so simple as to say that global reductions in poverty can be attributed to cavalierly to globalization.
When using their model for extreme poverty, which is ~$8/day compared to the oft-cited $1.90/day
Doesn’t this depend entirely upon the buying power in certain countries? The value of $8 is going to have a lot of variation between India, Indonesia, China, Costa Rica, etc.
That number accounts for such discrepancies, and while there may be some wiggle room, nowhere on the planet can one sustain a healthy diet that ensures a normal life expectancy on the frequently cited $1.90/day.
The trick is that they constantly just redefine what poverty is to make the math look good. What used to be “I’m having a bit of trouble living” quickly turned into “I’m genuinely starving to death because I can’t even buy a loaf of bread” EDIT: and as that other commenter pointed out, they do pretty much every mathematical fudge they can to hide the fact their economic model is literally murdering people for profit.
Don’t know about you but our teachers presented it as a way for some Sri Lankan woman to afford to send her kids to school and give them clothes. And we get cheaper blue jeans. Win win. /s
Global poverty rates were cut in half over 20 years due to globalization, but yeah, just because westerners lost all of the low skill manufacturing jobs, it all sucks. You realize the US is still one of the biggest manufacturers on the planet but it’s for higher end complex products? Not saying there aren’t problems in the west, but globalization helped billions of people.
The UN disagrees. When using their model for extreme poverty, which is ~$8/day compared to the oft-cited $1.90/day, the number of people in poverty has increased over the last 4 decades to 4.2 billion. You might say, “I’m referring to the proportion of people in poverty”, which, even under this model has fallen from almost 75% to around 55%.
If so, You’d be right. Where exactly have those gains been centered, though? When excluding China, the number of people in poverty has increased, and the proportion fell less than 5% between 1982 and 2018, from 62.7% to 57.3% of the population. There’s been dozens of countries collectively representing billions of humans effected by globalization, but yet most still are in miserable poverty. It seems that it is not globalization alone that brings people out of poverty. I am not saying it has no effect, but that it is not so simple as to say that global reductions in poverty can be attributed to cavalierly to globalization.
Doesn’t this depend entirely upon the buying power in certain countries? The value of $8 is going to have a lot of variation between India, Indonesia, China, Costa Rica, etc.
That number accounts for such discrepancies, and while there may be some wiggle room, nowhere on the planet can one sustain a healthy diet that ensures a normal life expectancy on the frequently cited $1.90/day.
The trick is that they constantly just redefine what poverty is to make the math look good. What used to be “I’m having a bit of trouble living” quickly turned into “I’m genuinely starving to death because I can’t even buy a loaf of bread” EDIT: and as that other commenter pointed out, they do pretty much every mathematical fudge they can to hide the fact their economic model is literally murdering people for profit.
Yes, unironically.