Something to think about before falling asleep

[I think not]

All over the world, disparities between rich and poor, even in the wealthiest of nations is rising sharply. Fewer people are becoming increasingly “successful” and wealthy while a disproportionately larger population are also becoming even poorer.

There are many issues involved when looking at global poverty and inequality. It is not simply enough (or correct) to say that the poor are poor due to their own (or their government's) bad governance and management. If fact, you could quite easily conclude that the poor are poor because the rich are rich and have the power to enforce unequal trade agreements that favor their interests more than the poorer nations.

FACTS:

• Half the world -- nearly three billion people -- live on less than two dollars a day

• The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world's countries) is less than the wealth of the world's three richest people combined

• Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names

• The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money

• 20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the worlds goods

• The developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants

• A few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world's poorest 2.5 billion people

• Today, across the world, 1.3 billion people live on less than one dollar a day; 3 billion live on under two dollars a day; 1.3 billion have no access to clean water; 3 billion have no access to sanitation; 2 billion have no access to electricity

• A mere 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World

 

[jimmoyer]

I cannot completely agree or disagree with your thoughts, "ITN", but I will add another angle for you to consider.

Think of mankind as a huge ant colony.

There's a couple of wild provocative books on this matter.

But when you consider that in a population there are only going to be so many Kings and Queens, so many artists and writers, so many soldiers, so many hockey stars, you begin to look at demographics as percentages, just like in an ant colony or any aggregate of living forms.

There is a point where "utopia" as coined by Thomas Moore to mean "nowhere" the riddle is even more sticky and psychological and one of limits than most idealists and classic romanticists can entertain.

It all depends what tool you hold in your hand to analyze a problem.

A politician holds in his hand ideology and belief systems.

A scientists looks at the physical possiblities and limits.

A psychologist has yet a different hammer in his hand.

This is not to say there is nothing to do here, but rather such angles may provide a truly three dimensional look at the problem.

 

[I think not]

Interesting analogy, jim. I think governments need to get their acts together, a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, doesn't cut it anymore. It never did for that matter. That's just over $200 a week. It is very difficult to get out of that situation once you're in it.
When someone is 30 years old and didn't go to college, they are basically stuck earning that. Look at Walmart, even the ACLU has gotten involved with them.

I don't think they should spread their "wealth", but I do think a more acceptable pay is required. And since mega companies are notorious with pay, the government needs to raise this rate.

Then of course you have small business owners complaining that it hurts them the most. True to a certain extent. But I think It can be done.

Five years ago I was a project manager working for an electrical construction company (as a matter of fact, I was on the roof of 30 West Broadway on the morning of Sept. 11th, directly across the street from tower 7). The electricians (IBEW Local#3) earn $43.00 per hour plus $27.83 in fringe benefits per hour. And the guy on the corner at McDonalds makes $5.15 an hour. Yes, their work is vastly different. Try living on $5.15 an hour in NYC. You can't.

When the government negotiates labor rates with the unions, they need to equally increase pay for those who aren't. For all intensive purposes $5.15 should at least be $11.00 today.

My opinion

 

[peapod]

careful think...somebody will be calling you a pinko commie :wink:

 

[I think not]

Bah its ok peapod, Ive been called many things over the years. And actually commie has been one of them. :wink:

 

[The Gunslinger]

Sure am glad I don't live in that neck of the woods... But seriously now folks, the world doesn't have enough rescources to support 7 billion westerners. There is more we could do though.

 

[jimmoyer]

You know "ITN (i think not)", you advocate sincerely for the minimum wage to be raised.

This is a fight that will always be a fight.

It is a fight that will always be fought.

Is it ever satisfying ?

No.

It is the battle that is meaningful, not the solution.

The solution is always the quicksand of everyone's ever-increasing demands.

How's that thought?

It's the battle, not the solution, that is more important than any other conclusion we can draw.

Why?

Because you need to depend upon yourself and anybody who wants to help you.

Macro-economics, large aggregates of numbers, large populations defeat anyone's belief about what is fair.

Yep, everyone deserves it. And yes, some deserve it more than others.

But fight on.

That's the real idea, and the only good one.

 

[I think not]

I can't say I disagree with you, jim.

The fight is important. But when I speak to parents that earn these wages and cannot put their children through college, then macroeconomic theories sort of loses thrust.

The government is there to protect and help the people, whatever this country has done, it has been accomplished by the people and their fights.

We need not stop, but keep going forward. I can care less how many billions corporations make, so long as the people are not trashed.

Raise the f*ckin minimum wage, it has remained frozen since 1997.

 

[jimmoyer]

You're holding to your principles, ITN.

But global economics is quicksand.

What looks good to you locally, doesn't look competitive globally.

But never mind the theory of economics since most conversations regarding it don't ever pass Economics 401.

Are we all missing the boat on this?

Laws won't do it.
And no one trusts leaving it to economics to do it.

What we got here is a cultural mindthink cluster.

Public campaigns on the nature of greed, the nature of disciplining one's own needs and yes Peapod, the GUILT factor, the conscience factor.

SHAME is what is necessary.

And yet with the Greek understanding that all our strengths contain great weakness, and so the obverse of incentive (good) is greed (bad).

And after all this analysis, I'm left with my first and only original thought on this matter of what is fair:

THE FIGHT.

Not the solution.

It is the struggle that is the only meaning.

Desperation and success drives us.

 

[I think not]

Here's my problem , jim.

Walmart is the biggest corporation in the world (just an example), their profits are in the billions (4.2 to be exact for 2004).

Take out 700 million from those profits and raise the minimum wage to $11 an hour for all 50,000 employees getting minimum wage.

How does that work in regards to being globally competitive?

OK, I have a simple mind when it comes to economic figures.

It always worked for me being self-employed.

But, yes, the fight is important.

 

[jimmoyer]

It's a nice idea, ITN.

You of course know why it doesn't happen, and there are REAL reasons that involved the arcane stratospheric world of large movement of capital, stock prices, and dog-eat-dog world competition which is literally crushing all western democracies.

Watch the headlines in Germany, England, France and Canada concerning taxes, pensions, social security, health care.

What percentage of American car involves health care and pensions and 401k plans for its employees?

Canadian business is investing in anything ANYTHING that will help pay the taxes and benefits to their employees.

Everyone is struggling.

Except that CEO who actually earns less than a lot of NBA stars.

Let me tell you a little story about the American dot.com stock bubble, that may explain the world of economics that crushes all of our utopian plans.

The Clinton administration reacting to public outrage over high greedy CEO salaries, ordered IRS to stop a tax discount for corporate salaries exceeding 100k.

So this is how the little dutch boy put a finger in the hole in the dike thinking he would stop the ocean from coming through.

The corporations then knew that such salaries were too low to attract the hatchet men they need to run a lean mean business came up with STOCK OPTIONS to compensate the much lower salaries that the public demanded.

Formerly we had CEOs who had less incentive to cook the books with larger salaries become CEOs with great incentive to cook the books because that would increase the value of their finite STOCK OPTIONS.

So the little dutch boy (otherwise known as moral public outrage) saw the ocean's force spring a new dangerous leak.