4 ms·

Have you read Factfulness? He is very explicit about what he means with his different levels of income and changes in poverty - using examples of physical situa

by beat 7y ago

Have you read Factfulness? He is very explicit about what he means with his different levels of income and changes in poverty - using examples of physical situation, not mere money. (Like at what point in the cycle do you own shoes? Can afford a bicycle? Have running water? What do these things mean for your income potential in the future, or that of your children?) Dr Rosling worked for much of his life as a health care provider in the poorest places on Earth, and was intimately familiar with what real poverty looks like, in all its details.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Yes, and I think it’s a boneheaded and disingenuous argument. Much, if not most, of the world is blatantly in poverty and cannot afford a quality standard of living. Comparing it to a world with equitable wealth distribution would be much better. This is how the western world justifies open exploitation.
- beat 7y ago
  That's the bias of privilege talking. Going from $2/day to $8/day may not seem like much to you, but to someone at that level, their income has quadrupled. They might have access to a bicycle to get to a paying job now. Shoes. Clean water. School for their children, so the next generation has more opportunity. Go from $8 to $32 (using Rosling's quadruplings here), and you now have a car, potable hot and cold water from a tap, even the possibility of college for your kids. It's still "poverty" to us, but not all poverty is the same. Understanding this is a shift in perspective, and requires putting down our wealthy, western privilege for a moment. Keep in mind, too, that a world of no health care, no clean water, no literacy, etc - the extreme poverty of the poorest nations - was the situation in much of Europe during the 19th century. It took Europe a long time to get to where it is today, and much of the progress happened in the post WWII, post colonial era. "Open exploitation" is not what you think it is, not anymore. As I've pointed out elsewhere, much of the world has seen income increases from 20x-100x per capita in the past 50 years. That's the poor, "exploited" countries. Economic change takes time. Generations. The fact that we wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty isn't "boneheaded", it's incredible. But it will take several more generations to get the rest of the world up to the standards of our privilege.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    As I said, marginal improvements are used to justify ruthless exploitation.
    - beat 7y ago
      I have a hard time thinking of the 20x improvement in Egypt or the 100x improvement in China (or similar gains elsewhere) as "marginal improvements". We're talking orders of magnitude improvements in standard of living over the course of a couple of generations. I don't know what you're expecting. Someone snaps their fingers and everything is magically "fair"?
- 2a96eb7d685a49c 7y ago
  > quality standard of living How do you define this standard? > equitable wealth distribution would be much better. Let me present you with two scenarios, all else being equal, and you tell me in which one people are better off: 1: Every one makes the equivalent of $5,000 a year. 2: 90% of the population makes $20,000 a year and the remaining 10% make $100,000. > This is how the western world justifies open exploitation. Can you quantify this exploitation?

by beat 7y ago

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Yes, and I think it’s a boneheaded and disingenuous argument. Much, if not most, of the world is blatantly in poverty and cannot afford a quality standard of living. Comparing it to a world with equitable wealth distribution would be much better. This is how the western world justifies open exploitation.

beat 7y ago
That's the bias of privilege talking. Going from $2/day to $8/day may not seem like much to you, but to someone at that level, their income has quadrupled. They might have access to a bicycle to get to a paying job now. Shoes. Clean water. School for their children, so the next generation has more opportunity. Go from $8 to $32 (using Rosling's quadruplings here), and you now have a car, potable hot and cold water from a tap, even the possibility of college for your kids. It's still "poverty" to us, but not all poverty is the same. Understanding this is a shift in perspective, and requires putting down our wealthy, western privilege for a moment. Keep in mind, too, that a world of no health care, no clean water, no literacy, etc - the extreme poverty of the poorest nations - was the situation in much of Europe during the 19th century. It took Europe a long time to get to where it is today, and much of the progress happened in the post WWII, post colonial era. "Open exploitation" is not what you think it is, not anymore. As I've pointed out elsewhere, much of the world has seen income increases from 20x-100x per capita in the past 50 years. That's the poor, "exploited" countries. Economic change takes time. Generations. The fact that we wiped out two thirds of the world's extreme poverty isn't "boneheaded", it's incredible. But it will take several more generations to get the rest of the world up to the standards of our privilege.
- SomeOldThrow 7y ago
  As I said, marginal improvements are used to justify ruthless exploitation.
  - beat 7y ago
    I have a hard time thinking of the 20x improvement in Egypt or the 100x improvement in China (or similar gains elsewhere) as "marginal improvements". We're talking orders of magnitude improvements in standard of living over the course of a couple of generations. I don't know what you're expecting. Someone snaps their fingers and everything is magically "fair"?
2a96eb7d685a49c 7y ago
> quality standard of living How do you define this standard? > equitable wealth distribution would be much better. Let me present you with two scenarios, all else being equal, and you tell me in which one people are better off: 1: Every one makes the equivalent of $5,000 a year. 2: 90% of the population makes $20,000 a year and the remaining 10% make $100,000. > This is how the western world justifies open exploitation. Can you quantify this exploitation?