3 ms·

Do you hate the global poor? Globalization has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty.

kccoder 4y ago
I'm sure OP's point is that they should be paying them more for their labor, something corporations can certainly afford. Corporations don't pay more because their only objective is increasing profit, and I'm sure they'd happily pay them nothing at all if they were allowed to do so.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  They don't pay more because the entire point of opening the factory in a poor country is access to cheap labor.
Grazester 4y ago
Forced "globalization" (by the World Bank and IMF) has also kept people impoverished.
- nequo 4y ago
  It is hard to see how China would have had the economic growth that it had over the past 40 years without globalization. Illustrative example: the population of Shenzhen increased nearly 42-fold from 314 thousand to 13.4 million between 1979 and 2019.[1] The opportunity to produce for export has pulled many millions out of poverty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shenzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shenzhen
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Maybe just maybe raising people "out of poverty" also mechanically translates to increase in population We had the same thing in Europe during the industrial revolution, advances in agriculture = more food = people aren't hard limited by resources = people have more kids, people having small scale farms started working 12 hours shift in coal mines and textile factories, very often increasing their working time by a factor of 2 to 3 while not living in better conditions despite having more money in their pockets The millions that were "pulled out of poverty" in Shenzhen wouldn't have needed to be pulled out of anything since they wouldn't have existed. What happened is that we pulled people out of "old style living" and forced them into factories, I'll let them decide if this was a net positive or not.
    - nequo 4y ago
      I might be misunderstanding your point since I don’t know how familiar you are with China. But there are still a lot of people in “old style living” in rural China who are very keen on moving out of that environment. Or are you saying that if economic opportunities had not lured the rural population out of agriculture, then they would have fewer descendants and thus their living descendants would be happier? That seems highly counterintuitive. In an agricultural economy, your retirement plan is your children, so you have many of them. In a modern economy, people have much fewer children. China for example is currently trying to reverse its impending population decline.
- Loocid 4y ago
  How so?
lm28469 4y ago
How do you define poverty ? Someone with a family farm, feeding his relatives and not making money is poor. The same someone assembling tech gadgets for 1$ a day "has been raised out of poverty thanks to Capitalism"

I'm sure OP's point is that they should be paying them more for their labor, something corporations can certainly afford. Corporations don't pay more because their only objective is increasing profit, and I'm sure they'd happily pay them nothing at all if they were allowed to do so.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
They don't pay more because the entire point of opening the factory in a poor country is access to cheap labor.

Grazester 4y ago

Forced "globalization" (by the World Bank and IMF) has also kept people impoverished.

nequo 4y ago
It is hard to see how China would have had the economic growth that it had over the past 40 years without globalization. Illustrative example: the population of Shenzhen increased nearly 42-fold from 314 thousand to 13.4 million between 1979 and 2019.[1] The opportunity to produce for export has pulled many millions out of poverty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shenzhen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Shenzhen
- lm28469 4y ago
  Maybe just maybe raising people "out of poverty" also mechanically translates to increase in population We had the same thing in Europe during the industrial revolution, advances in agriculture = more food = people aren't hard limited by resources = people have more kids, people having small scale farms started working 12 hours shift in coal mines and textile factories, very often increasing their working time by a factor of 2 to 3 while not living in better conditions despite having more money in their pockets The millions that were "pulled out of poverty" in Shenzhen wouldn't have needed to be pulled out of anything since they wouldn't have existed. What happened is that we pulled people out of "old style living" and forced them into factories, I'll let them decide if this was a net positive or not.
  - nequo 4y ago
    I might be misunderstanding your point since I don’t know how familiar you are with China. But there are still a lot of people in “old style living” in rural China who are very keen on moving out of that environment. Or are you saying that if economic opportunities had not lured the rural population out of agriculture, then they would have fewer descendants and thus their living descendants would be happier? That seems highly counterintuitive. In an agricultural economy, your retirement plan is your children, so you have many of them. In a modern economy, people have much fewer children. China for example is currently trying to reverse its impending population decline.
Loocid 4y ago
How so?

lm28469 4y ago

How do you define poverty ? Someone with a family farm, feeding his relatives and not making money is poor. The same someone assembling tech gadgets for 1$ a day "has been raised out of poverty thanks to Capitalism"